When Charles Gibson asked Gov. Palin if she agreed with the "Bush doctrine," I confess I wasn't sure what he was talking about. I remember this term, but I also remember it being used by many people, to describe different Bush policy positions. Indeed, no single policy was ever oficially labeled "the Bush Doctrine."
The media have taken, over time, different statements from several Bush speeches, and claimed them to be his "doctrine.*" I wasn't surprised that she didn't know which one he was talking about. "In what respect, Charlie?" was the correct reply.
Further, as Bill Sammon of FOX NEWS points out (link):
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."
This seemed like a "gotcha" question, and somewhat condescending, as well. First of all, he asks a subjective question, giving her a "yes or no" option on "agreeing with Bush." Second, he asked her to "define" a term that has different meanings to different people. Third, when she gave her definition, he ignored the fact that he had defined it in the same terms, and proceeded to try to "correct" her.
All this proves is that she's not "up" on the latest "liberal" definition of the "Bush doctrine." He might think he came out looking "smarter" than all of us who didn't know what the "Bush doctrine" is supposed to be, but her answer seemed to make alot of sense to the average voter.
BTW, I think that both Gov. Palin, and the average voter agree with the "Bush doctrine," in one (or more) of it's formulations. Gibson simply picked the one that sounds least "popular," currently.
* Besides what Gov. Palin and Mr. Gibson mentioned, the "Bush doctrine" has been described as "bringing democracy to the Middle East," and "treating states that harbor terrorists as terrorists themselves," among others that have been pointed out since the Gibson interview with the Gov..
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 77
If elected, she will be one heartbeat away from the presidency, and we can't risk having another president who blunders because their pride got in the way of the ability to admit he/she is not all knowing.
It was a "gotcha" question, but that's what interviewers do. The topic itself was entirely relevant, however, and was appropriate to ask even if Gibson played a journalistic game (occasionally journalists actually act like journalists). But even though it was a "gotcha" question, it was also an important indication of gauging how she thinks. It's irrelevant what version of the definition he was thinking, or whether it was "liberal" or "conservative." What is important is how she addressed it. A person conversant on the issues would have been able to provide an intelligent reply. She did not.
Her immediate response was total ignorance of what he could be talking about. This was not a matter of her trying to decide from a series of possible definitions, this was her not having the slightest idea of what any possible definition could be. I think this was to be expected given her obvious lack of credentials on foreign policy.
Her next reaction was to try to throw it back on Gibson to define for her. This is a common ploy of anyone being asked questions they don't understand. But in this case the argument that she didn't know Gibson's particular definition is at best disingenous and at worse pure bunk. If she had any understanding she could have said something to the effect of "Charlie, there are several policies that could be construed to be 'Bush Doctrines' so I'm not sure which one you are talking about." Or better yet, she could have added "So let me define what I understand to be the Bush Doctrine and then tell you what my views are on it."
Now, you essentially argue above that this latter is what she tried to do, and to some extent that is a plausible argument. But listening to her answer it is clear that she was parrotting the talking points they taught her, rather than her own understanding of the situation.
Second point:
In fact, this whole discussion of the "Bush Doctrine" question is a tremendous and purposeful distraction from the rest of the foreign policy discussion in the interview. No objective person can honestly say that she has any understanding of foreign policy. There are people here on Gather, probably even yourself, that have greater understanding of foreign policy than does Palin. And she had two full weeks of McCain and Bush experts drilling the information into her head in anticipation of being asked the question. Yet she still was barely coherent in most of her answers. I literally watched and had to scratch my head a few times trying to figure out what she was talking about. Clarity of communication is not a strong point for her, in part (I believe) because she lacks a deeper understanding of the issues and was trying to talk while remembering the talking points they gave her. Not a good attribute for a potential VP.
Another example demonstrating that was Gibson's question asking her what insights she has gained with respect to Russian foreign policy because of the proximity of Alaska to Russia (keep in mind that the McCain campaign itself is touting this proximity as an example of her foreign policy experience). Her answer was that "Well Charlie, you can even see parts of Russia from parts of Alaska." Huh? Her "insight" into our Russian policy is that you can see part of it? Not that because of the proximity she has worked with her Russian counterparts in that region, or she set up a sister city relationship, or even that she discussed water and fishing rights with them. No, she honestly thought that being able to see Russian land qualifies as "experience." [For the record, this "view" is one tiny island in Alaska that is as far from the capital of Juneau as Juneau is from Seattle, Washington, and Palin apparently has never even been there and "seen Russia" for herself. Also, the part of Russia that can be seen is as remote as it gets and is as far away from Moscow as Moscow is from New York City. That part of Russia that can be seen from Alaska is as foreign to Moscow as we are.] She clearly has had no contact with Russia. Even the mayor of Washington DC has gone to Russia and China and elsewhere trying to encourage trade.
There are more examples of total disconnect between the campaign's claims of her "foreign policy experience" and reality, but this comment is already probably longer than your post (my apologies for that). Frankly, I don't understand why the McCain campaign insists on trying to say she has foreign policy experience when she obviously doesn't. To offer laughable examples would seem to just make it more laughable. Just admit she doesn't, then find something more credible about her to sell to the public.
As you may have done, I Googled the question "What Is The Bush Doctrine?" and found several different websites which gave their definitions.
