1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

How Palin Can Fluster Biden in VP Debate

Discussion in 'Off Topic Threads' started by Bluzman98, Sep 12, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bluzman98

    Bluzman98 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    840
    All Sarah has to do in every response to Biden in the debate is simply start by saying.....

    "Joe, that's an interesting thought (theory, example, position, etc) is it yours or did you borrow that from someone?"

    JMHO

    Jim C
     
  2. Shooting Coach

    Shooting Coach Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    8,357
    Location:
    Nashville Tn
    I believe if she merely shows up, she will fluster the old alky. LOL
     
  3. sgb.1100

    sgb.1100 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2008
    Messages:
    42
    Bluzman,


    Biden's retort should simply be, "Ms. Palin, do you even know what that [thought, theory, position] means?".


    Case in point is Gibson's interview yesterday. Palin didn't even know what is the “Bush Doctrine”. In case you need a reminder this doctrine resulted in fundamental shift in foreign policy with expensive consequences in treasure and life – ie Iraq. Here’s link with definition and context info re Bush Doctrine (http://www.usatoday.com/educate/iraq/war7-article.htm)


    In reply to that question “Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?" Palin asks for clarification TWICE. It’s a softball question. Any person with a passing interest in foreign affairs who reads the newspaper let alone a VP aspirant should know what the interviewer is asking about, and Gibson just assumes she knows what it is. But when she doesn’t the exchange degenerates into a “foreign affairs for dummies” vocabulary question.


    Transcript with video clip is copied below, but you gotta see the video first.



    It's the rising intonation of her voice in the second response when she asks "His world view?". Also the expression in her eyes. She even nods her head a little. Ever seen a student who doesn't know the answer and is answering a question with a question hoping for a hint from the teacher as to what the answer might be? Actually, it’s kinda like Bill Murray, playing the immigrant worker dispensing “Pepsi, Pepsi’s” in the Saturday Night Live "Hamburgee Hamburgee" diner skit. When a customer gives a menu order to Murray’s character, Murray hasn’t a clue because he doesn't understand a word of English so he tries to endear himself by smiling, nodding, and making eye contact with the customer who just rambles on with his order. Hilarious and a classic.


    One almost feels sorry for Palin, as the interviewer knows more than she does. Gibson is so easy on her, he doesn’t even follow up (or skewer) her when she misses the point of the question. Palin's answer is about an "imminent" threat but the distinguishing aspect of the Bush Doctrine is justification of a unilateral attack by USA without provocation (Gibson: “we think is going to attack us “) and without support of allies.


    Gibson probably didn’t want to appear to be mean. You could detect surprise maybe disappointment or frustration in his reaction when he says “well what do you interpret it to be” when she struggles. He didn’t even bother to follow up to press her for details of the “blunders” and “mistakes” she referred to. It was a “target rich environment” for Gibson and he had more issues to cover – which delivered more ripe material for another post.


    That’s enough, here’s the Transcript and video Link:


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/11/sarah-palins-charlie-gibs_n_125772.html


    written transcript:


    GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine? PALIN: In what respect, Charlie? GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be? PALIN: His world view. GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war. PALIN: 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. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better. GIBSON: 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. Do you agree with that?


    PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.
     
  4. bigdogtx

    bigdogtx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    10,650
    BS. That was a trap question. Just who came up with the "Bush Doctrine"? Is it in written form where I can get a copy of it, or is it the normal media coming up with something and everybody is supposed to agree with what they said?
     
  5. Jerry944t

    Jerry944t Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,860
    Location:
    PA
    I want to like her but she was completely unimpressive in the Gibson interview.

    She also wouldn't or couldn't answer the question concerning our unilateral attacks on Al Queda in Pakistan. She sounded evasive and very unsure.

    When it comes to serious debate over real issues I hope she's a quick learner.
     
