Another Homerun for Palin!

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: eskimospy

So which is it? Do governors have no effect on foreign policy (thus meaning she has no foreign policy experience) or do they? No matter your answer it absolutely is in the interest of governors to understand US security strategy because while they might not have input into it, it very well could affect them and their states... especially if you 'border' Russia as she so often likes to state.

And Pro-Jo, the Bush Doctrine most certainly IS stated. How can you not know this? It's called the National Security Strategy of the United States for Bush's second term!!

Jesus people.

Nice try! I specifically said National foreign policy. The pipeline through Canada is a State foreign policy initiative . A Governor is only required to brush up on the policies of the countries they border, which palin obviously has.

I also specifically said the Bush Doctrine is dead in practice. You can state something all you want but all that matters is what you actually do.

So you think if the US happened to go to war with Iran or Russia or really any other country of significance around the world it wouldn't affect Alaska? Are you crazy? Could this not be a good reason for the governor of a state to know what our foreign policy is based around? The answer by any reasonably rational person is yes.

And now we're trying to parse between "national foreign policy experience" and "state foreign policy experience"? hahahaha. Does this remind anyone of the sudden modification from "experience" to "executive experience" from a week or two ago? If your horrible VP pick doesn't have something, just modify the terms until she does! Whee!

EDIT: Also, the Bush foreign policy is not dead, merely dormant. They don't have the troops available to attack other countries at the moment, that is nowhere close to meaning that their intentions have changed. So no, the doctrine is not dead just because they are temporarily unable to follow it as they would like.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
If she doesn't have the time to keep up with foreign affairs she has no business running for VP.

Then almost no one, including Obama has business running for president since none of them really keep up with all these policies until they decide to run for office. You guys are setting the bar so high that no one should ever be president.

Yes, because Biden has zero experience in foreign affairs. :roll: At least Obama chose someone that strengthens his weaknesses, what does Palin do for McCain's lack of foreign policy experience? rofl.

Edit: The bar SHOULD be set high in foreign policy. And we should NOT make excuses for administrations who lack it. Look what happened in the last 8 years when we had the same "lower the bar" attitude you are spouting. Wake. up. please.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Yes, because Biden has zero experience in foreign affairs. :roll: At least Obama chose someone that strengthens his weaknesses, what does Palin do for McCain's lack of foreign policy experience? rofl.

Excuse me? McCain has just as much foreign policy experience as Biden. I would rather the top of the ticket have that experience than the second in command.

 

[kage69]

I wasn't aware Palin had even a single "home-run," (unless you count the nom itself) but whatever that video was supposed to convey other than despair and pity was really closer to getting beaned in the knee than a home-run.


That's what you guys are calling a home-run?


This really is a fascinating view into what a numb state many conservatives have been lowered to after seven years of GWB. And by fascinating, I mean horribly depressing.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
So you think if the US happened to go to war with Iran or Russia or really any other country of significance around the world it wouldn't affect Alaska? Are you crazy? Could this not be a good reason for the governor of a state to know what our foreign policy is based around? The answer by any reasonably rational person is yes.

And now we're trying to parse between "national foreign policy experience" and "state foreign policy experience"? hahahaha. Does this remind anyone of the sudden modification from "experience" to "executive experience" from a week or two ago? If your horrible VP pick doesn't have something, just modify the terms until she does! Whee!

EDIT: Also, the Bush foreign policy is not dead, merely dormant. They don't have the troops available to attack other countries at the moment, that is nowhere close to meaning that their intentions have changed. So no, the doctrine is not dead just because they are temporarily unable to follow it as they would like.

You really are grasping at straws here. Where in our constitution does it say the States are responsible to protect our borders from invasion? That is right, it is a Federal responsibility. The States lose control of the National Guard during a time of war and those troops are placed under the authority of the President. The Governor has no say so or control of what happens during an invasion.

Dormant is code for dead by the way.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Yes, because Biden has zero experience in foreign affairs. :roll: At least Obama chose someone that strengthens his weaknesses, what does Palin do for McCain's lack of foreign policy experience? rofl.

