A quick thought on the Sarah Palin interview

[xiphias]

She did damn well, actually.

The "Bush Doctrine" question was kinda unfair. If someone asked me "What do you think of the Bush Doctrine?" I'd have to reply something like "WHICH Bush Doctrine? What specific policy are you talking about?" Okay, fine -- it's me -- I could just say, "I'm against it," and be pretty sure I'm correct, since there are very few Bush policies, especially ones that could be called "The Bush Doctrine", that I like, but still . . . it seemed like it was an attempt at a "gotcha" question -- "Aha! She doesn't even know what The Bush Doctrine IS!" Well, yeah. Neither do I, actually.

(In fact, that may be one of the problems. NOBODY knows what the Bush Doctrine is, which makes it kinda hard for, say, the US Military to carry out their mission, since there's no doctrine, which means there's no mission, which means it's damn hard to succeed at it. . . )

Still, she gave a general answer which, while I PERSONALLY disagree with everything she said, was a reasonable response to pretty much ANYTHING one could reasonably call "The Bush Doctrine." Then Charlie Gibson clarified that he meant the Doctrine of "Um, he looked at me funny, so I shot him, Yer Honor," which, actually, her previous answer rather well fit. She answered an unclear question with a reasonably clear and fitting answer.

The fact that I disagree with her answer doesn't mean she didn't answer it well. Gibson looked a lot worse in that exchange than Palin did.

Also, in a humor piece, I heard a tagline that I think Palin should consider using for real. "Sarah Palin: if SHE shoots you in the face, it's because she was AIMING for it."

ETA: I realized I mischaracterized the Bush Doctrine.

It's actually, "I sorta got a feeling that maybe someday he was GONNA look at me funny, so I shot him, Yer Honor."

Comments

[ailsaek.livejournal.com]

Well, maybe, but what they said. Apparently if you are paying attention to foreign affairs and what people who are into that sort of thing are talking about, "The Bush Doctrine" has a set meaning.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

But I HAVE been following foreign affairs and so forth. I'm aware of the doctrine of preventative war, but I wouldn't necessarily have immediately associated "The Bush Doctrine" with that topic. So she stumbled in a way that I would have stumbled, and I am reasonably well-informed. And she recovered from the stumble better than I would have.

I mean, what does "The Bush Doctrine" mean to you? I would have said, "Foreigners have no rights, so we can do whatever we want to them."

[theclamsman.livejournal.com]

No, you were right the first time.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/09/what_exactly_is_the_bush_doctr.asp

[theclamsman.livejournal.com]

*by right, I mean your original post

[ceo]

See, I remembered what the Bush Doctrine is (more or less). Anyone pretending to know something about foreign affairs on a policy-making level has no excuse for obviously having no clue what Gibson was talking about.

And this was with Charlie Gibson, who is well-known as a soft interviewer (which of course is why he got her first major interview).

[sethg]

There are many pills, but there is only one "The Pill".

Likewise, there are many Bush doctrines, but "The Bush Doctrine" was one of the key rationalizations that Bush used to justify going into Iraq. I don't consider it a "gotcha" question to ask this kind of thing to someone who wants to be a heartbeat away from Commander-in-Chief-hood.

[theletterelle.livejournal.com]

Yes, this. I remember the talking heads discussing "The Bush Doctrine" back then, and it came easily to mind when Rose asked the question. If someone says they are capable of being second-in-command, they should be more aware of foreign policy than I am.

[sinboy.livejournal.com]

I've always heard it in context of preemptive invasion on suspicion of WMDs or some similar non-immediate threat. That said, she can at least interview without stumbling over herself.

He should have asked her if she was a Young Earth creationist.

[pir-anha.livejournal.com]

but _you_ aren't a vice-presidential nominee for the party whose machine stands behind this doctrine.

there was nothing unfair or unclear about the question. and she very clearly did not know what gibson was referring to, though she tried to save herself with a weasel answer. if she really didn't recognize the reference, or missed the definite article, saying "which doctrine are you talking about in specific" would have somewhat impressed me -- but no, she weaselled.

she showed a lack of familiarity with national security jargon, and furthermore, when having it fed to her by gibson, she confused preemptive with preventive.

not that it matters; after she caught on, she sounded just as rah-rah-rah about shrubwad's doctrine as he -- muslims evil, defend country at all costs, stand by your manpresident. that's about all the average repub voter seems to understand, so that's all she needs.

[darkrosetiger.livejournal.com]

As others have said, if you're going to potentially be in the position of deciding whether this country should continue to apply that doctrine, then yeah, you'd better know what it is.

But she also forgot (or didn't know) one of the first rules of any job interview:

If you don't know the answer to a question, say "I don't know, but I do know how I would find out." DON'T try to bullshit your way through, because you'll only make yourself look stupid.

[holzman.livejournal.com]

I'm surprised you don't recall the Bush Doctrine from when the Bush Gang was putting together it's "case" to invade Iraq. The Bush Doctrine was touted as a bold philosophical breakthrough in support of the War on (Some) Terror, summarizable as "It is acceptable to invade a soverign nation with whom you have no quarrel if you claim to believe that they may someday pose a threat."

I can't think of anything else that has ever been labelled "The Bush Doctrine," and I knew exactly what Gibson was asking.