  6. stokinpls

    stokinpls Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    6,487
    Is that the DU version of the your so-called "Bush Doctrine"? No wonder she wanted it spelled out for her. Have you ever been "interviewed"? How'd you come out? Yeah, I know "I'm not running for VPOS." There's a reason for that. Give me the smartest person on the planet and I'll bet even you can think of a question they can't answer.

    Gibson's just another leftist pogue, who would betray his own mother for better ratings.
     
  7. awbenz

    awbenz TS Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    518
    I agree with John,Another Vote for FLASH
     
  8. RobertT

    RobertT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,354
    sgb.1100

    Here is the "Bush Doctrine" that you probably intentionally failed to ferret out!

    * On the night of the attacks on New York and Washington, he vowed in a televised speech that the United States would "make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."

    * In the State of the Union address in January 2002, he decried an "axis of evil" -- Iraq, Iran and North Korea -- whose pursuit of weapons of mass destruction threatened the world.

    * In a new National Security Strategy, released in September 2002, he outlined a policy of pre-emption, of striking before a threat had fully materialized. "We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends," it said.


    Now here is Palin's ultimate response once the question was quantified to her:

    PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

    Now that I have clarified your blatant ommissions, what say you now sgb.1100?

    Robert
     
  9. sgb.1100

    sgb.1100 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2008
    Messages:
    42
    MIA,


    Thanks for your reply. The Bush Doctrine has already been applied with the invasion of Iraq. it’s reasonable to ask whether a McCain/Palin Republican administration agrees with that policy and would continue to apply it after the experience of Iraq. Doesn’t it make sense for the voters, allies and especially enemies of the state to know their position?


    It was a softball question to be hit out of the park. A golden opportunity, first unscripted interview after convention, she’s in the spotlight - to state her position, maybe differentiate herself from Bush if she felt she had to (the “maverick outsider”) and make the case for the McCain/Palin position. That would be leadership.


    Unfortunately her response seems to confirm suspicions she hasn’t had a past interest or opportunity to think much on foreign policy and it showed in the lack of depth in her answer. She sounded scripted without the nuance of someone who has done a lot strategizing and reflecting on a subject It was sad and more than a little disturbing no doubt for independent voters and allies but not enemies.
     
  10. sgb.1100

    sgb.1100 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2008
    Messages:
    42
    Robert T,


    How did you conclude it was my intention to “intentionally fail to ferret out” the definition for “Bush Doctrine”? Statement showing the difference between Palin’s inadequate answer and the Bush Doctrine set forth in that link that I provided is right there in your post and you can’t even see it.


    In your post you have this quote which you boast you have “ferreted out” in the link I provided where Bush’s national security strategy says:


    “in September 2002, he outlined a policy of pre-emption, of striking before a threat had fully materialized.”

    But also from that link which you ignored or neglected to provide is a succinct summary of the doctrine consistent with the above policy:


    “Going to war will be the first exercise of what some call the Bush doctrine. Under it, the United States is willing to use its military and economic supremacy to protect its interests and assert its values with or without direct provocation. And it is willing to act with or without the backing of the international alliances that it helped create after World War II.”


    In Palin’s answer, she talks of defensive attack in case of an “imminent strike” of which there is no debate – every country, every person no less obviously has right of self defense when faced with imminent harm. She either willfully neglected to or just didn’t understand (which is worse?) the concept of Bush Doctrine to address the scenario of “without provocation”.


    Is it perhaps you don’t understand the plain meaning of her use the word “imminent”?


    My Webster says it means “ready to take place” page 602 Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. There was no threat made by Iraq in 2003 and there was no proof of any plan or any action “ready to take place” by Iraq. There was only the conclusion by the Bush administration that it had the CAPABILITY to do so, a conclusion made in error we now know with hindsight.


    If this was her answer to an essay question on an exam for international relations/political science, she would have got a zero.


    Her position on whether McCain/Palin will continue to deviate from previous policy – to use pre-emptive attack without a “fully materialized” threat is what sensible moderate voters , allies and the rest of the world are interested in. We're waiting.
     
