the thought of this actually makes me cringe. that is saying a lot for me. and i am not a left-winger or even a Democrat. Palin seems like not a bad governor at all (certainly her constituents think highly of her) but (a) she's just not ready to be VP, and (b) the culture-war amplification this will be is really what is making me cringe. Lord make it stop. the old McCain was somebody I may have voted for; it is sad to see this one.
I'm sure that will be a worth while interview full of hard hitting foreign and domestic policy questions, with a thorough interrogation for her taxation record and ear mark requests.
It's terrifying that from what we've seen of Gibson's Palin interview, all the right seems to be talking about is how the 'task from God' question was unfair.
After stumbling through that interview so poorly, barely giving us any indication of what she thinks and in doing so illustrating for us all that she simply hasn't thought, Sean Hannity can't gather anything from the interview other than Gibson dropping two words from the quote? Real nice trick.
I'm sure he'll take a real critical approach during his interview. The way the Republican party has gotten in bed with Fox News is really unprecedented.
Seriously, does anyone doubt that Palin is going to have all of the questions in advance? Sean Hannity is the most dishonest man on TV. We are in trouble. These questions will arrive on a silver platter.
Who could have predicted she'd go on Fox News? Still not ready for Sunday talk shows, though (which aren't so tough). Expectations should be met this time, Obama and he world at large will be worse off.
We're doomed. Our masters of discourse cannot call a lie a lie or straight up bullshit bullshit. Anyone want to guess how this crap would play if the political parties were reversed? Yeah, we're doomed.
I was hoping we could at least see her on O'Reilly. That way we could compare her performance to Obama, i.e. someone who knows what they are talking about. I thought Obama did a good job on O'Reilly, notwithstanding the fact that Bill just like to hear himself yell. But no dice.
Jibril Jackson writes: "I'm very rarely shocked, but this shocks me."
Nothing Repiglicans do shocks me anymore. Almost everything they do disgusts me, though. James Carabelli could use a napalm enema, it could only improve him.
As for the Hannity/Palin Summit, I wonder if she'll be tickling his balls under the table. Cindy McCain says he likes that.
Hannity will slobber and drool all over her for the duration of their interview and the public will learn absolutely nothing.
Fox News is a malignant cancer within the journalism industry.
It's a crime that someone as inadequate, unprepared, shallow, and obnoxious as Sarah Palin could become Vice President and a heartbeat away from the presidency.
Nice post at Sully reminds us that while we all panic and foresee Obama's doom now that Palin has rallied the base, Obama's GOTV effort is a) dwarfing the GOP's, and b) we probably won't know it until election day.
And the reader's email is about Florida, mind you. Florida.
I've decided that this is good news because it builds the narrative about her avoiding the press, not being ready, etc, etc. I can only imagine what they'll be cooking up over at SNL in the next few weeks.
Most of you cats are probably too young to remember watching Reagan get interviewed by the Democrat-leaning political reporters, but liberals had a similar reaction to his performances in interviews. It didn't mean he didn't have clearly-held ideas -- he did. His papers that were published after he passed away demonstrated that. It didn't mean he couldn't communicate with the people -- of course he could. He was the "great communicator". He just didn't sound as great at responding to questions from a hostile interviewer. And at the time, Democrats expressed the same concerns that Reagan would start World War III.
It's interesting to remember the parallels these days. At the DNC in Reagan's midterm election, the Democrats discovered their own great orator and (who they thought would be a) future star: The Barack Obama of 1984, Mario Cuomo, who brought the house down with his speech.
Of course Hannity will be lobbing softballs. But it's not as if "Do you support the Bush Doctrine" is one of the complex political inquiries of our time, or some sort of unanswerable "gotcha." The real fun of this interview will be watching Hannity try to rehabilitate Palin as she whiffs his easy pitches.
Unfortunately, Sarah Palin is not going to whiff at any softballs. She's clearly going to have the questions in advance. Anyone who thinks otherwise has not spent enough time watching Sean Hannity. I'm a bit of a masochist, so I'm familiar with his work.