Wikipedia.com at THIS LINK tries its best to give a thorough and comprehensive definition.....including phrases such as "stress on ending terrorism, spreading democracy, increased unilateralism in foreign policy and an expanded view of American national security interests." Yet, in the same paragraph, it also says that the "Bush Doctrine" states that "the United States government should depose foreign regimes that represent a threat to the security of the United States, even if such threats are not immediate and no attack is imminent."
Although not blatantly, yet in a subtle way, those two definitions would almost appear to contradict one another. One talks about spreading democracy and, perhaps, freedom, while the second definition seems to advocate ideas that oppose true democracy. Of course, these are not George Bush's personal definitions of his "doctrine," even if he himself felt he actually had a doctrine to define.
"All this proves is that she's not "up" on the latest "liberal" definition of the "Bush doctrine." He might think he came out looking "smarter" than all of us who didn't know what the "Bush doctrine" is supposed to be, but her answer seemed to make alot of sense to the average voter."
No Christopher, the average voter had no idea what so ever what the "Bush Doctrine" is or was as defined by anyone. They are aware that Bush feels it is his responsibility with our military to rid the world of terrorist, who BTW, have been around for ages and have only increased as a result of Bush's "gun ho" (my liberal term) attitude. His constant drumming of the "terrorist are coming, the terrorist are coming" has planted fear in too many people to the point they have lost much of their normal intelligent mentalities and slipped into an abyss of failure to think of any alternatives other than what Bush sells to them. This is where we part company in our thinking whether you label it liberal or not.
Just like Gov. Palin is on board the republican ship selling one sided answers to multi-layered problems like "abstinence only" as the way to teach sex education or denying women the right to an abortion even if the pregnancy is as a result of rape or incest does nothing for the average voter. Not the average voter I know.
Though we might agree with the nearly wholier than thou interviewer, Charlie Gibson, appearing to look down his nose through his glasses on Gov. Palin I stop at that point with who you define as average voters. The avereage voter I know and I know a lot of them does not agree with which ever "Bush Doctrine" one might define. Bringing "democracy to the Middle East" nor "pre emptive strikes" against countries we feel are harboring terrorist sits well with voters I know when one ignores all other potential solutions. With that attitude we would never be able to raise a military large enough to pull that off without reinstituting the draft.
The very same way we agree that Gibson used his selective definition in questioning Gov Palin is how many of us see the administration and those who agree with it treats us.
Good article.
And preemptiveness means that the US will attack other countries, say Iraq, if we feel that in doing so it will protect our national interests.
Unfortunately, most people see preemptiveness as an excuse to exert our military will on sovereign nations. Understandably, they think that contradicts our proselytizing on the benefits of democracy. Democracies arise by definition from actions of the people, and thus cannot be imposed from the outside by, say, invading a country.
David, unless you know her, I wouldn't assume that she has any less foreign policy knowledge than anyone on Gather, myself included. She is the VP candidate, however, and has to support McCain's positions (except on ANWR, where I predict he'll flip his stance).
Thanks to Carol and BERF for the comments, as well. I agreed with BERF's comment, and disagreed with Carol's. I'll pick up on that later, as well, hopefully.
I couldn't disagree with you more, Christopher. We do know her. We can read her resume and see how she answered questions. And she and the campaign have listed out all of her foreign policy experience and it pretty much is 1) Alaska is the closest state to Russia, 2) She is CIC of Alaska National Guard and once visited them in Kuwait, and 3) She traveled to Canada and Mexico on holiday.
Those are the qualifications that the campaign has offered for her foreign policy experience.
She should be given credit for everything she has accomplished, but those are not foreign policy experience points. Proximity to Russia (or even Canada, which is closer) isn't foreign policy unless she did something. She didn't. The Alaskan National Guard isn't foreign policy, since any time they get called up they are under federal control. All she did was sign budgets and do photo ops; the head of the national guard would do the actual training, and at no time would she make any kind of deployment or strategy decisions. And holidays don't usually involve foreign policy either. If that were true than I should be expert on the intricacies of 16 countries. (Besides, no one seems to be able to figure out when she made her Mexico trip - in all likelihood it was spring break in college and she did what all college kids do in Mexico - not remember it).
The "foreign policy experience" isn't credible. They need to drop it and focus on something else or they will lose all credibilty.
She is absolutely not the best person available to the Republican Party to assume the duties of the President of the United States in the event the President dies while in office. For McCain to choose her shows an enormous disrespect for the nation and its people. He doesn't care about us at all.
Said that Gibson and Palin both got it wrong:
Actually, it's preventive war, not pre-emptive. There's a key difference: Pre-emptive war is a long-accepted, noncontroversial practice—if an enemy is clearly massing and about to attack you, you get to strike them pre-emptively. Imagine on the playground the class bully (who has beaten up your friends already) comes up to you, repeatedly threatens to hit you, and then cocks his fist. It's straight self-defense and is a basic tenet of international law.
But the Bush Doctrine is one of preventive war: Attacking another country in order to prevent them from becoming a threat at some nebulous point down the line. To return to the playground analogy, it's as if you hauled off and socked someone because they looked at you funny—that odd look could be a signal that at some point in the future they're going to hit you. Better safe than sorry. But now you're the bully.
I had no more idea of what it was that Palin, but my husband articulated it right away, without hesitation. That's where Palin should have been too.