  11. JBrooks

    JBrooks TS Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    3,707
    Before you gloat yourself to bloat sgb, perhaps you ought to google "Obama" and "Bush Doctrine" and see how he defined. Then look at the fool in the mirror.

    PS; Perhaps you could link us where Bush said "This is the Bush Doctrine".

    Ah, I didn't think so. Too bad.
     
  12. ou.3200

    ou.3200 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,490
    sgb.1100 - The so called Bush Doctrine has changed over the time since 9/11. She didn't know which version Gibson was talking about and neither did he nor anyone else for that matter. He got it wrong in trying to explain it to her. I didn't see any softball questions during that interview. Gibson was sitting back looking down his nose at her the whole time hoping to get her to make a mistake so he could play gotcha. He also misquoted her about her saying "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." He didn't even quote a whole sentence there and completely changed the context and meaning. Gibson was playing ambush journalism pure an simple. A total lack of integrity.

    Obama arguably has less experience qualifying him to be, not vice president but president. When has Gibson or any other mainstream news media "journalist" questioned Obama as to what qualifies him to be president as Gibson questoned Palin? O'Reilly didn't even ask that of Obama. If it occurred I am not aware of it. Enlighten me. Gibson and others are using every trick they can come up with to discredit McCain and Palin. Their bias is obvious.
     
  13. mette56

    mette56 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Messages:
    2,026
    Location:
    Camdenton, MO
    Mr. sbg.,

    Your description of what you think you witnessed is a better description of the fumbling, bumbling Mr. Obama. Uh, I, Uh.

    Just think while you are listening and you might get the point.

    milt
     
  14. R.Kipling

    R.Kipling Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2007
    Messages:
    1,765
    sgb,

    What a stereotypical canned piece of diatribe. Look at who you purport to have named this "doctrine"? First, your link to USA Today isn't valid, but even so you can't find a more left-wing rag than USA Today. Next you cite Huffington, for pete's sake! The Huffer is just barely hanging onto the edge of her very own flat earth by her manicured nails.

    Karl Rove wouldn't have answered that Gibson question. Ol' Charlie fell all over obama, and then peed down his own leg in endorse the ghost candidate. I can't wait until Clinton's lawyer proves that BO was born in Africa, I've reached my limit of left-wing BS.

    JG
     
  15. sgb.1100

    sgb.1100 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2008
    Messages:
    42
    JBrooks,


    You say:


    “you ought to google "Obama" and "Bush Doctrine" and see how he defined.” (irrelevant offensive parts deleted)


    That doesn’t even make grammatical or logical sense, but let’s go along with this.


    So I google " ’Obama’ ‘Bush Doctrine’ " get some hits from the Democratic primary race showing Obama accusing Clinton will follow the Bush Doctrine, and then some hits saying Obama is also going to follow the Bush Doctrine.
    What’s JBrooks thinking? Not much rigorous thinking here, no specific links, or quotes to say what his argument is, but oh well – carry on.
    Oh wait a minute, maybe JBrook’s trying to say Obama (won’t bother with HRC since she’s out of the race)is the same as Bush. Obama is actually a Republican on this issue. Palin? Still don’t know yet but maybe. Two wrongs make a right? Two right wing ideologies make a left? Who knows? Something like that. Yeh, that’s it.


    So what!


    Bluzman started a thread implying it ’ll be easy for Palin to deal with Biden. The implication being that Palin has got some quality – you pick – street smarts, quick study, natural politician, salt of the earth, soccer mom instincts, maverick, conservative philosophy etc – that will make her prevail over Biden. Or in the alternative, Bluzman thinks Biden’s incompetent and it’s a cake walk for Palin regardless of her abilities.


    My response countered Bluzman’s point by saying Palin’s inexperience, ignorance (does NOT necessarily mean she’s stupid by the way) as shown in the interview may make her more vulnerable to Bluxman’s fluster strategy than he thinks.


    So how does JBrook’s point making Obama copying a Republican on Bush Doctrine illuminate questions of Palin’s more competency? Well it doesn’t.