First of all, I will point out that I am not running for vice president, so I would hope you will hold Governor Palin to a higher standard than you would hold me.
In any event, the Bush Doctrine is an interlocking set of policies (most notably articulated in a Setpember 2002 National Security Council policy paper) that, at their core, hold that there is no distinction between terrorists and those who harbor them, and that the United States is justified in unilaterally exterting its powe r(up to and including pre-emptive war) to attack those individuals and states who engage in terrorist activity or harbor those who do.
Given that the Bush Doctrine articulates what are the limits of American power (or more accurately, articulates that previously perceived limits are not, in fact, limits), I'm not sure how one can say that our varying approaches to different situations can be described as consistent or inconsistent with the doctrine. Under the Bush Doctrine, we would presumably be justified in invading Iran or Libya to root out a terrorist threat; that does not mean that we necessarily must invade Libya or Iran if we decide we can achieve our goals through other means.
1) Concisely explain what, exactly the doctrine is.
It's the defense doctrine established by the Bush administration after 9/11 and used as the justification for the Iraq war. Previously our position had been that the US, like any country, had the right to preemtively attack a country. That is attack a country that posed an imminent threat. The Bush Doctrine changed that policy to a stance claiming a right to preventively attack a nation. In other words, to attack a country simpy because they might, maybe, someday pose a threat to us.
2) Tell us how the Bush Administrations varying approaches to Libya, Iraq, and Iran have been consistent with the doctrine.
Iraq: The entire justification for war was based on this doctrine.
Lybia: You could make an argument that the doctrine along with the demonstration that they meant it by invading Iraq was the reason Lybia decided to give up their WMD program.
Iran: If the Bush administration ever got around to developing a coherent approach to Iran we might have something to talk about here.
That's off the top of my head. I'm a 33-year-old, dumb rube in Iowa still working on my BS degree in MIS. Sarah Palin is the Governor of Alaska and Republican candidate for Vice President of the United States.
Not so bad, SeanH. Much better than Barack Obama saying he would address Russia's invasion of Georgia in the Security Council while forgetting that Russia has a veto there.
Fred writes: "Much better than Barack Obama saying he would address Russia's invasion of Georgia in the Security Council while forgetting that Russia has a veto there."
Fred, I realize you're the ultimate party hack, but here's what John McCain would do about the Russian invasion of Georgia if he were president when it happened - jackshit. The same thing Dumbya did.
McCain made his usual Grumpy Old Man face and stole a few lines from Wikipedia but it was just one big political bowel movement. Putin laughed in his face and he laughed in Dumbya's face and they both took it because that was all they could do.
Palin seems like not a bad governor at all (certainly her constituents think highly of her)
The Governor of Alaska during the time when oil breaks through the $100/bbl figure and races towards $150/bbl is popular? That's like saying the dealer at the table where everyone hits a blackjack is popular. And involves about the same level of desert to the individual everyone loves.
I appreciate the concern of women everywhere who know that Sarah Palin does not represent us. However, I think the Democrats are making a mistake in attacking her. They should say they welcome a woman at last on the Republican ticket and are happy to see that Republicans have finally accepted the liberal view that a woman can be both mother and have a place in the workforce. That is a great triumph of liberal ideas come to fruition in the GOP. They should celebrate that Sarah Palin did admit in some forum that perhaps other forms of birth control might be taught besides abstinence and the Democrats are happy that she is more liberal than McCain and the Republican platform and will be happy to run against her meager record as a reformer and investigate what she accomplished and what failed.
There is a lot of Hillary guilt paralyzing the Democrats and this is a meme that is fresh and honest and has shock value because it is something Republicans are not having to think about.
MoeLarryandJesus, it's like you're not even counting those two "Buck up, buddy, I'm thinking of you" phone calls.
9 trillion, you already said that. And Ta-Nehisi commented earlier about the problems in looking for a veep who's identifiable but as clueless as we ourselves are.
So which is more egregious and disqualifying? Palin doesn't know what Bush's doctrine is or:
“Just this past week, we passed out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee -- which is my Committee -- a bill to call for divestment from Iran as a way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don’t obtain a nuclear weapon.”
Obama is not on the Senate Banking Committee and his actual committee did not pass that bill he's claiming credit for.
Not knowing someone else's doctrine or not knowing what you do and what bill you have passed?
Obama is not on the Senate Banking Committee and his actual committee did not pass that bill he's claiming credit for. Not knowing someone else's doctrine or not knowing what you do and what bill you have passed?
Yes, this was a gaffe. I think he got ahead of himself in the sentence (he's not on the committee). But you're also wrong: he never claimed credit for the entire bill...the provision on Iran was his provision (he authored it) and that's what he's talking about here.
Whatever. Not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is worse, in any case, unless you believe Palin just stumbled somehow.
Wow, when I posted the Hannity thing in 'most revealing' thread, I was half joking. However, if anyone in the McCain campaign is reading, now is the time for the candidate to discuss his man-crush on Andrew Sullivan. I think Atlantic readers would really appreciate it.
On a serious note, if Palin can't handle AAA pitcher Charlie Gibson, a batting practice pitcher(Sean Hannity) is not going to impress the undecideds. Now that the Palin is up in the big leagues-- she needs to face major league live pitching-- or AAA pitchers like Wolf Blitzer. Show that the Gibson f'ups were a fluke.
It is so funny to read such puddles of nothing. Obama has shown himself to be an ego in search of back-pats. He has done squat in any position he has held - well, I take that back, his "friends" have padded their bank accounts... But of course you don't wish to talk about that, just his stirring speaches... But then, that is your right, just as my opinions are mine. That is the ultimate beauty of "our" country; we may not think the same, but I still would fight for your rights as I would hope you would fight for mine...
erick writes: "Obama has shown himself to be an ego in search of back-pats. He has done squat in any position he has held - well, I take that back, his "friends" have padded their bank accounts..."
Meanwhile the friends of Dumbya and Dickless have stolen BILLIONS in open sight. You have an amazingly wacky sense of perspective, chuckles.
I've come up with the perfect metaphor for what the McCain crew is trying to do with Palin. It's the Helen Keller-Anne Sullivan story as shown in the old movie "The Miracle Worker."
In this case they're trying to teach a pig to sing and dance. But the concept is the same. Teaching up a horrendously disadvantaged naif and hoping she's a prodigy.
Helen Keller was one in a million. Sarah Palin seems like a dime a dozen - a cheap small-stage hoofer who'll sleep with the director and the cast and crew for a shot at the big time.
Obama has shown himself to be an ego in search of back-pats. He has done squat in any position he has held - well, I take that back, his "friends" have padded their bank accounts... But of course you don't wish to talk about that, just his stirring speaches...
Too easy. Why not attack his record? If you're a Republican, there is plenty to debate. And no matter how many times someone says it, stirring speeches are not a negative.
What title was it that Ronald Reagan earned? Oh, yes "The Great Communicator." I would think you would welcome someone who possesses this talent after listening to a president for eight years who is incapable of stringing together a grammatically correct sentence.
erick said... Obama has shown himself to be an ego in search of back-pats. He has done squat in any position he has held - well, I take that back, his "friends" have padded their bank accounts...
Anybody who said he's done squat is a low information voter. Look up the legislation he's been involved in. The list is easily accessible.
As to padded bank accounts, let talk about Mr. John "Keating Five" McCain. And his "concern" about the telecomm industry. And him having an adviser that simultaneously collected a lobbying paycheck from the Republic of Georgia while being paid to advise McCain on Georgia. McCain's shirt must be bloody with the all back scratching he's received.
Personally, my expectations and desires are fairly low. I want a smart president with some level of common sense, who won't actively f*** up the country. Bush is certainly the antithesis of that, but McCain is a very close runner up. And Palin is nothing more than GW in a dress. Every one of them is unintelligent, uninformed, intellectually incurious, but always certain of their gut. Not one of them can look back and learn from their litany of mistakes. And lying, despite their "Christian values", comes as naturally to them as breathing.
As to pat's on the back, let's quote John McCain's own words from his own book:
"I didn't decide to run for President to start a national crusade for the political reforms I believed in or to run a campaign as if it were some grand act of patriotism. In truth, I wanted to be President because it had become my ambition to be President. I was sixty-two years old when I made the decision and I thought it was my one shot at the prize."
In other words, he wants it because he wants it, not to do anything for the country. "That's not change you can believe in." It's a pathetic cry for attention.
Is this really the best the Republican Party has to offer? The answer is "yes", which is why I am no longer a Republican.
LFC writes: "And lying, despite their "Christian values", comes as naturally to them as breathing."
Now it turns out that Palin lied about having been to Iraq. She was in Kuwait. And her staff claimed she'd been to Ireland. It was a refueling stop.
She's also supposedly been to Mexico, but they're not providing any details. It will probably turn out that she's been to Taco Bell a few times.
There's nothing they won't lie about, and the exceptional stupidity and pettiness of the lies is ludicrous. They're also lying now about the attendance at campaign events, and passing the lies off on fire department oficials and the Secret Service.
The “Bush Doctrine” question was unprofessional. Mr. Gibson didn’t know enough about the “Bush Doctrine” to field a question. Mr. Gibson had to answer Governor Palin’s question about the specifics, with yet another question. Either Charlie was unprepared to articulate the “Bush Doctrine,” or so intent was he on leading the interview or both, that when Ms. Palin asked for clarification he blew it. By tossing the erroneous question back into her lap, Mr. Gibson appeared at least a lazy journalist. Sarah Palin did an excellent job of articulating her take on the “Bush Doctrine.” Incidentally, all wars are holy wars. Our adversaries certainly believe they’re fighting one. And, I noticed the demeaning TV camera techniques. One might expect a hint of impartiality; instead of having to do a double take, to see whether in fact Gibson hadn’t sawed the legs off Ms. Palin’s chair: http://theseedsof9-11.com
Here's a piece no one cared about. Meh, whatever, probably the most enjoyable article I did during my stint at TIME. Premiered a month before I got laid-off. The nail in the coffin? Ya think?
Here's me going after Al. I didn't so much have a problem with him, as I had a problem with media acting like this dude was the go-to guy for everything black.
This was my first real story at time. I was writing for the Business section, a real change of direction for me. At any rate, it's about Wal-Mart's attempts to colonize the inner-city. As much as I enjoyed this piece, I mostly enjoyed going out to Chicago, which is a beautiful, beautiful city.
This a piece I did about the cops just outside our nation capitol, in Prince George's County, a few years back. I wanted to offer a counter to the dumb, conventional wisdom that if you paint your police force black, you could eradicate police brutality. In fact, Prince George's--one of the richest, blackest counties in the country--also had one of the most brutal police force's in the country.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
There's something wrong with this country.
I fully expect a puddle of drool to be on Sean's desk by the time the interview is over.
I'm sure she'll face such hard-hitting questions such as
"How are you and your family holding up as liberals all over this country attack you without reason?"
"Can you believe the nerve of this Obama guy who hangs out with people like Wright and Ayers for 20 years?"
"Have you thought about what bedding you might put into your bedroom at the White House?"
the thought of this actually makes me cringe. that is saying a lot for me. and i am not a left-winger or even a Democrat. Palin seems like not a bad governor at all (certainly her constituents think highly of her) but (a) she's just not ready to be VP, and (b) the culture-war amplification this will be is really what is making me cringe. Lord make it stop. the old McCain was somebody I may have voted for; it is sad to see this one.
I'm sure that will be a worth while interview full of hard hitting foreign and domestic policy questions, with a thorough interrogation for her taxation record and ear mark requests.