It's still about McCain and his reckless choice....putting Country last....win at any cost.
If the Bush Doctrine can be defined at all it is a conscious and persistent pattern of deception shifting to meet the political climate. Sarah Palin is most likely either ignorant of the history, disdainful enough of the democratic process to keep pace with her masters, or cares not a whit as long as her personal ambitions are satisfied. In that, she is the true running mate of John McCain.
It might be better to call it the Rove -(et al)- Cheney doctrine, no cap on *d*.
It may eventually have crystallized for Cheney after shooting someone in the face with buckshot, but of course, that happened after 2002.
You write This seemed like a "gotcha" question
You obviously here are a poor judge of journalism and body language, or you are simply trying to generate more spin. Following a storm of words from Palin that answered no question, Gibson simply asked,"Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?"
Palin sat back, her body language indicating abject confusion but mustering all will-power not to give it away, as she sought after some of the coaching she'd received prior to the interview, and she asked back, "In what respect, Charlie?"
Gibson then began a couple of words to explain it to her... "The Bush d..." Then, as a good journalist, he saw what had happened to Palin, so now, as being the sharp journalist, he asked, "Well, what do you interpret it to be?" And Gibson did an incredibly good job at masking an obvious shock that Palin had no idea of what he was talking about.
So she goes, with a fake smile, "...His world view...?"
"No, the Bush Doctrine... Sept. 2002, before the Iraq War?"
Instantly, she shifted from left to right on her chair, licked her lips and tensed them, in difficult to see grimace unless you slow down the video, all of it an obvious psychological give-away for anyone with a bit of training, that she'd been caught in a deception. And she goes on to another long storm of words that answered less than nothing...
Sorry, I should have given you a 5.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977446795 to again analyze this scene.
After yet another wave-that-flag storm of words that answered no question, over which he did not interrupt her, Gibson then states it exactly, "...that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense..."
At that exact moment, she moved forward, then back, briefly tented her fingers into a clench to control neurotransmitters that wished for her to get aggressive, her lips clenched, in yet another obvious give-away of having been caught in deception; where her flowery, well-formulated rhetoric could not mask the spinning stink flowing from her mouth, as Gibson continued: "...that we have the right of a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?"
And here, after all this deception from Palin, Gibson simply restated his original question to her w/o suggesting or inquiring further information that could serve to embarrass her.
And now, her posture went of course to a highly tense and defensive one... until she again found herself in her own element of flowery words of patriotism to deceive.
The deception?
I'm sure there are many people who will come by this article to clue you in... Just look at the comments above, esp. Sam C
I've participated a lot here at Gather in the past several days, and don't want to overwhelm...
So if you yahoos can produce a written document that that elicits a deffinition by title of "The Bush Doctrine" I'd like to get a copy otherwise its smoke and mirrors to divert attention from the real issues.
The carping about Governor Sarah Palin's foreign policy experience is just partisan bullcrap, since she will be working with a President with much more foreign policy experience than Obama. It is Senators Obama and Joe (Let's Split Iraq Into 3 Parts Even Though They're Against It) Biden that have a problem with meaningful foreign policy experience.
So are you saying Brent that the NSC in its document called "National Security Strategy of the United States." refers specifically to the "Bush Doctrine"? And if so do they state where this so called Doctrine can be found for study of same?
I have read the 2002 NSSUS and find no such reference. Of course this report is issued yearly under the same name if I am not mistaken so perhaps the 2002 year is not the year you intended to reference. Which year were you refering to?
I didn't blame Gibson for anything. I merely stated the fact that Ms. Palin defined the "bush Doctrine" as you all would have it exactly as Gibson did in his definition of of several years ago. If there is such a document and it has changed over the years don't you think Gibson should have given the year of the document he was referring to so she could at least have told him he was a full of it as others who quote this nonexistent doctrine.
So you want a plastic doll who justifies her family feud Alaska politics in Alaska on some imaginary, anti-social god and a war monger worse than Bush and paralleling Putin whilst trying hard to mask he's barely alive to completely destroy what +230 years of perhaps the bravest political souls on this planet have created as a place for family and hearth to succeed???
That actually frigging pisses the hell out of me, since I care more about America's success than even my native Denmark!!!!
If America now goes *poof* due to your insanity, yeah, then we'll finally see what the dominoes effect is all about.
WAKE THE F%#K UP!
And Capt, your response to what even this White House has agreed is doctrine isn't even worth another keystroke from this man's keyboard, other than I am very sad for anyone who comes anywhere near to your advice on anything. There used to be people called snake oil salesmen who did a better job than you.
Kindly at least google "National Security Strategy of the United States."
Palin’s accusation that Obama hasn’t authored “a single major law or even a reform” in the U.S. Senate or the Illinois Senate is simply not a fair assessment. Obama has helped push through major ethics reforms in both bodies, for example.
The Alaska governor avoided some of McCain’s false claims about Obama’s tax program – but her attacks still failed to give the whole story.
Huckabee told conventioneers and TV viewers that Palin got more votes when she ran for mayor of Wasilla than Biden did running for president. Not even close. The tally: Biden, 79,754, despite withdrawing from the race after the Iowa caucuses. Palin, 909 in her 1999 race, 651 in 1996.