Excuse me? McCain has just as much foreign policy experience as Biden. I would rather the top of the ticket have that experience than the second in command.

Oh really?

Today this blundering fool just said that "Iraq" should be the focus, not Afghanistan. Less than 6 months ago this fool just found out Al Queda wasn't going into Iran, let alone the difference between Sunni/Shiites. He has experience now? Do you seriously believe what you're saying?

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Oh really?

Today this blundering fool just said that "Iraq" should be the focus, not Afghanistan. Less than 6 months ago this fool just found out Al Queda wasn't going into Iran, let alone the difference between Sunni/Shiites. He has experience now? Do you seriously believe what you're saying?

Do you really want to get in a link war with all the hundreds of gaffes that Biden has made? You are going to lose this one.

Edit:

Who was right about the surge, which Obama has finally admitted succeeded beyond everyone's expectations? That is right, Biden was wrong and McCain was right.

 

[Farang]

nevermind

 

[badnewcastle]

I like her but didn't think it was a home run at all. Gibson asked tough questions, I think she did well but could have done better. I know she doesn't have the foreign affairs experience but she compliments McCain well who has more foreign affairs experience then any of the four candidates. She can empathize with the small towns and compliments McCain who may not be able to do that.

The Obama ticket has Biden who apparently isn't even sure if he was the right pick for VP... And Obama with just as little foreign affairs experience as Palin and he is the main ticket!!!~!!!!

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

I don't understand why Republicans consistently set the bar so low for themselves and their candidates. When we elect unqualified people into office, everyone loses. Think about it.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: eskimospy
So you think if the US happened to go to war with Iran or Russia or really any other country of significance around the world it wouldn't affect Alaska? Are you crazy? Could this not be a good reason for the governor of a state to know what our foreign policy is based around? The answer by any reasonably rational person is yes.

And now we're trying to parse between "national foreign policy experience" and "state foreign policy experience"? hahahaha. Does this remind anyone of the sudden modification from "experience" to "executive experience" from a week or two ago? If your horrible VP pick doesn't have something, just modify the terms until she does! Whee!

EDIT: Also, the Bush foreign policy is not dead, merely dormant. They don't have the troops available to attack other countries at the moment, that is nowhere close to meaning that their intentions have changed. So no, the doctrine is not dead just because they are temporarily unable to follow it as they would like.

You really are grasping at straws here. Where in our constitution does it say the States are responsible to protect our borders from invasion? That is right, it is a Federal responsibility. The States lose control of the National Guard during a time of war and those troops are placed under the authority of the President. The Governor has no say so or control of what happens during an invasion.

Dormant is code for dead by the way.

Now we're not even arguing the same things. I just told you how national foreign policy conducted by Washington could certainly affect individual states. You then countered by saying the federal government is supposed to protect us from invasion. (!?!?!)

That argument is nonsensical because it has absolutely zero to do with the topic at hand. Even if a state is not conducting a war it is still affected by it. I thought that would be obvious. Here, I'll break it down for you as simply as possible:

1.) States inside the US can be affected by the foreign policy of the federal government.
2.) Alaska is a state.
3.) Governors of states should be aware of external forces that can affect their states.
4.) Sarah Palin is a governor of a state.
5.) Therefore, Sarah Palin should be aware of the foreign policy of the United States.

Better now?

Oh, and in what world is dormant a code word for dead? Are you making up more definitions?

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
I don't understand why Republicans consistently set the bar so low for themselves and their candidates. When we elect unqualified people into office, everyone loses. Think about it.

And the Democratic candidate is more qualified how? I am a Libertarian by the way and will probably vote for Bob Barr if he makes it on my States ticket as a protest vote.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Oh really?

Today this blundering fool just said that "Iraq" should be the focus, not Afghanistan. Less than 6 months ago this fool just found out Al Queda wasn't going into Iran, let alone the difference between Sunni/Shiites. He has experience now? Do you seriously believe what you're saying?