It's terrifying that from what we've seen of Gibson's Palin interview, all the right seems to be talking about is how the 'task from God' question was unfair.
After stumbling through that interview so poorly, barely giving us any indication of what she thinks and in doing so illustrating for us all that she simply hasn't thought, Sean Hannity can't gather anything from the interview other than Gibson dropping two words from the quote? Real nice trick.
I'm sure he'll take a real critical approach during his interview. The way the Republican party has gotten in bed with Fox News is really unprecedented.
Seriously, does anyone doubt that Palin is going to have all of the questions in advance? Sean Hannity is the most dishonest man on TV. We are in trouble. These questions will arrive on a silver platter.
Lord Make A Way! Lord Make A Way!
Her prayers have been answered.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't it been proven that Sean Hannity gets talking points directly from the White House?
Stacy it has. But most in the media dont care because they do the same thing. Remember the march to the Iraq war and Judith Miller.
Who could have predicted she'd go on Fox News? Still not ready for Sunday talk shows, though (which aren't so tough). Expectations should be met this time, Obama and he world at large will be worse off.
We're doomed. Our masters of discourse cannot call a lie a lie or straight up bullshit bullshit. Anyone want to guess how this crap would play if the political parties were reversed? Yeah, we're doomed.
Hannity: Um, Mrs. Palin. Do you prefer I lob these softballs in or shall I place them on a tee?
Palin: Sean, lobbing is fine. I don't need a tee. I'm running for VP after all.
I was hoping we could at least see her on O'Reilly. That way we could compare her performance to Obama, i.e. someone who knows what they are talking about. I thought Obama did a good job on O'Reilly, notwithstanding the fact that Bill just like to hear himself yell. But no dice.
The audacity of nope: http://www.michiganmessenger.com/4076/lose-your-house-lose-your-vote
I'm very rarely shocked, but this shocks me.
Jibril Jackson writes: "I'm very rarely shocked, but this shocks me."
Nothing Repiglicans do shocks me anymore. Almost everything they do disgusts me, though. James Carabelli could use a napalm enema, it could only improve him.
As for the Hannity/Palin Summit, I wonder if she'll be tickling his balls under the table. Cindy McCain says he likes that.
Palin is a clueless, featherweight politician.
Hannity will slobber and drool all over her for the duration of their interview and the public will learn absolutely nothing.
Fox News is a malignant cancer within the journalism industry.
It's a crime that someone as inadequate, unprepared, shallow, and obnoxious as Sarah Palin could become Vice President and a heartbeat away from the presidency.
Going with Hannity is bad enough, but it's just plain pathetic she's afraid to take a question or two from Colmes.
Nice post at Sully reminds us that while we all panic and foresee Obama's doom now that Palin has rallied the base, Obama's GOTV effort is a) dwarfing the GOP's, and b) we probably won't know it until election day.
And the reader's email is about Florida, mind you. Florida.
I've decided that this is good news because it builds the narrative about her avoiding the press, not being ready, etc, etc. I can only imagine what they'll be cooking up over at SNL in the next few weeks.
Most of you cats are probably too young to remember watching Reagan get interviewed by the Democrat-leaning political reporters, but liberals had a similar reaction to his performances in interviews. It didn't mean he didn't have clearly-held ideas -- he did. His papers that were published after he passed away demonstrated that. It didn't mean he couldn't communicate with the people -- of course he could. He was the "great communicator". He just didn't sound as great at responding to questions from a hostile interviewer. And at the time, Democrats expressed the same concerns that Reagan would start World War III.
It's interesting to remember the parallels these days. At the DNC in Reagan's midterm election, the Democrats discovered their own great orator and (who they thought would be a) future star: The Barack Obama of 1984, Mario Cuomo, who brought the house down with his speech.