A Bridge Too Far
Palin claimed to have stood up to Congress on the subject of the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere,” the Gravina Island bridge in Ketchikan, Alaska, about which we wrote last November.
Palin: I told the Congress, "Thanks, but no thanks," on that bridge to nowhere.
This is not the first time Palin has cited her choice to kill the bridge in 2007 as an example of her anti-waste stance. It’s true that she did eventually nix the project. But the bridge was nearly dead already – Congress had removed the earmark, giving the requested money to the state but not marking it for any specific use. Palin unplugged its life support, declaring in 2007 that the funds would not be used for the Gravina bridge.
When she was running for governor, however, Palin expressed a different position. In 2006, the Ketchikan Daily News quoted her expressing optimism and support for the bridge at a Ketchikan campaign stop.
Palin, 2006: "People across the nation struggle with the idea of building a bridge because they’ve been under these misperceptions about the bridge and the purpose,” said Palin, who described the link as the Ketchikan area’s potential for expansion and growth. … Palin said Alaska’s congressional delegation worked hard to obtain funding for the bridge as part of a package deal and that she “would not stand in the way of the progress toward that bridge.”
Palin also answered "yes" to an Anchorage Daily News poll question about whether she would continue to support state funding for the Gravina Island bridge if elected governor. "The window is now," she wrote, "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist." It was only after she won the governorship that Palin shifted her position. And even then, it’s inaccurate to say that she “told the Congress ‘thanks, but no thanks.’” Palin accepted non-earmarked money from Congress that could have been used for the bridge if she so desired. That she opted to use it for other state transportation purposes doesn’t qualify as standing up to Congress.
The bridge reversal is not the only matter throwing doubt on Palin’s credentials as a government waste reformer. Watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense has reported that the small town of Wasilla, Alaska, which had not previously received significant federal funds, hauled in almost $27 million in earmarks while Palin was mayor. (McCain has explicitly criticized several of the Wasilla earmarks in recent years.) To help obtain these earmarks, Palin had hired Steven Silver, the former chief of staff for recently indicted Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, as Wasilla’s lobbyist.
And Palin continued to solicit federal funds as governor. A request form on Stevens’ Web site shows that she requested $160.5 million in earmarks for the state in 2008, and almost $198 million for 2009.
Palin disparaged Obama’s legislative record, both in Illinois and in Washington:
Palin: But listening to him speak, it’s easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or even a reform, not even in the state Senate.
Of course, we can’t say what Palin considers “major.” But if Palin’s own ethics reforms in Alaska were important enough to highlight in her convention address, then it’s only fair to credit Obama’s efforts on that topic. In 1998 in the Illinois Senate, Obama cosponsored an ethics overhaul that bars elected officials from using their campaign funds for personal use and and was called the the first major overhaul of Illinois campaign and ethics laws in 25 years. It also bans fundraisers in the state Capitol during legislative sessions. Obama’s Republican cosponsor Kirk Dillard even appeared in an Obama ad last summer describing Obama’s skills working with members of both parties to get legislation passed.
In Washington, Obama was instrumental in helping to craft the 2007 ethics reform law that ended gifts and meals from lobbyists, cut off subsidized jet travel for members of Congress, required lobbyists to disclose contributions they “bundle” to candidates, and put the brakes on other, similar common practices.
In addition, we already noted in a recent article Obama’s efforts with Republican senators to help detect and secure weapons of mass destruction and to destroy conventional weapons stockpiles around the world, and to create a publicly searchable database on federal spending.
One area where we note improvement is the way Palin attacked Obama's tax proposals – as a burden "on the American economy" rather than, as McCain has been falsely claiming, a direct tax increase on middle-income workers:
Palin: And let me be specific: The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, and raise payroll taxes, and raise investment income taxes, and raise the death tax, and raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars. ... How are you – how are you going to be better off if our opponent adds a massive tax burden to the American economy?
Her tax remarks still cry out for context. Obama proposes to cut taxes for most individuals (81.3 percent of all households would get a tax cut), while raising them only for a relative few at the top, which she did not mention. But she avoided the false claims that McCain continues to make, most recently in a TV ad that wrongly accuses Obama of planning "painful tax increases on working American families." Instead, Palin spoke of the effect of an overall tax increase on jobs and the economy.
It's quite true that Obama's plan would increase taxes overall, by a total of $627 billion over 10 years, according to the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. Economists may debate how large or small an effect such an increase would have on jobs and businesses; it's certainly a topic open for discussion in a political campaign.
In attacking Obama, Palin reeled off a few statements that had a nice cadence, but were light on facts.
Palin: America needs more energy; our opponent is against producing it. Victory in Iraq is finally in sight, and he wants to forfeit. Terrorist states are seeking nuclear weapons without delay; he wants to meet them without preconditions. Al Qaida terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America, and he's worried that someone won't read them their rights.
We have factual problems with three of these statements.
Obama's not against producing more energy. In fact, he's not even against drilling for oil any more, within limits. He has a $150 billion clean energy program and says that he wants to develop clean coal technology, advance the next generation of biofuels, prioritize construction of the Alaska gas pipeline (surely a measure Palin agrees with) and take a host of other steps to both conserve energy and produce it, in various forms.
If Obama's comments about meeting with "terrorist states" are worthy of ridicule, then perhaps so are those of the Bush administration and other Republicans. Obama made his first statement on this in an answer to a video question at a Democratic debate last year, when he said "I would" when asked whether he'd meet "separately, without precondition" in his first year with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. Reagan, JFK and other presidents had spoken to the Soviet Union regularly, he noted.
In a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in June, Obama elaborated, saying that he would take an aggressive diplomatic approach – carefully preparing for such meetings, setting a clear agenda, coordinating with U.S. allies, and not conducting the meetings at all unless they were clearly in the U.S. interest. He also stressed he would "do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."
In recent months, the Bush Administration has been more open to beginning a dialogue with the same nations that it once referred to as the “axis of evil.” In July, the president sent a high-level official to Geneva to sit in on nuclear talks with Iran and authorized Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to speak with North Korean diplomats about ending that country’s nuclear weapons program. Reports in the Washington Post and the New York Times noted the stark contrast between the administration’s current position about meeting with “foes” and its attitude several years ago.
Further, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in May that we should "sit down and talk" with Iran. So did former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in March. As did Sen. Dick Lugar, then chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as far back as 2006.
Obama isn't worried, as Palin said, "that someone won't read them their rights" when it comes to suspected terrorists who are detained by the U.S. He does, however, support the right of detainees to challenge their imprisonment in federal court. That's the same position the Supreme Court took in June in a case called Boumediene v. Bush.
Cookin' with Gas
Palin talked about standing up to oil companies and oil lobbyists, citing her work on getting a gas pipeline built in Alaska:
Palin: I fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history. And when that deal was struck, we began a nearly $40 billion natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence.
Actually, construction hasn’t begun on the pipeline, and the project isn't quite a done deal. Palin signed legislation just last week that authorizes the state to give a license in 90 days to TransCanada to start developing the project. The state also can provide $500 million as seed money. She gets credit for moving the pipeline closer to realization after many years of talks. Palin pushed for legislation that would allow a private company to build the 1,715-mile natural gas pipeline, instead of oil companies, which she said were moving too slowly on the issue.
In an Aug. 27 press release, Palin indicated that there was still work to be done before the project would become a reality:
Palin, press release, Aug. 27: After dreaming of a natural gas pipeline for more than 30 years, Alaskans have now created the framework for the project to advance. This legislation brings us closer than we’ve ever been to building a gas pipeline and finally accessing our gas that has been languishing for so many decades on the North Slope.
Washington Post energy correspondent Steven Mufson wrote that the major oil companies have opposed the pipeline project, saying it wasn’t economically feasible. Yet, ConocoPhillips and BP have proposed their own gas pipeline that would compete with the state-backed project. TransCanada estimates it will take 10 years to finish the pipeline, according to its application to the state, and it will cost about $26.5 billion – not $40 billion as Palin said.
As for Palin having “stood up to ... the Big Oil companies,” as she said in her speech, she has on this issue, not on others. Oil is, after all, incredibly important to Alaska’s economy. About 80 percent of the state budget comes from oil and gas taxes and royalties. Palin is in favor of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and offshore areas, a position she shares with oil companies.
The biggest whopper of the night may have come from former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who charged that Palin “got more votes running for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, than Joe Biden got running for president of the United States.” It may sound like a great line, but it’s not true – not even close. Palin garnered 651 votes in 1996 and 909 votes in 1999 in her two races for mayor of Wasilla, according to the city. Biden, despite withdrawing from the race after the Iowa caucus, got 79,754 votes in the Democratic primaries.
– by Viveca Novak, with Brooks Jackson, Jess Henig, Lori Robertson and D'Angelo Gore
Sources
Bowlen, Scott. "Palin: It's about service to people." Ketchikan Daily News. 9 Aug. 2006.
Anchorage Daily News. "Where they stand; Running for Governor 2006." 22 Oct. 2006.
Taxpayers for Common Sense. "Wasilla, Alaska Benefited from Nearly $27 Million in Earmarks from 1996 to 2002." 2 Sep. 2008.
Hamburger, Tom, Richard Simon and Janet Hook. "McCain had criticized earmarks from Palin." The Los Angeles Times. 3 Sep. 2008.
Hamburger, Tom. "Palin relied on earmark system she now opposes." The Los Angeles Times. 1 Sep. 2008.
Long, Ray and Christi Parsons, “Campaign Finance Reform not Without Its Loopholes; Edgar calls Ethics Legislation ‘Significant Step’”. Chicago Tribune, 13 Aug. 1998.
Cooper, Helen. “A New Openness to Talks With That ‘Axis of Evil’.” The New York Times, 22 July 2008
Eggen, Dan. “U.S. Talks With Iran Exemplify Bush's New Approaches.” The Washington Post, 20 July 2008
Sciolino, Elaine and Steven Lee Myers. “Policy Shift Seen in U.S. Decision on Iran Talks.” The New York Times, 17 July 2008
Obama, Barack. “Remarks of Senator Barack Obama: AIPAC Policy Conference.” Barackobama.com, 4 June 2008, accessed 4 Sept. 2008
The New York Times. “Transcript: Fourth Democratic Debate,” 4 June 2007
Yen, Hope. "Two Senators Say U.S. Should Pursue Nuclear Talks with Tehran." Associated Press, 17 April 2006.