    So my conclusion is JBrooks, you missed the point of the post. If this was an exam you failed too because instead of dealing with Palin’s competency you simply offered an irrelevant point to confuse the issue.


    Politicians and executives, well trained in art dealing with media are really good at this. They are taught to not answer a question they don’t like. Instead make up a question they like close to the one that was really asked with an answer that helps them, of course they never say it out loud, and then they simply answer that question. The audience is often not really paying attention, they are often not familiar with the complexity of issues (Bush Doctrine – what the heck is that anyway?) and some are mentally lazy so its hard sometimes to tell if the question was really answered. Some won’t even remember the question when the answer is done, especially if they are rooting for the person giving the answer and they just like the content of the answer even though it’s not on point. It’s terribly insulting to the voter/consumer but there it is and regrettably it works . Look for it next time on the news, they ALL do it.


    The tactic is called a “red herring”. My Webster (why trust me?) says “something that distracts attention from the real issue” derived from practice of dragging red herring (a smelly fish ) across a trail to confuse hunting dogs.


    Other red herrings are attacking the credibility of the source of the opposing point of view ( he or she doesn’t post often, is he or she using other names, he’s a dumbocrat, commie, socialist, liberal troll, etc- Q.E.D. end of argument ). Sound familiar? Essentially variations of killing the messenger like the person who says the emperor has no clothes. Don’t let the post speak for itself. It’s so much easier that way. Less homework, less thinking. Kool Aid.


    Now “red herring” and “JBrooks” rings a bell. I go to this recent thread “Watched Palin Speech” on this site:


    http://www.trapshooters.com/cfpages/thread.cfm?threadid=164782&Messages=70


    JBrooks missed the point in that thread too. I called you on a red herring when I answered you. No reply from you yet.


    When or if you do reply, please try to articulate your argument with a little more precision. Links, quotes don’t hurt either. If you don’t wish to reply , may be next time three’s the charm.


    Shoot straight. Take care JBrooks

    PS – I doubt Bush is so vain as to call his policy and publish it in Whitehouse documents as the “Bush Doctrine”. But I don’t know that. it’s likely a moniker started in the media that was catchy and stuck as the policy became established. If Bush didn’t call it that, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, ask the Iraqi Army. By the way, another red herring question there JBrooks.
     
  16. RobertT

    RobertT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,354
    No Doubt about it, the great spin-doctor Grammy is back!

    Robert
     
  17. sgb.1100

    sgb.1100 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2008
    Messages:
    42
    Before I go for weekend, thank you all, it's been fun but taxing (left wing joke). If I post on a lefty site, they all would just agree and no feedback. All of you should try posting and defending your views on the New York Times comments once in a while to see how well your views hold up there. As with shotgunning (new gun, new competitors, new loads, new clubs, new courses) get out of your comfort zone once in a while. Cheers

    ___________________________________________________________________

    OU.3200 –

    I agree with you the doctrine did evolve over time but the main point of the Bush Doctrine as it’s become known now (to chagrin of allies and the world) is a policy to attack first (shoot first questions, find WMD later) before a threat is imminent and that was essentially conveyed to Palin when Gibson gave up and explained it to her. She should have got that part without an embarrassing explanation from Gibson.


    Why judge her knowledge or skill to the standard of a lay person? Just because most people have never heard of the Bush Doctrine isn’t a reason to give Palin or any leader of any party a break on this. You say there are variations, well a person knowledgeable in foreign policy, a person fit to be VP, would have called Gibson on the complexity of the concept and turned the tables on him.


