Clueless Palin Peddles Cliches Under Gibson's Glare: Commentary
Commentary by Jeremy Gerard
Sept. 12 (Bloomberg) -- The question of experience came up again last night: Was the man of the moment prepared for the difficult task at hand? Did he have the chops?
ABC News anchor Charles Gibson got the get, the first mano- a-womano sit down with the Republican vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin. He had the chops.
Palin may not have blinked when John McCain asked her to be his running mate. Last night, however, found her frozen in the Klieg lights as the dogged interlocutor set his sights on his visitor.
Peering down at Palin through reading glasses set at the tip of his nose, foot circling over knee ever more impatiently, Gibson, 65, wouldn't let her coast. Yes, she had mastered the pronunciation of Georgia president Mikhail Saakashvili's name, not to mention that of Iran's Mahmud Ahmadinejad. And maybe that would have been good enough on ``Good Morning America.''
But no-one had coached her in something called the Bush Doctrine. Doctrine? What doctrine would that be, Charlie?
Palin, 44, apparently never heard of the Bush Doctrine until yesterday. She flashed a smile nearly as frozen as her running- mate's and did that tenth-grader thing of tap-dancing around the question, skittishly ad libbing her way with gibberish about Bush's ``global vision.''
Gibson was having none of it, pressing her for specifics she didn't have at her command and finally -- his glare set to iceberg blue, foot circling like a lasso -- he impatiently explained what the doctrine is, when it was introduced, and gave her another chance to answer.
Few Overseas Trips
My sympathy for Palin lasted only as long as it took me to remember that it was Palin who had insisted, at the top of the interview, that she's ready to lead the country on a moment's notice. Asked whether she had ever been outside the U.S. before her recent trip to the Middle East, she answered, ``Canada. Mexico.'' Asked what heads of state she had dealt with, she referenced all those trade delegations that came to Alaska looking to do some business.
When the interview turned to Iraq and Iran, Palin's innocence of diplomatic nuance, not to mention global politics, was something she couldn't dance around. We're America, she said, we don't have to put up with those uppity Eye-ranians.
Does she believe we are doing God's will in Iraq? ``I wouldn't presume to know God's will, Charlie,'' she answered gamely. Gibson was ready with a clip of her sermonizing not long ago in church and she danced around that one, too.
Gibson didn't ask the candidate if she has any clue about the principle of separation of church and state on which her beloved United States was founded. I wish he had.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Love you Sam....But tell me how many people can explain to you the "Bush Doctrine?" It has taken on several meanings from several sources at several different times. Her question "Which Bush doctrine" was perfectly legit! In my opinion she has more ability to lead a nation than most people in Washington. Not that you think much about my opinion, but praise God that our nation is a nation of freedom and we can all have an opinion and express our opinion without fear . . . unless you happen to be a Republican Conservative and then you better watch out because if the liberals cannot find dirt on the surface they will dig to China to find it! This has to be the worst treatment of a candidate in all of my years of watching and loving the American process of democracy and our election system. If she can keep her cool through this process she has earned her place as VP. Keep speaking your opinion because you have the blessing of that freedom! We disagree but I LOVE you and admire your achievements and your abilities. Come see us soon. The weather in Destin is Gorgeous in September, October, & Novemeber.
ABC News’ Charles Gibson, who is being credited with stumping Sarah Palin on the definition of the “Bush Doctrine,” has himself defined the nebulous phrase in a variety of ways, including one that mirrored Palin’s disputed explanation.
Gibson and his colleagues have been all over the map in defining the Bush Doctrine over the last seven years. In 2001, Gibson himself defined it as “a promise that all terrorists organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated.”
But when Palin tried to give a similar definition on Thursday, Gibson corrected her.
“I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation,” Palin said in her first interview since being nominated as the GOP’s vice presidential candidate.
Gibson countered: “The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us.”
Much has been made of the fact that Palin had to ask for clarification when Gibson inquired: “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?”
“In what respect, Charlie?” the Alaska governor said.
“The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?” Gibson challenged.
“His world view?” Palin queried.
“No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war,” Gibson said.
That’s when Palin talked of ridding the world of “Islamic extremism,” prompting Gibson to define the Bush Doctrine instead as preemption.
The term “Bush Doctrine” was first coined by columnist Charles Krauthammer three months before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 and has undergone profound changes as the war against terror has evolved.
“There is no single meaning of the Bush Doctrine,” Krauthammer noted in a forthcoming column. “In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration — and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.”
Richard Starr, managing editor of the Weekly Standard, agreed.
“Gibson should of course have said in the first place what he understood the Bush Doctrine to be–and specified that he was asking a question about preemption,” Starr observed. “Palin was well within bounds to have asked him to be more specific. Because, as it happens, the doctrine has no universally acknowledged single meaning.”
Starr pointed out that other ABC journalists, including George Stephanolous, George Will and the late Peter Jennings, have defined the Bush Doctrine on the air in a variety of ways.
Ben Smith of the Politico said the Bush Doctrine exchange was “not a great moment” for Palin. But he conceded that critics are unfairly “pouncing on Sarah Palin’s apparent unfamiliarity with the Bush Doctrine as last night’s gaffe.”
“This isn’t an easy question,” Smith noted. “Commentators have offered a range of meanings for the phrase, from the principle that countries that harbor terrorists are responsible for their actions to broader statements about the spread of freedom.”
Read books on separation of church and state. You will find that our forefathers never intended that there not be any church in the states, just that there should never be a State Church or national church or religion established in our nation. If separation of church and state meant what you writer implies it means then why are all of the buildings in Washington inscribed with scripture? Our founders NEVER intended what today's liberals interpret the separation of church and state to mean. Are you open-minded enough to read the other side?
Oh Man! I had some good comments to share but the comment space is full. Oh well.
Post a Comment