Of course Hannity will be lobbing softballs. But it's not as if "Do you support the Bush Doctrine" is one of the complex political inquiries of our time, or some sort of unanswerable "gotcha." The real fun of this interview will be watching Hannity try to rehabilitate Palin as she whiffs his easy pitches.
JasonF,
If "Do you support the Bush Doctrine" is such a simple question, why don't you
1) Concisely explain what, exactly the doctrine is.
2) Tell us how the Bush Administrations varying approaches to Libya, Iraq, and Iran have been consistent with the doctrine.
Thanks in advance, smarty.
Fred,
I didn't realize that JasonF was running for VP. Do you get it yet?
JasonF,
Unfortunately, Sarah Palin is not going to whiff at any softballs. She's clearly going to have the questions in advance. Anyone who thinks otherwise has not spent enough time watching Sean Hannity. I'm a bit of a masochist, so I'm familiar with his work.
Fred,
First of all, I will point out that I am not running for vice president, so I would hope you will hold Governor Palin to a higher standard than you would hold me.
In any event, the Bush Doctrine is an interlocking set of policies (most notably articulated in a Setpember 2002 National Security Council policy paper) that, at their core, hold that there is no distinction between terrorists and those who harbor them, and that the United States is justified in unilaterally exterting its powe r(up to and including pre-emptive war) to attack those individuals and states who engage in terrorist activity or harbor those who do.
Given that the Bush Doctrine articulates what are the limits of American power (or more accurately, articulates that previously perceived limits are not, in fact, limits), I'm not sure how one can say that our varying approaches to different situations can be described as consistent or inconsistent with the doctrine. Under the Bush Doctrine, we would presumably be justified in invading Iran or Libya to root out a terrorist threat; that does not mean that we necessarily must invade Libya or Iran if we decide we can achieve our goals through other means.
She's clearly going to have the questions in advance.
Wasn't this a point of fact a couple of months ago? That the Bush admin supplied Fox with talking points? Wasn't exactly a shock, of course.
Here's a Hannity classic:
http://tinyurl.com/4u5hds
Bob Kuttner of American Prospect calls him "a fool" to his face. Palin's interview will probably go a bit differently.
Not bad, JasonF. Joseph Biden's been in the Senate since 1973 and I'm sure he couldn't have answered that better himself.
Just in case JasonF's busy:
It's the defense doctrine established by the Bush administration after 9/11 and used as the justification for the Iraq war. Previously our position had been that the US, like any country, had the right to preemtively attack a country. That is attack a country that posed an imminent threat. The Bush Doctrine changed that policy to a stance claiming a right to preventively attack a nation. In other words, to attack a country simpy because they might, maybe, someday pose a threat to us.
Iraq: The entire justification for war was based on this doctrine.
Lybia: You could make an argument that the doctrine along with the demonstration that they meant it by invading Iraq was the reason Lybia decided to give up their WMD program.
Iran: If the Bush administration ever got around to developing a coherent approach to Iran we might have something to talk about here.
That's off the top of my head. I'm a 33-year-old, dumb rube in Iowa still working on my BS degree in MIS. Sarah Palin is the Governor of Alaska and Republican candidate for Vice President of the United States.
Not so bad, SeanH. Much better than Barack Obama saying he would address Russia's invasion of Georgia in the Security Council while forgetting that Russia has a veto there.
Fred writes: "Much better than Barack Obama saying he would address Russia's invasion of Georgia in the Security Council while forgetting that Russia has a veto there."
Fred, I realize you're the ultimate party hack, but here's what John McCain would do about the Russian invasion of Georgia if he were president when it happened - jackshit. The same thing Dumbya did.
McCain made his usual Grumpy Old Man face and stole a few lines from Wikipedia but it was just one big political bowel movement. Putin laughed in his face and he laughed in Dumbya's face and they both took it because that was all they could do.
She did mess up some, but hopefully her stumbles proved to voters that she was human and helped voters relate to her.
