Thread: Charlie Gibson's Palin interview

I won't be stepping further into this conversation, but for those of you who have seen any of the Gibson/Palin interviews (please DO NOT comment if you haven't), how can you seriously want this woman for VP? Did you not find her to look completely incompetent? If no, please explain!

Originally Posted by Philadelph

I won't be stepping further into this conversation, but for those of you who have seen any of the Gibson/Palin interviews (please DO NOT comment if you haven't), how can you seriously want this woman for VP? Did you not find her to look completely incompetent? If no, please explain!

If I've noticed anything on these threads, it's that some people are pre-disposed to liking Governor Palin, regardless of anything she says or does. Where some of us will see problems, they will see a prejudiced news media, or unproven evidence, or they just discount what they see and continue to like her.

That said, I agree with you. Her performance was, to my admittedly partisan mind, appalling. That Bambi-in-the-headlights look she gave him when he asked her about the Bush Doctrine was bad enough. But then, she started talking about attacking Russia.

OMG!!

j

Originally Posted by Philadelph

I won't be stepping further into this conversation, but for those of you who have seen any of the Gibson/Palin interviews (please DO NOT comment if you haven't), how can you seriously want this woman for VP? Did you not find her to look completely incompetent? If no, please explain!

Hi Alex,
Of course, your question is directed towards the Republicans in the group. Actually, maybe I can answer this for you, so gimme a minute to lay this out. Your question is how can someone find the Palin pick appealing, even after viewing the interview. That's it right?
This woman was nominated for the Republican VP role by the presidential nominee, Mr McCain. Even though most party members had probably never heard of her before this, that was not the most important thing. Even though there were probably countless blank stares when her name was announced, that wasn't crucial at all. And, even though those confused members didn't know exactly WHAT was so good about her for VP, that also didn't matter.
Nope, all those people needed was to be told those things, they needed to hear the story told properly (party line, in other words). THEN, they knew why they loved her for VP. Yeah, once those catch words and phrases were put out there, the GOP ate it right up!
So, to answer your question, it's very easy for Republicans to argue her as a good choice, no matter WHAT she comes off as looking like to others. I've read a bunch of reviews (both party commentators), and guess what, many of those people give Mrs Palin good marks in that interview. Certainly none of the Dems were included in that group, and that's the whole point here.
As you probably know, members of BOTH parties will lie to achieve a goal. Both will avoid truth or reason when it suits em, and try to incorrectly rationalize somehow what's obviously not true to most others outside their political circles.
Watch, you're gonna hear some members here defending her choice. She's fresh, a maverick, she's one of us, all that same party line crap. Hey, that's fine if you believe it, but yeah, that reasoning has to be defended in a logical manner.
In other words, being competent is NOT the issue here, but instead, it's one to avoid mentioning too much about. What IS interesting is that Mr McCain obviously feels like she's ready to be Prez if needed, and must have picked her for the good of the country?
No, I'm not a member of either party, and this is truly my objective view. Take my answer for what it's worth.
Martin

Oh, in all seriousness, I hope my post didn't offend anyone......just my cynical and jaded outlook. Did I also mention the Democrats were exactly the same when it suites em?

Originally Posted by De Layne

[Snip]
As you probably know, members of BOTH parties will lie to achieve a goal. Both will avoid truth or reason when it suits em, and try to incorrectly rationalize somehow what's obviously not true to most others outside their political circles.

In general, I agree with you that some form of obfuscation is inherent in both parties. I should know -- I've been a member of both.

But I'd be curious what examples you could cite where the Democrats (I'm being a good boy here -- I tend to refer them as "Dumbocrats" and "Repugnicans") exhibited the same degree of mendacity as the Republicans (good boy again) have in recent years. I'm talking about Swift Boating, personal attacks, character assassination, voter manipulation, and the like.

You might add the cynicism of foisting a person like Sarah Palin on an unsuspecting public.

I'm just asking.

j

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

In general, I agree with you that some form of obfuscation is inherent in both parties. I should know -- I've been a member of both.

