Sarah Palin struggles through another interview, this time with friends

Sarah Palin struggles through another interview, this time with friends
Sheldon Alberts - National Post Canada
September 18, 2008

WASHINGTON • Ever since Sarah Palin sat down with ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson last week, Republicans have complained that the venerable newsman was unforgivably condescending and aloof.

Gibson’s sin? Asking Palin, insistently, whether she supported and could describe “the Bush doctrine.” The Alaska governor simply couldn’t answer.

“In what respect, Charlie?”

Gibson: “What do you interpret it to be?”

Palin: “His world view?”

Umm, okay.

Conservative commentators – notably syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer – rushed to Palin’s defence. Krauthammer pointed out there have been “four distinct meanings” of the Bush doctrine.

They include America’s willingness to unilaterally withdraw from international treaties, the president’s post-9/11 ‘with-us-or-against-us’ ultimatum to nations harbouring terrorists, the use of pre-emptive war to protect the United States from imminent threats, and his second-term ‘freedom’ agenda.

Krauthammer chastised Gibson for practicing “gotcha” journalism and said the anchor “captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension” elitists feel toward Palin.

Or, maybe, Gibson was just asking...

Read the rest of the post:
Sarah Palin struggles through another interview, this time with friends

Wake Up America

Daily Show: Sarah Palin IS the Bush Doctrine

Christian Science Monitor: The Palin Doctrine

The Palin Doctrine Christian Science Monitor
She would go beyond various Bush 'doctrines' and 'do whatever it takes' against terrorists.
By the Monitor's Editorial Board September 14, 2008

Sarah Palin may be excused for not knowing "the Bush doctrine." The term was thrown at her like a curve ball during an interview last week by ABC's Charles Gibson, whose own description was incomplete. But her assertion of a potential new "doctrine" – one she might bring to the White House – is far less pardonable.

She said during that interview that the United States "must do whatever it takes" to fight terrorism. This implies the same amoral existentialism that terrorists use. It goes against the very principles of Western civilization that the jihadists seek to destroy.

Ever since these Islamic radicals began attacking US citizens and others, some in the American security establishment have practiced this unprincipled "doctrine." Just think of the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq or the use of torture against top Al Qaeda figures.

But her do-anything approach appears to go beyond the set of foreign policies put forth by President Bush and that have been dubbed by the media and others as "the Bush doctrine."

When first in office, Mr. Bush set his mark as president by unilaterally withdrawing US support for a few international agreements, such as the Kyoto accords on global warming. Then after 9/11, he warned countries backing terrorists that they are vulnerable to attack. This led to the ousting of the Taliban rulers in Afghanistan.

Later, in the run up to the 2003 Iraq invasion, Bush justified preemptive strikes on countries that might give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. That was one Bush "doctrine" that Mr. Gibson was obliquely referring to, later calling it "anticipatory self-defense." The policy is similar to the action of a homeowner who shoots a masked gunman standing outside a bedroom window.

Finally, Bush asserted a "doctrine" that promotion of democracy in Islamic countries is a necessary defense against the spread of jihadist terrorism.

All these policies have been pieced together ad hoc by Bush. In evoking one Bush "doctrine," Gibson was trying to be very timely, perhaps hoping to test the Republican vice presidential nominee. He wanted to know if she, as John McCain and Barack Obama do, supports the recent US attacks on Al Qaeda and Taliban hideouts in Pakistan without that country's approval.

Here, Ms. Palin was less the hawk as she offered a nuanced answer that Gibson apparently didn't like. She said she would work with US-friendly countries like Pakistan so military strikes would be a last option.

The problem is that Pakistan is not as committed as the US to ousting militants on its border. It may prefer to keep some Taliban in reserve for Pakistan's historic struggle with India for influence in Afghanistan. That's a problem for the US and may have led Palin to say she would "do whatever it takes."

Her statement may also simply reflect the campaign competition to appear tough on national security, especially to biased voters who wonder if a woman can be an able commander in chief.

Candidates must be more careful with what they say during the heat of a campaign. Once in office, they may regret having taken a position as extreme as those of a US enemy.

Read the rest of the story:
The Palin Doctrine

Palin should be laughingstock to all feminists

Palin should be laughingstock to all feminists
Instead, this fast talker is a star -- and that scares me
BY MARY MITCHELL Sun-Times Columnist
September 13, 2008

Sarah Palin makes me sick. I hate that she was able to steal Barack Obama's mojo just by showing up wearing rimless glasses and a skirt.

I hate that she makes Joe Biden look like John McCain and John McCain look like the maverick he is not.

I hate that Palin reminds me of Susan Sarandon's feisty character in "Thelma & Louise." I loved Sarandon in that movie, yet I couldn't stand Palin's feistiness at the Republican National Convention.

Sarah Palin makes me sick -- not because she may speak in tongues -- but because she is a fast talker.

Not even ABC's Charlie Gibson can slow Palin's mouth.

I disagree with the people who claim Gibson caught her off guard during her interview when he asked her whether she agreed with the "Bush Doctrine."

"In what respect?" Palin fired back without so much as a stutter.

In fact, it was Gibson doing the sputtering as he pressed Palin to answer a question that he didn't seem to know the answer to himself.

It irks me that Palin is being painted as some kind of "New Age Feminist" by the so-called "elite" media.

She isn't.

Read the rest of the story:
Palin should be laughingstock to all feminists

Obama Must Call for Palin's Removal from the Ticket

Note: I am including this post from the Anchorage Daily News comments section. The original comment can be found here:

Palin says she's ready to step in as president : comments

Obama Must Call for Palin's Removal from the Ticket

Obama must call for her removal from the ticket in the interests of national security, and call into question McCain's impetuous, imperious, nutball "judgment."

He must make the correct and compelling case that putting this corrupt amateur governor with zero foreign policy credibility in direct line to become president should McCain's health give out is wildly irresponsible, and jeopardizes the health and safety of the nation.

Palin is under investigation for ethics violations in Alaska related to allegations that she used her office to try to fire an ex-brother-in-law state trooper (of all things bush league!) She spends Alaska taxpayer money to take her family on trips, to fund her visits to sporting events, to pay for her husband's jaunts. Total for her husband and daughters alone (including commuting from home to work): $43,490. She bills the state a travel per diem when she spends nights at home in Wasilla (of all things bush league!)

She is withholding e-mails that pertain to so-called "Troopergate," and reportedly implicate her husband in anti-law enforcement union influence peddling. She believes that so-called creationism (read: Bible scripture) should be taught in schools. She tried to get certain library books banned while mayor of Wasilla, then threatened the librarian when her request was refused.

She lies easily, from claiming to have stopped the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" to saying that Obama opposes nuclear power and offshore drilling. . .to boasting that she is anti-government "earmarks," when in fact she has sought and won hundreds of millions of fat Washington dollars. She tried to cover-up her 17-year-old daughter's pregnancy, and to arrange for a quickie marriage prior to the Republican National Convention. She's had an "affair," as the polite term goes, with her husband's ex-business partner.

Need more?
She belongs to a weird "end times" Evangelical church that believes God has designated Alaska as a refuge for the "annointed." She has called the disastrous Iraq occupation "a task from God," has exhorted church members to pray for an Alaska natural gas pipeline, a project that she insanely labels "God's will." There are reports circulating that she has referred to Obama as "Sambo," and eskimos as "Arctic Arabs."

Then there is her champion, callous hypocrisy concerning teen pregnancy and birth control. Her daughter---who obviously emulates one-time good-time gal Sarah (who in college favored T-shirts such as "FCK---The Only Thing Missing is U")---is five or six months pregnant, probably by a local lout whose Myspace page (long pulled) says he enjoys "fuckin' chillin'." Yet Palin has cut funding to pay for housing---housing---for teen mothers.

And in a move that would have pleased the Marquis de Sade, Palin---who inhumanely insists that pregnant rape victims bear their children---saw to it as Wasilla mayor that rape victims must pay for their own sexual assault exams, at a cost of up to $1200. Now there's compassionate conservatism.

And you can laugh off the fact that she says "pundint," "nook-yoo-luhr" (her RNC teleprompter spelled it phonetically so she would say it correctly) and "Eye-RACK," but these are sure indicators of, well, exactly what she is: a person with a bachelor's degree in journalism from the University of Idaho. Take it from me: a degree in journalism is like a degree in nose-picking. Anybody with fingers can do it. You learn journalism on the job, not in a classroom. It's definitely a step up from majoring in physical education. And if you disagree with this, you must at least admit that the degree did not prepare her to spell or speak properly.

The woman is a scandal circus. And we've probably only seen the first ring.

Never mind that the country is traumatically split between so-called right and so-called left. (The right is comprised largely of extremist corporatocratic religious fanatics, and the profoundly ignorant; the left largely of cautious "centrists" who are essentially conservative.) Never mind the acrimony and charges of "negative campaigning" that would ensue from calling for Palin's removal. Americans have grown accustomed to having acrimony with breakfast, and the campaign is already ugly. Do the right thing. Palin is unfit for office, and every sensible person can see this (this leaves out, apparently, members of a Hillary support organization called WomanCount, which wretchedly called for backing off of Palin because some have said a mother of five can't do justice to a full-time job.)