    She could have her hands on the nuclear button. Only the best and the brightest should get a crack at it. Why would you care if a political leader had a different cultural privileged background from you and that you wouldn’t enjoy a beer with him or her. If they are smart they will identify and work on issues that count for you and are smart enough to figure out a way to connect to the people. If you or a loved one need heart surgery would any of those traits be relevant in picking doctor? Heck, I want the best and don’t care if they are arrogant, insulated socio –economically, expensive if they are well trained, and experienced and know the stuff. I don’t want my leaders to be average. Why would you (collectively I mean) settle for less? And why so hard on Gibson for being difficult with her? The press is conducting a job interview for the voters, and they are our only chance to ask the questions we would or should ask. In an interview sometimes you have to hold something back to see if the person knows his or her stuff otherwise what’s the point?


    the god quote by Gibson matches the soundtrack of this youtube.com clip, it’s 20 seconds called “Sarah Palin: Iraq is a task from God” here’s the link:


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2ypVSYoEKA&feature=related


    do you think this is a doctored clip? Let me know what you think.

    PS - On qualifications for the job w did you catch the irony when she said


    "But, Charlie, again, we've got to remember what the desire is in this nation at this time. It is for no more politics as usual and somebody's big, fat resume maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where, yes, they've had opportunities to meet heads of state ... these last couple of weeks"

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5782924&page=1


    this made me think of McCain!


    _____________________________________________________________________


    Mette56f


    So Obama fumbles too – that’s a red herring argument. I expect given his opposition to it (whether you believe it’s sincere or not ) he would have known what the Bush Doctrine was and accordingly answered with more confidence at least, maybe more substance. The fumbling of Palin, which I admit I had some fun with, just made her inadequate response much more worse. You can fumble and stutter, stammer, but if your competent it’s not relevant.


    ___________________________________________________________________


    R.Kipling


    Don’t know why you can’t bring up that USA today site. I picked it because it had some discussion of pros and cons and how the doctrine evolved. Purpose was to confirm for readers what the doctrine is which I don’t think is in dispute. Whether it’s right or wrong policy is another question. Googling “Bush Doctrine” brings a lot of hits. It’s in Websters online dictionary but using content from Wikipedia.

    Try this:

    http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/bush+doctrine

    As for using the Huffington site, I didn’t rely on the editorial or opinion in that website for the content of my post. If it looks like I did it’s coincidental.


    I cited the Huffington link as a link because it had both the video and a transcript that was easy for readers to get both of that raw data at the same time.


    You can criticize my post, but please do it with specific arguments.


    Did you ever learn how to debate without name calling (Huffer?) or without ad hominem (personal - manicured nails?) attacks? You seem mild compared to some of the other posters in that regard. But do you disparage people you disagree with like that at your club or at work or friends and family when you disagree with them? If you do how do they react? If you don't why do it here?

    Just saying it’s just lefty rag or in financial difficulty isn’t persuasive. It takes away from any merit your argument might have.




    As for Rove, I agree he may not have been as cooperative as Palin. He could well have answered that question with more attack for his point of view, but that’s because he’s knowledgeable, experienced and smart political animal (there are those traits purported lacking in Palin again, I know). He’s been around to know the nuances in the Bush Doctrine He probably would have `chewed up Gibson and spit him out. But if you agree then doesn’t that support what I am saying and make you, deep down, wonder if just a little if Palin’s right for the job?
     
  18. GunDr

    GunDr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,913
    Here is the Bush Doctrine.....all four of them, from the originator of the term.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
     
  19. JH

    JH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,359
    Palin: Senator Biden....you look MAH-VELOUS....is that Polar Bear butt hair transplanted to your bald spot?

    Biden: Why thank you, you HOT Alaskan vixen! I had a Greenpeace Warrior bring me some. Check out how shiny my capped teeth look. I am a stud, don't you agree?

    Palin: Do you have any clue about the emerging Arctic energy policy debate?

    Biden: Why no, hot mamma...but me and my buddy John Edwards want to go for a drink, you want to come?

    Palin: Sorry, you old pathetic drunk....I am a married woman who honors her vows...you are lucky I don't punch-out you and your metrosexual weasel friend...

    VOTE MCCAIN/PALIN OR LOSE YOUR GUNS!
     
  20. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,254
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    What about the Clinton Doctrine? Eat quiche and diddle interns.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.