Bender, Michael. "Obama Would Consider Off-Shore Drilling as Part of Comprehensive Energy Plan," Palm Beach Post, 1 Aug. 2008.
DeYoung, Karen. "Gates: U.S. Should Engage Iran With Incentives, Pressure," The Washington Post." 15 May 2008.
Hall, Camilla and Mike Schneider. "Kissinger Backs Direct U.S. Negotiations With Iran." Bloomberg.com. 14 March 2008.
McCain, John and Salter, Mark, "Faith of my Fathers," Random House 1999; 173.
Williams, Roberton and Gleckman, Howard. “An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates’ Tax Plans." Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, 15 Aug 2008.
Boeing Corp. "A4D/A-4 Skyhawk Light Attack Bomber," Web page giving description and brief history of A-4 Skyhawk, accessed 4 Sep 2008.
The Skyhawk Association, "Navy Fighter Weapons School, 'TOP GUN'" Web page accessed 4 Sep 2008.
Application for License, Alaska Gasline Inducement Act. Project Cost Estimate. TransCanada, 30 Nov. 2007.
“Palin Signs AGIA License Bill,” press release. State of Alaska Governor’s Office, 27 Aug. 2008.
Ordonez, Isabel and Cassandra Sweet. “Conoco Proceeds With Alaska Gas Pipeline; Wants Exxon To Join.” Dow Jones Newswires, 8 Aug. 2008.
Mufson, Steve. “Sarah Palin and Big Oil.” Energy Wire, PostGlobal, washingtonpost.com, 30 Aug. 2008.
Sutton, Anne. “Alaska gov. backs license for natural gas pipeline.” The Associated Press, 23 May 2008.
1996 Election Results. City of Wasilla, Alaska. Cityofwasilla.com, accessed 4 Sept. 2008.
1999 Election Results. City of Wasilla, Alaska. Cityofwasilla.com, accessed 4 Sept. 2008.
2008 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions. Democratic Convention. The Green Papers, accessed 4 Sept. 2008.
Vock, Daniel C. "Obama's record in the Illinois Senate." Stateline.org, 25 Aug 2008.
Vock, Daniel C. "Obama; He puts ethics on the agenda." Illinois Issues Online, Feb 2007.
Related Articles
Maverick
Nowhere in your article did you mention "official."
A doctrine is simply a codification of policy, which Bush created in 2002 with the "National Security Strategy of the United States."
The point I was trying to make is that Palin stated in Alaska that she will be enrolling her daughter to the IDEA home schooling program, and we already know that Palin has an agenda about the reality of the world according to the science that makes it possible for us to communicate via a GPS system (the relativity, including spatial, of time), or the science that allows Alaska to find oil based on the geophysics of strata where once upon a time, way before the time of Cain (a very interesting archetype if analyzed in that Mc way), there existed living things that died and got compressed.
Indeed, no single policy was ever oficially labeled "the Bush Doctrine."
Sorry for not having caught the *official* but it is moot. Gibson simply asked Palin if she agreed with the Bush Doctrine.
According to the NYT: “The churches that Sarah has attended all believe in a literal translation of the Bible,” Ms. Kincaid said. “Her principal ethical and moral beliefs stem from this.”
Janet Kincaid has known and worked with Palin for a decade and half.
It's unfortunate that Palin's politics and personal religious beliefs are entwined, since whatever anyone believes in in terms of God for their life is fine. Just don't make that the basis for decisions that can affect a world filled with people who have other belief systems, and especially not if the policy Palin could potentially stand for includes killing people with WMD who have a different view, and thus are expendable since they are *not saved.* according to *literal* words written by dead men with agendas.
And googleing "National Security Strategy of the United States" helps me identify which year you were referencing that identfies a "Bush Doctrine" in the NSSUS in what way??
Personally, I thought the question might have been loaded, but only because Gibson may have been testing her knowledge of foreign policy. I also believe that while the average person on the street might not know what the Bush Doctrine is, a candidate who might end up in the oval office should know exactly what Gibson was talking about.
Incidentally, Bush reiterated his doctrine during the brief remarks he made to the Republican convention when he said we need a leader like John McCain who will take preemptive action against threats or something to that effect.
It was, of course the Bush Doctrine that created the basis for our fiasco in Iraq and generally carried our military expenditures so out of sight that there is little money now to deal with the real and existing economic problems facing the country.
The money will be generated, of course, but the resulting total level of financial irresponsibility under the Bush administration has made it necessary to put the printing presses in high gear, which has already set the stage for another future crisis down the road....hyper inflation...
I'm hoping the next leader puts the Bush Doctrine back on the shelf where it belongs, if for no other reason than that we can't afford it.......
According to the NYT: “The churches that Sarah has attended all believe in a literal translation of the Bible,” Ms. Kincaid said. “Her principal ethical and moral beliefs stem from this.”
Remember, Bent, the NYT has had to correct more than one of their Palin stories already. Further, it says nothing about her personal beliefs. You do realize that since 2002, she has attended a "non-denominational" church, which doesn't preach a literal acceptance of the Bible. This undermines the NYT claim.
Basically, you seem to think there is a religious "litmus test" for political candidates. Of course, there is, unofficially. The nation isn't ready for a Muslim president, and Romney's experience shows that Mormons are not acceptable to many people. JFK had to tell the American people "I will not take orders from the Vatican" in the 1960 race, and Obama has had to separate himself from the hateful "liberation theology" of his Baptist church.