Palin's appointment, in other words, is not just a matter of an opponent's policies being "dangerous," "wrong-headed," or various other conventional campaign cliches. It is a matter of a famously impulsive, high-rolling candidate (who loves to play craps) caving in to advisors and picking a frighteningly unqualified person to become vice-president of the United States. Dick Cheney is a towering statesman by contrast. It is a matter of aged McCain throwing caution to the wind---when caution was never more required---and grabbing a nice-looking, young piece of baggage without so much as a routine FBI background check. All the McCain aides did was Google Palin, which is slightly more thorough than making goo-goo eyes at her.

The choice was not merely a cynical grab for hard-core reactionary extremist right-wing Evangelicals. It was not merely a cynical ploy to make the campaign look progressive and compel more ladies to vote for the increasingly corpse-like McCain. It was not merely a cynical means of sexing up a campaign that would otherwise have been led by boring old white guys (God help us---Joe Lieberman.) It was all of these things---but with breathtaking disregard for the safety and welfare of the nation.

If you were running for president, wouldn't your first concerns be that your vice-president is capable of holding the job, and keeping the country stable? And wouldn't your second concerns be that your vice-president would not engage in dishonest or corrupt activities---that is, outside of those dishonest and corrupt activities that are officially sanctioned in D.C.---let alone peccadilloes such as scamming a few free trips? I mean, if you're going to be a crook, go all the Abramoff way, right?

After those concerns are met, then sure, you're free to be as "strategic" (cynical) as you like in your choice.

McCain did not do this. McCain is a hotdog pilot who has clipped power lines and been involved in a number of air crashes. With Palin, he clipped his own power line, and the only thing preventing a crash of his campaign is the ignorance and hatred of the American right-wing.

That's correct. Hatred is what is holding his campaign together, and giving it any kind of fuel. It is not running on inspiration. It is not running on encouraging human cooperation. It is not running on even the commercial-slogan-deep ideals of change and hope, as Obama slickly did in the Democrat primaries. McCain and Palin tap directly into black bile.

Think about it. Their power base comes from resentment: resentment of "Hollywood liberals," blacks, minorities in general, Affirmative Action (can't blame them for that one), welfare abuse (can't blame them for that one, either), illegal immigrants (can't blame. . .) taxation of their hard-earned millions (or billions.) It comes from fear of terrorists and hatred for those who ridicule their generally infantile and often fascistic idea of "Christianity." It comes from hatred of "junk scientists" who want to take away their "Constitutional right to own an SUV" (as many have e-mailed this site through the years), and from hatred of those godless heathens who imagine that humans are descended from apes. It comes from hatred of anyone who does not claim to believe that all human life is sacred (unless they are Iraqis, apparently, or Darfurians)and hatred of anyone who will not allow so-called creationism to be taught in public schools.

It comes from hatred of absolutely anything that can be smeared as "liberal," "socialist," "leftist," when in fact these things are normal, integral parts of any successful society and government. Imagine "privatizing" (read: destroying) social security and veterans' benefits.

And it comes from ignorance. Republicans/McCain supporters are generally of the ilk that simply reads newspapers/websites that reinforce their dumb-as-dirt reactionary thinking and beliefs. To imagine that these people---stupid enough to believe that McCain is some sort of maverick, when he votes with Bush 90 percent of the time, and turned against his own campaign reform spending bill---can be persuaded, reasoned with. . .it's folly.

So write them off, Obama---write off their bile, their rage---and do what's right. Palin and McCain are a danger to the country, and nothing less. Now is the time to say it, and to say it bluntly. The clock is ticking on this election. If they are elected, the clock will be ticking on whatever is left of the country.

The Bush Doctrine...What's That?

The Bush Doctrine...What's That?
Carla Marinucci, SF Chronicle Political Writer
Thursday, September 11, 2008

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, emerging from media silence for her first serious interview as the GOP vice presidential pick, said Thursday that the United States might have to go to war if Russia were to invade Georgia again.

And on the seventh anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, she appeared entirely unfamiliar with the Bush Doctrine, the central foreign policy tenet of the current administration, which asserts the right to wage preventative strikes in the wake of such terrorist attacks.

Palin made her statements during an interview with ABC "World News" anchor Charlie Gibson in which she was pressed on her foreign policy credentials and knowledge. Additional Gisbon interviews with Palin will be broadcast today on ABC.

Read the rest of the story:
The Bush Doctrine...What's That?