Do you really want to get in a link war with all the hundreds of gaffes that Biden has made? You are going to lose this one.

No offense, but I think Biden knows the difference between Sunni/Shiite, which is affiliated with Al Queda, and that Al Queda doesn't exist in Iran. He did it MORE THAN ONCE. It was not a "gaffe", but McCain's exposure as a foreign policy fraud.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
I don't understand why Republicans consistently set the bar so low for themselves and their candidates. When we elect unqualified people into office, everyone loses. Think about it.

And the Democratic candidate is more qualified how? I am a Libertarian by the way and will probably vote for Bob Barr if he makes it on my States ticket as a protest vote.

I'm a Libertarian as well. Surprise, surprise? And I most certainly will NOT be voting for Barr in any way, shape or form. He is a fraud as well. I'm writing in Ron Paul.

Edit: The Dem ticket is more qualified overall than the R's. How? They aren't focusing on Iraq but Afghanistan, for starters. They will ensure that Iraq pullout will be imminent and troops reallocated to Afghanistan so we can finally catch Osama.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Boy, I find this interview just painful to watch. She has been briefed to the gills with a barrel full of Republican-platform buzzwords and phrases, but clearly doesn't know any of the nuance of foreign policy, so she's limited to repeating the same broad strokes over and over. IMO her answer to the God question was pure evasiveness and disingenuousness. I know Republicans will take the view she does well in this interview, but I can't see it at all. She sounds like, well, the mayor of a small town, not the Vice President of the United States. Now I can see why it took her six years and five colleges to get a degree . . .

The VP debates will be interesting. Say what you will about Biden, but he has an enormous amount of experience on the international political stage. It will be pluck and perkiness versus gravitas, and I just can't see her being competitive.

 

[HomerJS]

Originally posted by: Fern
The Bush Doctrine?

Who cares and how is that relevant?

She won't be in office with Bush nor any of his people. She needs to learn the McCain Doctrine, whatever the heck that might be.

Doesn't sound to me like Charlie knows what it is either. He fumbled when ahe asked what his OWN question meant.

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?

Is this another new *Gate* now? The Bush-DoctineGate?

Fern

The reason it's relevant is your forigen policy knowin' ass must be aware what the previous administrtion was up to before you coming in. I knew what is was from following political shows. All the right wing blowhards referred to it constantly. How come somone with FP experience did not know?

 

[HomerJS]

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: jpeyton
It does, but it has a few pillars, pre-emptively striking our enemies being one of the main ones.

The Bush doctrine was a big topic of debate in our country during the first couple years of the Iraq war because it was so controversial.

Absolutely correct in this regard. However, even Bush has dropped the Bush Doctrine during his second term so it pretty much makes it irrelevant at this time. Now, if McCain decides to reinforce this doctrine, then all bets are off.

McCain already reinforced it. He is quoted knowing what we know now he would go into Iraq again. That war was a preemtive strike...aka Bush Doctrine

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

That's her biggest positive and negative unfortunately. When it comes down to it, she doesn't come off as vice-presidential. She comes off as mayor of a small town. It's going to be hard for McCain to sell the foreign policy strong suit with her on the ticket. She clearly drags him down a few notches in this area.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: HomerJS

The reason it's relevant is your forigen policy knowin' ass must be aware what the previous administrtion was up to before you coming in. I knew what is was from following political shows. All the right wing blowhards referred to it constantly. How come somone with FP experience did not know?

It's probably fair to say that less than 25% of the US population could coherently explain what the Bush Doctrine is. It's also probably fair to say that anyone with a greater-than-average level of interest in military and foreign policy could explain it (by way of illustration, I work in a law firm with seven lawyers and about the same number of staff, and at least ten of us could easily explain the Bush Doctrine). God knows I expect a nominated Vice Presidential candidate to fit into the latter category.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Now we're not even arguing the same things. I just told you how national foreign policy conducted by Washington could certainly affect individual states. You then countered by saying the federal government is supposed to protect us from invasion. (!?!?!)

That argument is nonsensical because it has absolutely zero to do with the topic at hand. Even if a state is not conducting a war it is still affected by it. I thought that would be obvious. Here, I'll break it down for you as simply as possible:

1.) States inside the US can be affected by the foreign policy of the federal government.
2.) Alaska is a state.
3.) Governors of states should be aware of external forces that can affect their states.
4.) Sarah Palin is a governor of a state.
5.) Therefore, Sarah Palin should be aware of the foreign policy of the United States.

Better now?

Oh, and in what world is dormant a code word for dead? Are you making up more definitions?

Yes we are arguing the same things. You have not once shown how Governors affect what the Federal Government does when it comes to foreign policy. The fact is they have little say so in the executive decision of the Federal Government. My point about the Federal Government having responsibility in case of invasion (which you did bring up concerning Russia in a previous post.) is to point out that Governors have no control on what the Feds do.

1.) No shit
2.) Ditto
3.) She is
4.) No Shit again
5.) She is aware of the policies that directly affect her State. Read the interview again. She was very well versed on Russia and was well aware of the mechanics of current foreign policy. Her trip to Afghanistan and Iraq prove she is very involved in the parts of foreign policy that directly affect her state.

Lets see here, lame duck President, overextended forces, policies being followed directly opposite of what is stated policy = dead policy.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
No offense, but I think Biden knows the difference between Sunni/Shiite, which is affiliated with Al Queda, and that Al Queda doesn't exist in Iran. He did it MORE THAN ONCE. It was not a "gaffe", but McCain's exposure as a foreign policy fraud.

It was a gaffe, but you are never going to admit that, are you?

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
I don't understand why Republicans consistently set the bar so low for themselves and their candidates. When we elect unqualified people into office, everyone loses. Think about it.

And the Democratic candidate is more qualified how? I am a Libertarian by the way and will probably vote for Bob Barr if he makes it on my States ticket as a protest vote.

I'm a Libertarian as well. Surprise, surprise? And I most certainly will NOT be voting for Barr in any way, shape or form. He is a fraud as well. I'm writing in Ron Paul.

Edit: The Dem ticket is more qualified overall than the R's. How? They aren't focusing on Iraq but Afghanistan, for starters. They will ensure that Iraq pullout will be imminent and troops reallocated to Afghanistan so we can finally catch Osama.

They don't allow write ins in Oklahoma. It is fucking infuriating.

 

[venkman]

Did I watch a completely different interview from the OP?

 

[Budmantom]

Is she aware that we only have 50 states?

 

[Caveman]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
That Bush doctrine question would have thrown me too. I'm not sure that is an official term with a hard and narrow definition.

Were you alive in 2003/2004?

The term is pretty official, among people who know foreign policy domestically and abroad.

I was here. I just had not known the term was limited to the way Gibson defined it. Preemptive strikes, reshaping of the M.E., democracy at gunpoint, with us or against us, I thought the Bush doctrine covered a lot of things.

It does, but it has a few pillars, pre-emptively striking our enemies being one of the main ones.

The Bush doctrine was a big topic of debate in our country during the first couple years of the Iraq war because it was so controversial.

Please. A "big topic of debate"? The subject of attacking another country yes, but calling that topic the "Bush Doctrine"? That's a stretch. You make it sound like starting in 2003, people all over the states were whispering a new buzzward while sipping their morning coffee... "Hey Bob... How about that Bush Doctrine... pretty crazy, huh?"

The "Bush Doctrine" is a "pretty official" term? I'd guess it's much more official among the "villify GWB crowd". The phrase has a pejoritive ring, one I doubt a republican VP is going to openly embrace (even if it was "common").

At any rate, the "Bush Doctrine" can't certainly be credited to GWB. It sounds much like the old philosophy of manifest destiny revamped.

FYI: I do not support Bush/Palin or GWB.