![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
xiphiasShe 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."
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."
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-12 08:35 pm (UTC)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.