Correct me if I’m wrong
But if the blog accounts are true, both Sarah Palin and Charlie Gibson entered and only Palin left.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
September 12th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
The professional sourpuss and cloud-of-doom got his vapors handed to him – now all he needs is walking papers.
September 12th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
it seems Aunt B. disagrees with you. i agree with Aunt B.
September 12th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
I think it’s more like both Sarah Palin and Charlie Gibson entered and only Gibson left unconfused about foreign policy.
September 12th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
WHo the fugg is Charlie Gibson? And isn’t Aunt Bee dead?
September 12th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Hey, hopefully she didn’t pull a McCain and talk about action on the Iraq-Pakistan border :).
Yeah, we’re the GOP and this foreign policy shit is our specialty…no, really…ask the folks on the Wyoming/Florida border.
September 12th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Oh so classy.
September 12th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Apparently DC’s definition of “classy” is “agreeing with him.”
Thanks for the valuable contribution and well considered opinions.
September 12th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Likewise, Seb… Goose/gander and all that.
September 12th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
I think it rather easy to distinguish between using 9.11 as a partisan hackery tool in rather offensive fashion and discussing the merits of various candidates’ foreign policy foibles. Apparently DC can’t.
What’s hard about that? I mean…really.
September 12th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Uses a lot of big words that are classy too.
September 12th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Nothing says classy like having nothing to say, eh?
Oh, and antidisestablishmentarianism.
September 12th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
I just love how supercalifragilistic expialidocious classy you are!
September 12th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
“Iraq-Pakistan border”
Yep, because no one gets their tongue twisted on words that sound somewhat similar.
Except feeble minded chimps.
September 12th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
“Nothing says classy like having nothing to say, eh?”
Nah, it’s much closer to “I have absolutely no respect for your opinion on this matter”.
September 13th, 2008 at 12:02 am
Charlie swam with the big fish. That’ll leave some marks.
September 13th, 2008 at 10:46 am
And I love how you keep reminding us how worthless anything that escapes from your keyboard is.
Go back and read the story. Apparently you missed how he also was talking about country that hasn’t existed (and not in the 3rd world, but goddamn Europe) in 15 years. Good luck spinning that as a slip of the tongue. Conflating Iraq and Iran, two very different countries, is something you shouldn’t do when you’re trying to be POTUS and suggesting foreign policy is your strongpoint.
Given the feeble-minded nature of what he seems to have to offer, I imagine it’s respect I can live without.
September 13th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Uncle’s right. Palin came out looking so-so. Not bad, but great, but so-so, unlikely to gain or lose too many supporters as a result of her performance. But between Gibson’s “I’m thinking of a number between 1 and 4, can you guess it?” stunt on The Bush Doctrine and his “exact words” claim that Palin had stated our country was doing God’s will when she had actually just prayed that we would, Gibson has shown himself to be complete and utter hack.
September 13th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Eh, Krauthammer’s defense of Palin seems pretty thin ice. It’d be one thing if she said “which one?” in response to the question. Pretty clearly she had no idea what he was talking about–even if we assume that Krauthammer’s distinction-without-a-difference discussion of 3 and 4 actually makes any sense (it doesn’t–the idea that the BD means 4) spreading democracy is silly when viewed in the context of the tool he’s used to try to spread it, which is preemptive warfare). Hell, she could have discussed some of the metamorphosises the BD has apparently undergone–but none of that happened.
She just stammered something about the BD being “his worldview” and awkwardly made it clear she had no idea other than it had something to do with Islamic terror.
Saying that it could be 1-4 doesn’t offer much of a defense when she can’t identify what 1-4 is by a long shot.
Do I like Palin on the RKBA? Yup–but this cult of personality you righties are building around her is pretty effing silly and frankly the post hoc defense that Krauthammer’s offering is just ri-goddamned-diculous–she should have at least been able to discuss preemptive warfare, spreading democracy, and the implications of Bush foreign policy in the War on Terror, but she didn’t. Why not just say “hey, she’s a plain spoken family woman who’s not a foreign policy expert” and just offer it up?