Palin seems like not a bad governor at all (certainly her constituents think highly of her)
The Governor of Alaska during the time when oil breaks through the $100/bbl figure and races towards $150/bbl is popular? That's like saying the dealer at the table where everyone hits a blackjack is popular. And involves about the same level of desert to the individual everyone loves.
Maybe Hannity will ask about the divine pipeline that must be built because it's God's will. And I quote St. Sarah:
"And pray about that also. I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that."
You can watch it at YouTube!
Selection of Palin proves that McCain is unfit to govern.
I appreciate the concern of women everywhere who know that Sarah Palin does not represent us. However, I think the Democrats are making a mistake in attacking her. They should say they welcome a woman at last on the Republican ticket and are happy to see that Republicans have finally accepted the liberal view that a woman can be both mother and have a place in the workforce. That is a great triumph of liberal ideas come to fruition in the GOP. They should celebrate that Sarah Palin did admit in some forum that perhaps other forms of birth control might be taught besides abstinence and the Democrats are happy that she is more liberal than McCain and the Republican platform and will be happy to run against her meager record as a reformer and investigate what she accomplished and what failed.
There is a lot of Hillary guilt paralyzing the Democrats and this is a meme that is fresh and honest and has shock value because it is something Republicans are not having to think about.
MoeLarryandJesus, it's like you're not even counting those two "Buck up, buddy, I'm thinking of you" phone calls.
9 trillion, you already said that. And Ta-Nehisi commented earlier about the problems in looking for a veep who's identifiable but as clueless as we ourselves are.
So which is more egregious and disqualifying? Palin doesn't know what Bush's doctrine is or:
“Just this past week, we passed out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee -- which is my Committee -- a bill to call for divestment from Iran as a way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don’t obtain a nuclear weapon.”
Obama is not on the Senate Banking Committee and his actual committee did not pass that bill he's claiming credit for.
Not knowing someone else's doctrine or not knowing what you do and what bill you have passed?
Obama is not on the Senate Banking Committee and his actual committee did not pass that bill he's claiming credit for. Not knowing someone else's doctrine or not knowing what you do and what bill you have passed?
Yes, this was a gaffe. I think he got ahead of himself in the sentence (he's not on the committee). But you're also wrong: he never claimed credit for the entire bill...the provision on Iran was his provision (he authored it) and that's what he's talking about here.
Whatever. Not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is worse, in any case, unless you believe Palin just stumbled somehow.
Wow, when I posted the Hannity thing in 'most revealing' thread, I was half joking. However, if anyone in the McCain campaign is reading, now is the time for the candidate to discuss his man-crush on Andrew Sullivan. I think Atlantic readers would really appreciate it.
On a serious note, if Palin can't handle AAA pitcher Charlie Gibson, a batting practice pitcher(Sean Hannity) is not going to impress the undecideds. Now that the Palin is up in the big leagues-- she needs to face major league live pitching-- or AAA pitchers like Wolf Blitzer. Show that the Gibson f'ups were a fluke.
It is so funny to read such puddles of nothing. Obama has shown himself to be an ego in search of back-pats. He has done squat in any position he has held - well, I take that back, his "friends" have padded their bank accounts... But of course you don't wish to talk about that, just his stirring speaches... But then, that is your right, just as my opinions are mine. That is the ultimate beauty of "our" country; we may not think the same, but I still would fight for your rights as I would hope you would fight for mine...
You know how in Pro Wrestling if one guy is a total stiff the other guy has to do all the work to sell the match and make them both look good?
That is the only suspense in this interview, how much will Hannity have to carry her.
erick writes: "Obama has shown himself to be an ego in search of back-pats. He has done squat in any position he has held - well, I take that back, his "friends" have padded their bank accounts..."
Meanwhile the friends of Dumbya and Dickless have stolen BILLIONS in open sight. You have an amazingly wacky sense of perspective, chuckles.
I've come up with the perfect metaphor for what the McCain crew is trying to do with Palin. It's the Helen Keller-Anne Sullivan story as shown in the old movie "The Miracle Worker."