However, using religion against a political opponent is tricky, and often backfires. Kennedy was elected, and Romney's father got less criticism for his faith when he was considering a run for president. The new religious "intolerants" seem to come from the left. They attacked Romney, and now Palin, though they defended Obama's church, until it became plain how political the sermons were. Of course, many on the left hate this country as much as Rev. Wright does, so it's understandable.
Wait until she gets a few more interviews, and tell me when she says anything herself that fits your definition of a "religious zealot."
I had an interesting idea, since so many in Alaska are infatuated with her. With so many suggesting Palin had sold her soul to the Alaska Independent Party until remortgaging it to the Republican Party's neoconservatives, why not go ahead and build that bridge to nowhere, but to another continent.
It only cost taxpayers a bit over $7 million in 1867 (about $350 million inflation adjusted), when the then Sec. of State Seward Seward suggested it.
Sell Alaska back to Russia, or better yet, to China. That might almost pay off the debt and chaos Bush with McCain has encumbered US with. But knowing Palin, she'd put Alaska on E-bay, and say God made her do it
I'm sure Alaska must be worth some $10 trillion. Then we'd have just enough left over to build that wall to nowhere on the Mexican border...
Way up north, (North To Alaska.)
Way up north, (North To Alaska.)
North to Alaska,
They're goin' North, the rush is on.
North to Alaska,
They're goin' North, the rush is on.
Wake up a little...
Get over yourself already.
You can fool some some people some of the time...
but for God's sake, this election is not about you, me or Palin!
She said what she said, done what she's done, and we can dance around it until we we wake up in caves again to argue over which Thor-like character gave us the holy communion of fire, since matches will take several dark ages to again be invented
This is about the future of our children and a true war monger named McCain.
I think you have inadvertently hit upon the real problem, Bent.......
What IS this election actually about??
Race?? Sex?? Good Looks?? Age?? Killing Moose & Building Bridges?? War Records?? Community Organization?? Birth Certificates?? Lipstick On Pigs?? Waffles?? Pregnant Unwed Daughters?? Reverse Racism?? Knowing how to send an e-mail?? Dismissing Alaskan police officers?? How much your wife paid for a pair of earrings?? Whether your speech was scripted or not?? All of the above or none of the above??
He said "this election is not about me, or Sen. McCain...this election is about YOU!"
Think of our children.
Look at Corpus Christi, Texas. It looks like a nuclear bomb hit it.
Countless Asian communities and places closer to home like Haiti - many here could care less about - know the scene very well.
We'll be having many of those types disasters if we continue with the Bush legacy, and not just because global warming pushes geophysical systems to more violently redistribute the radiation trapped by greenhouse gases. It might likely also be real nuclear bombs!
BTW, I hope it's dawning on you that I'm not the least bit invested in changing your mind, Christopher.
Just don't want undecided folks to heed the advice of predatory corporate/lenders' mouthpieces.
The Bush Doctrine, as a result of this document, is one of the few presidential foreign policy strategies in history to actually have been put in writing.
David, PNAC is NOT (repeat: NOT) an official government agency.
Is your comment supposed to mean you can't read it, or is this charade just running out of logical arguments.
Everyone knows - or should know - it's the blueprint for the Bush Doctrine. Everyone knows - or should know - that many of the signers, including Rumsfeld, Cheney and Libby, and many more, became members of the Bush administration in foreign policy positions, and carried out the provisions of the PNAC's Statement of Principle under the name of the Bush Doctrine.
Apparently, someone must have decided that the way to protect Palin may be to have everyone join her in her ignorance of foreign policy matters.
At least that's what I'm getting out of this.
The foregoing represent the body of principles that do in fact conform to the definition of a "doctrine," a word historically applied to foreign policy. The PNAC statement became Bush's "body of principles" - his doctrine.
And Palin should have known that.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
I didn't see any "sinister" motives, and I read the whole thing. You may disagree with them politically, but they have a right to advocate policies and principles that many Americans share.
Maybe you just overlooked the most important passage of all, to wit:
"The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire."
This is the blueprint for preemptive strikes that Wolfowitz carried with him to the Pentagon and which enabled him to become the architect of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Oh and there was also that call for America to be the world leader which, depending on how you interpret it, is either ok or not so. I'm guessing, in terms of the Republican administration we've had for seven years - not so.
Then look at Bush's White House
Just now, the White House stated that it would be paying compensation for what Reagan did when some 80 innocent people were bombed in Tripoli back in 1986.
Now, both Reagan and Clinton have exercised this sort of military response, as opposed to police action, to a distant "theoretical" terrorist action (Reagan against Libya following the bombing death of a couple of US soldiers in the then West-Berlin, and Clinton 3 times [1st Iraq, with a possible assassination plot against Bush, then Sudan and Afghanistan after the US embassy bombings in Africa, and to handicap further terrorist attacks]). Of course, Bush-dad kicked Iraq out of Kuwait, but that's an entirely different story.
One of the sad effects of the Bush administration has been that with all its loud efforts to "cry wolf!" so as to expedite its agendas, who in our world once so filled with allies can now really trust what another Republican president states as being incontrovertible proof of someone's or some nation's terrorist plotting?