But I'd be curious what examples you could cite where the Democrats (I'm being a good boy here -- I tend to refer them as "Dumbocrats" and "Repugnicans") exhibited the same degree of mendacity as the Republicans (good boy again) have in recent years. I'm talking about Swift Boating, personal attacks, character assassination, voter manipulation, and the like.

You might add the cynicism of foisting a person like Sarah Palin on an unsuspecting public.

I'm just asking.

j

Hi again,
I think you may be asking me a different question now. Most of those examples you listed have more to do with who's the most mean spirited party, which I'd rather not get into. Hehe, it kinda surprises me that political threads can go on here........says a lot for the members. Now, you talk about a badger getting whacked, and that's another matter.........heh.
What I was referring to was going along with the party line, and that's something I can type about. That kinda 4 legs good.....two legs bad kinda thing. Of course there's also the times when the actual votes (or true thoughts) of LAWMAKERS have little to do with the issues being discussed, but instead are meant to show support for the party's beliefs. What those members TRULY believe is often something else entirely, as you know.
I'd guess you were a Democrat in the late 90's when Mr Clinton was impeached. If that was the case, you probably thought that whole thing was really overblown and unwarranted. There were NO laws broken, NO lies told by the President. Well, maybe some small laws and lies, but not enough for impeachment.
Well guess what....every single Democrat felt exactly that same way! How incredible that so large a group (50 I believe) could agree so completely. Obviously, not one of those Dems voted for impeachment. Now, I'm not even talking about a conviction, but only initiating the impeachment proceedings. Them there Dems all thought the reason for it was out of line.That a good enough example of what I meant?
Hehe, unsuspecting public? You mean the non faithful ones like Democrats and independents? The VP pick shows exactly the direction that party has decided to go with in order to appease the base. If you meant the believers, they'd be too blind to see any cynicism or scorn in that pick anyway.
Politics is so interesting to me..........frustrating, but interesting....heh.
Hopefully, I answered your question in some way that made sense,
Martin

Lots of long answers. Mine is short.
1. I'm not surprised she didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was. Are you?
2. Her responses considering nuclear war are scary.
3. She is no more scary than any of the other candidates.
4. They all suck eggs.

My personal opinion is that this type of interviews are totally unfair.
I'd like to know for how long and how many people it took to prepare the questions that Mr. Gibson asked Gov. Palin
I'm sure that it wouldn't take a lot of work to prepare an interview and make Mr. Gibson look like an ass.

George W. Bush should be very proud that he's created a "Bush Doctrine"

Originally Posted by Navaja

My personal opinion is that this type of interviews are totally unfair.
I'd like to know for how long and how many people it took to prepare the questions that Mr. Gibson asked Gov. Palin
I'm sure that it wouldn't take a lot of work to prepare an interview and make Mr. Gibson look like an ass.

I wanted to chime in here and thank everyone for their responses! Let's try to keep it on subject though.

In response to the above, I must disagree. It's not only in the responses you give but the way that you give them. There would be plenty of better answers to some questions, even stating that you don't know flat out, than to some answers that she gave. I think Gibson would know how to field most any question, even if he were asked about a subject that he has no knowledge of. Sorry for the little thread detour.

What is the Bush doctrine? Where is the printed manuscript? There isn't one! The "Bush Doctrine" is a series of critical observations by different individuals. Gibson is a pompous ass who does not know the "Bush Doctrine" because there approximately 5 different versions all slanted depending on which side of liberal you are from. That my friends is just one thing in the interview which shows how the elites in Washington think they are the only ones on the planet that can do their jobs. Sheer rubbish!


Later,
Richard

Originally Posted by riooso

What is the Bush doctrine? Where is the printed manuscript? There isn't one! The "Bush Doctrine" is a series of critical observations by different individuals. Gibson is a pompous ass who does not know the "Bush Doctrine" because there approximately 5 different versions all slanted depending on which side of liberal you are from. That my friends is just one thing in the interview which shows how the elites in Washington think they are the only ones on the planet that can do their jobs. Sheer rubbish!

Not quite... Bush Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia