'Much ado about nothing' is the best way to describe the cries of incompetence flying from the anti-Palin blogosphere and Obama supporters generally over Palin's "Bush Doctrine" response with Charlie Gibson.
While they "know" what the term means definitively... as one can learn by doing a quick google search and finding it is practically synonymous with 'pre-emptive war' to them, there are few without strong ideological biases who can say the same.
Most importantly the Pulitzer prize winning commentator who coined the term:
Charlie Gibson's Gaffe
By Charles Krauthammer
Saturday, September 13, 2008; A17
"At times visibly nervous . . . Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of 'anticipatory self-defense.' "
-- New York Times, Sept. 12
Informed her? Rubbish.
The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.
There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.
He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"
She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"
Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."
Wrong.
While left-wingers will certainly cry foul, as they've long known what the term means because, frankly, that's how they've used it for years and prefer it that way because it allows them to use it as a pejorative amongst their left-wing pals. The problem is that Bush's foreign policy could hardly be summed up with such a one-sided over-simplification, unless distorting it for a partisan agenda is your goal, of course.
Even if you can get Palin's opponents to admit such a thing (unlikely at best) they'll still cry out that she looked like 'a deer in headlights' and obviously had no idea whatsoever by asking for a clarification. But as even the person who coined the term notes:
Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed "doctrines" in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines which come out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few other contradictory or conflicting foreign policy crosscurrents.
Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine.
Yes, Sarah Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage.
Could she have responded more forcibly similar to this? Yes, and it would have been impressive as hell. But to presume that she'd assume a left-wing over-simplification of a co-opted term with no specific or generally agreed upon meaning beyond their clique is absurd at best. A manufactured issue at worst.
Meanwhile...
The Obama campaign and supporters are beside themselves that the McCain camp would dare use out of context quotes to paint a distorted picture of their candidate. A tactic that both the DNC and the Obama campaign has been using since long before their nomination battles ended to attack McCain.
Most recently is a less than subtle jab at McCain's age and implying that he's somehow unaware of e-commerce or the importance of computers in our economy generally.
And how do they try to paint a guy who has been dealing with e-commerce, internet, computer, etc issues with the economy as a member of the tech subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee since long before Obama was even a blip on the radar of big league politics?
A couple out of context quotes... being his usual self-deprecating way while on the campaign trail. Humor is obviously not off limits as we've seen numerous times before with the Obama attacks.
Obama has reminded us time and time again of McCain's notorious comment on not knowing enough about the economy. And while Obama and his supporters whine about deception, this self-deprecating comment is far better known than McCain's years upon years upon years sitting on an economic focused committee with a strong record to show for it... a fact that
factcheck.org pointed out when the DNC was using it to paint him as an economic ignoramus... while also noting that neither Dem candidate at the time had any comparable economic experience.
Even though this issue, as were many others, debunked months and months ago, the Obama campaign and his supporters champion them while whining that McCain's ads are misleading and point to recent factcheck.org articles to cry the 'most dishonorable campaign in history.'
What a fucking joke. Honestly.
Meanwhile the partisan hypocrisy hasn't taken a break on either side.
This computer ad is yet another example where McCain's loose talk express derailed some of his strongest selling points. And the left-wingers are already whining that his supporters have noted his injuries are part of the reason for his limited use of computers (something known for years upon years). But as far as their 'noun, verb, POW' criticisms, they're eerily similar to the GOP complaints about Kerry always mentioning his service. Yet another hypocritical part of this year's campaign.
While considered one of the more
cyber-savvy candidates of 2000, with a strong record to show on such issues... the attempt to paint him as some ol' fogey with no understanding of these issues is just more deception from the people whining about deception.
If the left-wingers want McCain to start pulling punches they should stop saying Obama will debate McCain 'anytime, anywhere' and actually stop hiding from every opportunity offered to do so.
If they want a stand up debate... get Obama to STAND THE FUCK UP instead of cowering from the big dog.
If they want McCain to stop going negative, perhaps they should get Obama to apologize for running his entire campaign that way from start to finish. If I hear he's "
going to take the gloves off" one more time I might get physically ill.
Right off the bat his party and campaign smeared McCain, a decorated veteran, as a warmonger with blatant lies taking comments out of context and corrected by factcheckers and even denied by Obama himself when called on it... with no apologies. Obama stood on the Senate floor and accused McCain of not caring enough about veterans because he supported a different version of a bill for veterans benefits.
If Obama wants a fair fight, he should have taken his own advice months ago. A call for a fair fight is only sincere if you don't start off dirty yourself. Otherwise nobody in their right mind is going to fight fair while the other has a record and is currently fighting dirty.
If Obama wants to make amends... the onus is on him to apologize. Until then he can fucking deal.
[/end of rant]