No, it was only on war on terror issues that the media declared a "Bush doctrine," as if he had some sacred text that defined how he would act, no matter what the actual situation was. This is what I find fault with, and your statements play into that assumption.
Here's a question: How has Bush implemented this PNAC principle: "we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values." The liberal talking point is that Bush has damaged our relationships with our allies, and we certainly haven't challenged most of the nations that fit the latter category. We do business with the Saudis, Russia, China, etc, even as they routinely act in ways that are counter to our national interest.
Just a little food for thought.
Announcing his 2006 decision to designate a group of remote Hawaiian islands as the world's largest marine reserve, President Bush said, "It's larger than 46 of our 50 states, and more than seven times larger than all our national marine sanctuaries combined. This is a big deal."
President Bush has appointed more women and minorities to high-level posts than any other president in history. Everyone can point to his two African American secretaries of state, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, as well as his Hispanic attorney general, Alberto Gonzales. But a number of lesser-known Cabinet secretaries also broke the old-boy mold. His commerce secretary, Carlos Gutierrez, is a Cuban-born businessman. His past and present transportation secretaries have been an Asian American man (Norman Mineta) and a woman (Mary Peters). His education secretaries have been an African American man (Rod Paige) and a woman (Margaret Spellings). His labor secretary, Elaine Chao, was the first Asian American woman in US history to be appointed to a Cabinet post.
President Bush has freed roughly 40 million people, between Afghanistan and Iraq, from dictatorship and Taliban.
President Bush established the Prescription Drug Plan for seniors, helping make them more affordable.
President Bush started the USA Freedom Corps, the most comprehensive clearinghouse of volunteer opportunities ever offered in history.
President Bush issued an Executive Order implementing the Supreme Court's Olmstead ruling, mandating the moving of disabled people from institutions to community based facilities whenever possible.
President Bush rebuilt our Military from a decade long decrease in funding to dangerously low levels, starting when he entered office. The building continues currently, including ABM (anti-ballistic missile) defenses, in case North Korea, Iran, or some rogue state decides to shoot missiles at America.
President Bush lowered dividend taxes and income taxes, stimulating sustained higher revenue income, also to this day.
President Bush put together and submitted a comprehensive energy plan for the country. President Clinton had submitted nothing in 8 years, leaving us in a weak, oil dependant position.
The so called “Bush Doctrine” is both a moving target and a tool the MSM uses to crate an impression so they can use it as shorthand. And it is especially conceived for the detractor to reference it as Charlie Gibson did in away to show a knowledge they have that the other person is no smart enough to have. Charlie gave his definition based on 2002 date. The Boston Globe, as credible a source as Charlie Gibson, said “THE Bush Doctrine - born on Sept. 20, 2001, when President Bush bluntly warned the sponsors of violent jihad: "You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists" - is dead. Its demise was announced by Condoleezza Rice last Friday.” (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/01/16/death_of_the_bush_doctrine/)
The Boston Globe made this statement in January. So who is right? Was Sarah Palin right to ask for clarification that Charlie refused until she had asked the question?
Many will demean your article, but they seem to be the ones that have their eyes shaded by such strong ideological bigotry that their normal general reasoning is tainted.
I echo Spencer T’s words about the quality of your work, please keep working I will just have to get into the conversation earlier.
Isn't the internet and Goggling great?
(Something to do with scuba diving??)
And it is so defined in the American Heritage Dictionary.
Bush's foreign policy was based on the Bush Doctrine as originally set forth by the PNAC, a fact that Palin should have known.
You might call it Foreign Policy 101...
“Flunk” seems to suggest there was an actual test with a grading system, I surely didn’t see Charlie Gibson mention that before the interview. If you have a coping of the grading criteria, I would surely appreciate a copy of it or a link to it so I can use t for the interviews for the other candidates.
I haven’t seen the formal pronouncement that this is the “Bush Doctrine”, do you have a copy? Could you send me a link to it?
If there is no formal Bush Administration document proclaims the “Bush Doctrine” then I feel it is reasonable to presume each media organization/writer has their own definition, and that each is most likely a different description of the “doctrine.”
When I was growing up my teachers regularly told me and others that if you don’t understand the question/what is specifically being ask, then you should ask for clarification? Do you think all of those teachers were wrong? Do you think when answering a question from such a renowned reporter as Charlie Gibson the interviewee shouldn’t what to be sure to answer on the specifics? Can you explain to me why when Palin ask for clarification that Gibson sat mute and then once she gave her answer he quickly gave he his interpretation? Do you think his mind works that slow that it took him that much time to process her request before he could answer?
My view of Plain was she carried her self well, her delivery of answers was crisp no noticeable “hemming and hawing,” no incomplete sentences, certainly less fidgeting than Charlie, she had very good eye contact (much better than Charlie’s and ABC edited these tapes), her answers were to the questions, she did have any specifically "campaign speak" that she had to say before actually answering the question. People may not have like the answers, as if they were going to get something that was diametrically opposed to the the guy who selected her, but all in all she gave a very good (considering the long skilled interviewer), make that an excellent accounting of herself.
Please send me that grading sheet so I can better evaluate how Joe, John, and Barack on there next interviews. I still think without George Stevranoplus’s help Obama would have had a bit of hole to dig out of from that ABC interview.