September 13th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Neato. Now provide the context so we’ll know what he should have referred to. Was he talking about events prior to 1993? To post-1993 that affected the Czech Republic but not Slovakia, or vice-versa? And WTF are you supposed to call the nation that makes up the Czech Republic? “Czechia?”
September 13th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Xman, come on dude. It wouldn’t have been a well publicized gaffe if he’d been talking about pre-1993. This is what I’m talking about. How do you think you’re helping your candidate by offering these thin-ice defenses when you can just say “oops he made a big booboo” and be done with it. (Frankly nobody would care if the GOP’s mantra wasn’t “hey, we’re the only ones than can handle foreign policy”.)
He was clearly talking about current events. He did it repeatedly. In a very obviously modern, not-1993 context.
I’ll assume you were being facetious with that last question. I hope.
September 13th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
And I wasn’t trying to be insulting, just saying I was hoping you weren’t suggesting that that’s some sort of defense for talking about a country that doesn’t exist anymore.
September 13th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
You know, it’s come out now that the ABC interview we all saw was heavily, heavily edited OUT of favor of Governor Palin.
Who’ll be the magnanimous sort?
September 13th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
That’s what her clarifying question was about. He refused to answer it, so she took the most intuitive choice, #4 (the most recent), only to have Gibson come in and say “Ha, fooled you! I meant #3!” And if you think Krauthammer is one to go to great lengths to defend Palin’s selection as VP, you haven’t been paying much attention lately.
Upon viewing the video, it is clear he was talking about either Slovakia or Czechwhateverthehellthattinyscountryiscalled. It wasn’t clear from the description in the previous link, which is why I asked. I don’t think it’s a big booboo, certainly no bigger than Obama thinking the U.S. has more states than it had 15 years ago or at any other time, but I’ll grant you it’s a booboo nonetheless. There went the “I’m voting for McCain because he’s infallible” vote, if such existed in the first place.
September 13th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Hold on there, slick–that ain’t what happened. When she asked “in what respect”, he paused and said “well you tell me what you think the BD is since 2002″…and that was where the wheels fell off the bus. Her choice wasn’t 4, it was “his worldview” and a generalized soundbite about Islamic terror being the bad guy (decidedly NOT any of the iterations of the BD). She wasn’t even close to aware of the fact that the BD (even by Krauthammer’s definition) is preemptive war with an eye to spreading democracy. And I see little exculpation in your Krauthammer isn’t a Palin sycophant defense–the reality is he IS INDEED trying to defend her here.
Go back and watch the video.
Much like the McCain Czech Republic thing, I think this is one you guys will have to just offer up.
And while I agree it’s not a big deal or a character flaw, I think it is is fatal to the “GOP should rule the field when it comes to foreign policy” position. The idea that they know something that Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, Constitutionalists, Populists, etc don’t when it comes to foreign affairs is noxious bullshit and its sad commentary on the weak spined Dumbocrats that they can’t call McCain, Bush, et al out on that score.
September 13th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
In that last paragraph I was talking about the Czech thing–like I said, I agree it’s hardly a big deal or even close to a disqualifier…it’s just a gaffe that I’m sure he’s corrected. Just saying, I think we can dispense with the idea that a particular party has the corner on FP.
September 13th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
It’s not a very good yardstick that only goes to 27-inches. ABC edited the interview-video and omitted several of her points and responses dealing with foreign policy, some almost mid-sentence. ABC also edited-out some of Gibson’s questions to make her response seem more hawkish.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/13/abc-news-edited-out-key-parts-sarah-palin-interview
September 13th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
S-PGP,
I have kept up with all the foreign policy and I would have been wondering exactly what Bush Doctrine he was referring to. Whether it was “you are with us or against us?” or “we have the inherent right to take preemptive action against and enemy”. Which is just 1950-60’s intervention when we would engineer a regime change. Or the later morphed versions of “spreading democracy and fight the ideological battle against jihadists while killing them on the Iraq battlefield”.
She chose the current version of spreading democracy and freedom. She morphed it into hope. The answer was ok just not an in-depth policy analysis. It was her weakest response. But his question was like a teacher quizzing a student.
Professor Obama would riff into a different blizzard of words but just say he did not agree with the policy.
