Transcribing the Lunacy that is the Republican Ticket for President of the U.S.

by jhwygirl

West Fork Blues has transcribed a nice huge chunk of ABC News Charlie Gibson’s interview with Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin. I, for one, am grateful. It’s good to see the ludicrous stuff she actually said instead of hearing about it via talk show wonks.

Thanks West Fork Blues!

Vote accordingly, folks.

In fact – you can register to vote or request an absentee ballot right here at this link. So all of you new residents of Montana – I’m speaking to you new University of Montana students, people – click that link and get the job done.

Advertisements

  1. goof houlihan

    My son’s at UM. He’s registered to vote, didn’t need any cuties in pink ears to inspire him to do that, and he’s got a nice blue McCain sticker on his Chevy pickup. But I’ll remind him of your concern that he votes.

  2. Everyone should vote goof…That reminder isn’t partisan.

  3. Goofy Houlihan, Jr.: American Iconoclast.

    Can you call it a “pickup” if you’re not a farmer or a rancher? I’d like to raise a point of order here. I think that if you’re not a farmer or a rancher or some other kind of rurally situated individual who uses a truck every day for work then I think you have to pretty much call it a car. A Chevy car. Or a truck. But not a pickup. People in cities don’t drive pickups.

  4. rickclemens

    What about contractors?

  5. goof houlihan

    Well, here in Montana, in the United States, I can call it a pickup. I missed the part in the definition listed below about “rurally situated individual who uses a truck every day for work”. I doubt, outside your Subaru infested mind, there’s any such requirement.

    I prefer to think of Junior as “like a rock”.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickup_truck

  6. Contractors? Well, I did say rural. I’m standing by it.

    Subaru infested? I’m defending the old-school definition of a pickup and you call me Subaru infested? Whatever.

    I’m supposed to use Wikipedia instead of forming my own opinion and thinking for myself?

    Can I just ask, does this pickup have cloth seats?

    Have fun.

  7. goof houlihan

    yes, we replaced the vinyl seated 70 chevy because this one gets twice the gas mileage and runs on unleaded and has airbags. I suppose all those are bad things that detract from your definition of “pickup”. It has a vinyl floor (no carpet), though.

    Contractors, and plumbers, electricians, masons, glaziers, roofers, etc, and recreationalists with campers and boats and horses, four wheelers and motorcycles and snowmobiles, none of which can call their trucks, pickups, apparently.

    There is no old school definition of a pickup you could cite that supports your point of view. Check out the “pickup roadster” on the wiki site. It’s just in your “thinking for yourself” and you alone. That’s fine, but I think you’ve been refuted.

  8. JC

    Speaking of pickups, I thought this article was about Sarah Palin.

  9. Fionn

    Thanks for the link to Francis Woods transcript of the Gibson/Palin interview at West Fork Blues, Jhwygirl. Here is a complete transcript from another site. http://www.clipsandcomment.com/2008/09/12/transcript-sarah-palin-interview-with-charles-gibson-part-i/

    While Woods was helpful in typing this up, I must say that his comments were, to be blunt, rather adolescent and unimaginative. My 8th grade niece provided much more mature commentary.

    While there is much to address, I will limit my response to Woods comments on Palin’s response to Gibson’s “Bush Doctrine” gotcha question. Woods states:

    Palin bungled that one. We all know what the “Bush Doctrine” is now, but I would expect our heads of state to be more knowledgable(sic) that the average American.

    “We all know…..” Woods? Not so quick. Many, many others disagree with you that “we all know” there is only one definition of the Bush Doctrine. Wikipedia states policy experts argue over the meaning of the term and that various experts suggest there are up to six or seven interpretations of what it means:

    “It may be viewed as a set of several related foreign policy principles, including stress on ending terrorism, spreading democracy, increased unilateralism in foreign policy and an expanded view of American national security interests. Foreign policy experts argue over the meaning of the term “Bush Doctrine,” and some scholars have suggested that there is no one unified theory underlying Bush’s foreign policy. Jacob Weisberg identifies six successive “Bush Doctrines” in his book The Bush Tragedy,[1] while former Bush staffer Peter D. Feaver has counted seven.[2] Other foreign policy experts have taken the term to mean Bush’s doctrine of preventive war, first articulated in 2002, which holds 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.”