In this case they're trying to teach a pig to sing and dance. But the concept is the same. Teaching up a horrendously disadvantaged naif and hoping she's a prodigy.
Helen Keller was one in a million. Sarah Palin seems like a dime a dozen - a cheap small-stage hoofer who'll sleep with the director and the cast and crew for a shot at the big time.
No Oscar for her.
Obama has shown himself to be an ego in search of back-pats. He has done squat in any position he has held - well, I take that back, his "friends" have padded their bank accounts... But of course you don't wish to talk about that, just his stirring speaches...
Too easy. Why not attack his record? If you're a Republican, there is plenty to debate. And no matter how many times someone says it, stirring speeches are not a negative.
What title was it that Ronald Reagan earned? Oh, yes "The Great Communicator." I would think you would welcome someone who possesses this talent after listening to a president for eight years who is incapable of stringing together a grammatically correct sentence.
erick said... Obama has shown himself to be an ego in search of back-pats. He has done squat in any position he has held - well, I take that back, his "friends" have padded their bank accounts...
Anybody who said he's done squat is a low information voter. Look up the legislation he's been involved in. The list is easily accessible.
As to padded bank accounts, let talk about Mr. John "Keating Five" McCain. And his "concern" about the telecomm industry. And him having an adviser that simultaneously collected a lobbying paycheck from the Republic of Georgia while being paid to advise McCain on Georgia. McCain's shirt must be bloody with the all back scratching he's received.
Personally, my expectations and desires are fairly low. I want a smart president with some level of common sense, who won't actively f*** up the country. Bush is certainly the antithesis of that, but McCain is a very close runner up. And Palin is nothing more than GW in a dress. Every one of them is unintelligent, uninformed, intellectually incurious, but always certain of their gut. Not one of them can look back and learn from their litany of mistakes. And lying, despite their "Christian values", comes as naturally to them as breathing.
As to pat's on the back, let's quote John McCain's own words from his own book:
"I didn't decide to run for President to start a national crusade for the political reforms I believed in or to run a campaign as if it were some grand act of patriotism. In truth, I wanted to be President because it had become my ambition to be President. I was sixty-two years old when I made the decision and I thought it was my one shot at the prize."
In other words, he wants it because he wants it, not to do anything for the country. "That's not change you can believe in." It's a pathetic cry for attention.
Is this really the best the Republican Party has to offer? The answer is "yes", which is why I am no longer a Republican.
Are you sure he was too tough? Look at what an editor found today at a conference in DC. Racist crap.
http://www.governmentalityblog.com/my_weblog/
LFC writes: "And lying, despite their "Christian values", comes as naturally to them as breathing."
Now it turns out that Palin lied about having been to Iraq. She was in Kuwait. And her staff claimed she'd been to Ireland. It was a refueling stop.
She's also supposedly been to Mexico, but they're not providing any details. It will probably turn out that she's been to Taco Bell a few times.
There's nothing they won't lie about, and the exceptional stupidity and pettiness of the lies is ludicrous. They're also lying now about the attendance at campaign events, and passing the lies off on fire department oficials and the Secret Service.
They're assholes.
The “Bush Doctrine” question was unprofessional. Mr. Gibson didn’t know enough about the “Bush Doctrine” to field a question. Mr. Gibson had to answer Governor Palin’s question about the specifics, with yet another question. Either Charlie was unprepared to articulate the “Bush Doctrine,” or so intent was he on leading the interview or both, that when Ms. Palin asked for clarification he blew it. By tossing the erroneous question back into her lap, Mr. Gibson appeared at least a lazy journalist. Sarah Palin did an excellent job of articulating her take on the “Bush Doctrine.” Incidentally, all wars are holy wars. Our adversaries certainly believe they’re fighting one. And, I noticed the demeaning TV camera techniques. One might expect a hint of impartiality; instead of having to do a double take, to see whether in fact Gibson hadn’t sawed the legs off Ms. Palin’s chair: http://theseedsof9-11.com