She at least understands the geopolitical challenge of the BTZ pipeline and what that means to Europe. She knows what is Shia and Sunni is and the challenge to fight against Iraq AQ and rebuild Iraq.
How is a history quiz about a changed doctrine tells us her policy ideas? She can not do so since they have to be McCain policy and he has not describe his new world foreign policy yet as well as Obama has not. That cannot be done until they get current information from the cabinet. All we really want to know is are they aware of the dangers of challenging a nuclear Russia and her answer was careful and indicated that not going to war with Russia was preferable.
Russia adventurism is a new challenge that took the Bush administration by surprise including the EU and NATO.
I have not heard anything so sophisticated from Obama, yet but he probably has similar opinions. Certainly Gates and Rice will advise any newcomers of current limits and challenges.
The big difference between Obama and McCain is whether Obama thinks under what circumstances we should go to war. To fulfill our NATO article 5 obligations, which are to help in any way, we can up to military help. McCain is aware of the need not to appear weak against enemy so not to embolden them Obama I am not so sure that he understands that.
She answered in diplospeak the current policy of cross border incursions of Pakistan which is better that a blatant statement we will invade an allege ally on WOT. It shows she understands the need to not eliminate any tool, but better to leave things ambiguous in order not to insult are allies and partners.
September 13th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
S-PGP
Both candidates mispeak a lot. I heard Obama say he was a Muslim when he meant Christian last Sunday. I have heard countless times people say Osama when they mean Obama on talk shows and really an innocent mistake.
So I ignore the obvious mispoken errors and try to listen to what the candidate means. Mistakes like that are irrevelant to the larger questions.
September 14th, 2008 at 12:36 am
On the Bush doctrine, it’s at least plausible that she didn’t know the term; how many people do, who aren’t obsessive foreign policy fans? Why should she have to know it? She’s not pretending to be someone who does nothing all day but read the right commentators on foreign policy, who made up this term for their own convenience. And it’s not as if this were an official term for something.
As for Czechoslovakia, I don’t see why an old person has to keep up every time some two-bit country decides to change its name. People get set in their linguistic habits, and so long as you know which country or area you’re talking about, who cares what you call it? Do you know whether, as of last Tuesday, it’s Madagascar or the Malagasy Republic or whatever? And do you care?
September 14th, 2008 at 12:38 am
Sebastian-PGP, I doubt Xrlq was being facetious. The WP page says his guess was right, it is called Czechia, but you know what? I’m the sort of person who does follow this sort of thing obsessively, and I had never ever heard that until I looked it up just now.
September 14th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Actually, I was being facetious. I’ve never heard the country called “Czechia,” only the “Czech Republic,” as if to suggest that an adjective exists to identify the nationality but no noun exists to identify the nation. I have heard the name “Tscehei” in German, a literal translation of “Czechia,” but only as a slang term to describe the entire country of Czechoslovakia before they split.
September 14th, 2008 at 10:18 am
BTW, FireFox’s spell checker doesn’t recognize “Czechia,” either, but does recognize Czech and Czechoslovakia. Go figure.
September 14th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
RAH–
No sale.
She said it was “his worldview”. Watch the video. The plain reality is that is WRONG. She clearly didn’t understand a damn thing about what it was, and you’re making the same mistake Xman and Krauthammer make in assuming that there being many different BDs somehow exculpates here when she couldn’t name ANY of them.
September 14th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Don’t miss Aunt B’s thread. Nomen makes an even bigger ass of himself there than here.
September 15th, 2008 at 3:37 am
S-PGP, the interview won’t really answer your questions on her foreign policy knowledge. She probably has been immersed in Alaskan stuff for decades and is now learning.
She is the VP candidate and not the P candidate so her lack of knowledge doesn’t bother me. As long as her values and character are OK, I can trust that she might make good decisions.
Situation changes all the time and detail knowledge is good to that point. Since Obama has difficulty in his worldview of accepting that there are real enemies and that talking won’t do anything to convince them.
Kinda like the liberal thinking he can talk his way out of a mugging rather than fight. His persuasion has not been that good with the Hilary voters or the Appalachian states, so I don’t place a high confidence level on that ability.
Keep up the good work.