    (Note to all……While I always suspect Wikipedia’s accuracy it nevertheless demonstrates conflicting definitions of this term.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_doctrine

    Then there is the recent editorial by Charles Krauthammer who claims he was the first to use the term in 2001. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/charlie_gibsons_gaffe.html

    He argues there is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine and there have been 4 distinct meanings and says Charlie Gibson’s version is not the current one:

    According to Krauthammer:

    The 1st Bush Doctrine is:
    “…….I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.”

    The 2nd Bush Doctrine is:
    “This “with us or against us” policy regarding terror — first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan — became the essence of the Bush Doctrine.”

    Number 3 is:
    “A year later, when the Iraq War was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of pre-emptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine. It’s not. It’s the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth… ”

    Finally, the 4th and, according to Krauthammer the “current” Bush Doctrine is”
    …..current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of Bush foreign policy and the one that most distinctively defines it: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush’s second inaugural address: “The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.”
    This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy’s pledge that the United States “shall pay any price, bear any burden … to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson’s 14 points.”
    I have read others who claim Gibson, Krauthammer and Wikipedia are wrong. Alexander F. DiPippo (another conservative) claims the US had always targeted organizations that carried out acts and implies this has been done unilaterally. What makes the Bush Doctrine new is that it holds individual states that sponsor terrorism accountable, not just the terrorist organizations themselves: “This is the core of the Bush doctrine. States or nations that sponsor terrorism would not be treated any differently from stateless terrorist organizations (e.g., Al-Qaeda).”

    He argues the right to use pre-emptive strikes is just one means of “enforcing” the Bush Doctrine but is not “the” Bush Doctrine.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/09/still_more_confusion_about_the.html

    Robert Kagan, in “The Return of History”, The Los Angeles Times, August 5, 2007 has a broader interpretation of the Bush Doctrine:

    “When people talk about a Bush Doctrine, they generally refer to three sets of principles –
    the idea of preemptive or preventive military action;
    the promotion of democracy and “regime change”;
    and a diplomacy tending toward “unilateralism,” a willingness to act without the sanction of international bodies such as the United Nations Security Council or the unanimous approval of its allies.”
    http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=19477&prog=zgp&proj=zusr&zoom_highlight=%22bush+doctrine%22

    He goes on to argue that this policy is an evolution of long held American political thought and experiences expressed by many administrations in both parties:

    “But these qualities of U.S. foreign policy reflect not one man or one party or one circle of thinkers. They spring from the nation’s historical experience. They are underpinned, on the one hand, by old beliefs and ambitions and, on the other, by power. As long as Americans elect leaders who believe it is the role of the United States to improve the world, they are unlikely to abjure any of these tools. And as long as American power in all its forms is sufficient to shape the behavior of others, the broad direction of American foreign policy is unlikely to change.”

    (If you have time, read Kagan’s book “Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order” for an excellent analysis of US and European diplomatic relations over the past 60 years)

    The point is, Gibson set out to do a “gotcha” interview with Palin and intentionally used a term with multiple interpretations. If she referenced any one of the 4 or 6 or 7 different meanings some policy experts claim exist, Gibson would have pounced on her that she didn’t understand the policy. Palin didn’t fall for the trap and asked him to clarify. The only criticism I have of Palin is that she was too polite and should have called Gibson out and told him to quit playing games.

    I find it interesting that the most challenging and obviously “gotcha” interviews by the media have been when Hillary and Palin were in the hot seat. Both McCain and Obama (and the majority of the male primary candidates) have been treated with kid gloves. I am waiting for Gibson to subject both McCain and Obama to the same series of questions with the same “look down your nose” professorial demeanor. Or maybe that is only reserved for female candidates.




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


  • Pages

  • Recent Comments

    Miles on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    success rate for In… on Thirty years ago ARCO killed A…
    Warrior for the Lord on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Linda Kelley-Miller on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Dan on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    Former Prosecutor Se… on Former Chief Deputy County Att…
    JediPeaceFrog on Montana AG Tim Fox and US Rep.…
  • Recent Posts

  • Blog Stats

    • 1,670,702 hits
  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 2,737 other followers

  • September 2008
    S M T W T F S
    « Aug   Oct »
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    282930  
  • Categories


%d bloggers like this: