Any Palin supporters still out there?

[another day]

Quote by: maximdewinter One thing about this exchange is noteworthy. Palin has made an intelligent statement about Iran that trumps Obama, Biden and MCCAIN

Huh? Where is that intelligent statement? All I see is her saying Iran is dangerous. How is that intelligent? It's just propaganda, the same propaganda we have heard from Bush and his cronies for the past year.

Sarah is correct. Ahmadinejad is not the leader of Iran he's a flunky who serves at the will of the mullahs. She should have told Katie that because it obviously wasn't on her teleprompter

Lol... as if that's what she meant at all. Don't try to twist her words around to make her look good. She said "he's not one to negotiate with" because she thinks hes an evil scary lunatic who should not be trusted...She did not say "he's not THE one to negotiate with" in the sense that they should be negotiating with someone other than him.

I can guarantee you Palin has no idea that as President and not Ayatollah, he does not have supreme power. This is a woman who never left the country until she got nominated. She has no clue about other cultures, other societies, and certainly no clue about the Iranian government hierarchy.

Nice try with that spin however.

[Aussie]

Jeez Maxim, haven't you heard the phrase "you can't polish a turd"? It's as true with Palin as it's every been. She's quite obviously out of her depth and any defence of it looks as equally sad as her.

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: Sonart . LOL My, that's convenient.. Charles Krauthammer gets to coin the phrase and then dismiss it when it's inconvenient for Sarah Palin. Sorry, Charley. Too late. America's Age of Empire: The Bush Doctrine -- "On September 20, the Bush administration published a national security manifesto overturning the established order. Not because it commits the United States to global intervention: We've been there before. Not because it targets terrorism and rogue states: Nothing new there either. No, what's new in this document is that it makes a long-building imperial tendency explicit and permanent. The policy paper, titled "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America" -- call it the Bush doctrine -- is a romantic justification for easy recourse to war whenever and wherever an American president chooses." The Bush Doctrine: War without anyone's permission. Three Cheers for the Bush Doctrine The Bush Doctrine, The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, Sept. 2002 "And America will hold to account nations that are compromised by terror, including those who harbor terrorists — because the allies of terror are the enemies of civilization. The United States and countries cooperating with us must not allow the terrorists to develop new home bases." "And, as a matter of common sense and self-defense, America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed." "Finally, the United States will use this moment of opportunity to extend the benefits of freedom across the globe. We will actively work to bring the hope of democracy, development, free markets, and free trade to every corner of the world." No doubt it's morphed ... having decisively failed time and time again. .

I don't know what you've tried to do here with all these links of OTHER people calling the Bush Administration's stated policy "The Bush Doctrine." Do you have something where the Bush Adminstration says, "Here is what we call the Bush Doctrine.........."

This reminds me of Reagan's "Star Wars" program (SDI). The press picked up the term and ran with it. It was never called Star Wars by the Reagan Administration. But if I were interviewing, someone and asked them "What do you think about Star Wars?"they might rightly ask, "What do you mean?"

Now if I were trying to rough them up in the interview I could say, "Star Wars. Don't you even know what Star Wars is?!" the subject of the interview may reply, "Which one? The original 1977 release, The Empire Strikes Back, what?"

Why do you suppose Charlie Gibson wouldn't elaborate about which of the 4 "Bush Doctrine" misnomers he was referring to in his question? Is there a possibility that he didn't know that much about what has been popularly called the "Bush Doctrine" himself?

[Yarn]

Maximdewinter:

I don't know about Palin but Couric is out of her depth here. She seems to be making the same mistake that Obama made last night in the debates about whether Kissinger thought the US president should enter into direct negotiations with Ahmadinejad. Kissinger came out today and said that he never said that the president should talk directly to A-jad.

Yeah he would say that wouldn't he. This whole scenario seems riminiscent of the time during the 04 election cycle when Rumsfield admitted we had no evidence that Saddam's Iraq had any ties to Al Qaeda, and then later that day tried to take back what he had said.

"Did Kissinger Back Obama?


McCain attacked Obama for his declaration that he would meet with leaders of Iran and other hostile nations "without preconditions." To do so with Iran, McCain said, "isn't just naive; it's dangerous." Obama countered by saying former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger – a McCain adviser – agreed with him:


Obama: Senator McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who's one of his advisers, who, along with five recent secretaries of state, just said that we should meet with Iran – guess what – without precondition. This is one of your own advisers.

McCain rejected Obama's claim:

McCain: By the way, my friend, Dr. Kissinger, who's been my friend for 35 years, would be interested to hear this conversation and Senator Obama's depiction of his -- of his positions on the issue. I've known him for 35 years.
Obama: We will take a look.
McCain: And I guarantee you he would not -- he would not say that presidential top level.
Obama: Nobody's talking about that.

So who's right? Kissinger did in fact say a few days earlier at a forum of former secretaries of state that he favors very high-level talks with Iran – without conditions:

Kissinger Sept. 20: Well, I am in favor of negotiating with Iran. And one utility of negotiation is to put before Iran our vision of a Middle East, of a stable Middle East, and our notion on nuclear proliferation at a high enough level so that they have to study it. And, therefore, I actually have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level so that we -- we know we're dealing with authentic...

CNN's Frank Sesno: Put at a very high level right out of the box?

Kissinger: Initially, yes.But I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations.

Later, McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, was asked about this by CBS News anchor Katie Couric, and Palin said, "I’ve never heard Henry Kissinger say, ‘Yeah, I’ll meet with these leaders without preconditions being met.'" Afterward Couric said, "We confirmed Henry Kissinger’s position following our interview."

After the McCain-Obama debate, however, Kissinger issued a statement saying he doesn't favor a presidential meeting:

Kissinger: Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain."
- FactCheck.org: FactChecking Debate No. 1

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: Aussie Jeez Maxim, haven't you heard the phrase "you can't polish a turd"? It's as true with Palin as it's every been. She's quite obviously out of her depth and any defence of it looks as equally sad as her.

It's true that Palin is untested in national politics. It's also true that she has no diplomatic experience. None whatsoever...so how is she supposed to deal with world leaders and world problems? She is also young...maybe too young to be president in her 40s. We also really don't know that much about her since she hasn't been in the public eye for very long. She certainly doesn't have a long track record to judge her by. From those sentences above many could conclude that this is enough to disqualify her for Vice President.

Unfortunately, all the sentences above could be said of Obama too, but unlike Palin, he is running for first slot not second. Why don't we disqualify both of them, put Joe Biden at the top of the Dem ticket and get Mitt Romney to fill in as Veep? Would everyone be happy then?

[Roger Bartlett]

She's probably making mistakes because the liberal media is nitpicking and anylizing everything she says and conveniently overlooking all of Biden's even more ridiculous gaffes.

For example, him talking about how during the Great Depression FDR got on the television and reassured the American people. FDR? Televisions? During the Great Depression? It's too bad that Jon Stewart is the only person reporting on that story.

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: Roger Bartlett She's probably making mistakes because the liberal media is nitpicking and anylizing everything she says and conveniently overlooking all of Biden's even more ridiculous gaffes. For example, him talking about how during the Great Depression FDR got on the television and reassured the American people. FDR? Televisions? During the Great Depression? It's too bad that Jon Stewart is the only person reporting on that story.

That story is even worse if you consider that he said, "when the stock market crashed. " The market crashed in 1929 when Hoover, not FDR was president.

Biden Flubs FDR, Television Dates - September 24, 2008 - The New York Sun

"When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed."

And to think that Dan Quayle was hounded for years by the press because he forgot the put the "e" in the plural of "potato."

There have been others who have reported the story besides Stewart, mainly in the right wing Media. But I wouldn't expect it to be run through the echo chamber of the MSM because that could hurt Obama who is considered the rightful contender to the throne.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: maximdewinter I don't know what you've tried to do here with all these links of OTHER people calling the Bush Administration's stated policy "The Bush Doctrine." Do you have something where the Bush Adminstration says, "Here is what we call the Bush Doctrine.........."

I'm pointing out that there's a well-defined Bush Doctrine that's been well discussed in political and media circles, and the only reason you're denying that fact now is a desperate attempt to defend Sarah Palin's ignorance.

Quote by: maximdewinter This reminds me of Reagan's "Star Wars" program (SDI). The press picked up the term and ran with it. It was never called Star Wars by the Reagan Administration.

So what... "Star Wars" was common shorthand for the Reagan missile defense program that did, in fact, exist, no matter what some folks chose to call it.

Quote by: maximdewinter But if I were interviewing, someone and asked them "What do you think about Star Wars? "they might rightly ask, "What do you mean?"

Not if they were even moderately up to speed on national political issues. Any armchair pundit over 25 knows what 'Star War' referred to, just like any moderately savvy political junky knows that the Bush Doctrine referred to the greater willingness to project power U.S. abroad, the willingness to engage in 'Pre-Emptive' war (along with torture and a general relaxation of our principles on human rights), a policy of black and white "you're either with us or against us", and the promotion of democratic principles and governments.

.

[Yarn]

She'll barely talk to the press at all, among what little she has said publically are lies about her record on earmarks and citations of executive priviledge to protect some of her underlings from scandal hearings, no one would know who she was if John McCain hadn't picked her, she has a habit of seeming rather dim when she actually is interviewed, and to top it all off she has thoroughly far right political views. Maybe all of that is all right for some, but I don't see how I can be expected to have confidence in this soccer mom to competently run this country.

Sure, Biden, Barack, and McCain all make gaffes. But at least they come out as seeming to have a mastery of the issues most of the time, at least they have all been in the national limelight for years owing to pure talent. Palin seems to be an unexpected, very inexperienced, vaguely defined, sensational, afterthought thrown in during the last leg of the game.

The choice of Palin may have pleased many far right conservatives, but here in Conneticut it robbed him what little chance he had of carrying the state. I know, and I don't proactively seek this sort of information, of over a dozen former McCain supporters who have switched to the blue side over McCain's choice of Palin.

[another day]

I notice you responded to everyone but me. Can you clarify what the intelligent statement was that she made regarding Iran, and tell me what's up with you twisting her words around to make her look good? Unless that was a genuine misunderstanding, which I highly doubt, then I'll just write you off as Palin's unofficial propaganda pundit.

[Aussie]

Quote by: maximdewinter It's true that Palin is untested in national politics. It's also true that she has no diplomatic experience. None whatsoever...so how is she supposed to deal with world leaders and world problems? She is also young...maybe too young to be president in her 40s. We also really don't know that much about her since she hasn't been in the public eye for very long. She certainly doesn't have a long track record to judge her by. From those sentences above many could conclude that this is enough to disqualify her for Vice President. Unfortunately, all the sentences above could be said of Obama too, but unlike Palin, he is running for first slot not second. Why don't we disqualify both of them, put Joe Biden at the top of the Dem ticket and get Mitt Romney to fill in as Veep? Would everyone be happy then?

Because stastically he will be dead before the end of his second term (based on average american life expectancy), leaving Palin at the helm.
Life Expectancy In USA Increases To 77.6 Years; Deaths From Heart Disease, Cancer Decline, Report Finds

The same cannot be said of Obama.

[thebuescherman]

I have to agree, Palin was a poor choice of a candidate, though she certainly seemed interesting at the very least at first glance. I do share other people's concerns about her being a heartbeat away from the presidency should McCain be selected. Having absolutely no foreign policy experience is big. I could never picture her negotiating with the Russians, the North Koreans, the Chinese, etc. Many of her religious views frankly disturb me. Despite her fiscal successes in Alaska, I doubt they could be translated onto a national stage. Even her inability to answer questions on the few interviews she's given is disturbing. I want a candidate who can answer a question some schmuck on the news asks him/her, with confidence.

She is a fantastic governor of Alaska, her 84% approval ratings prove as much. I believe, however, that that is as high as she can and should climb in the political arena.

[tinybear]

This is hilarious folks.

Tina Fey's performance is brilliant!

Saturday Night Live - Couric / Palin Open - Video - NBC.com

[Median]

Quote by: Yarn Maximdewinter: I don't know about Palin but Couric is out of her depth here. She seems to be making the same mistake that Obama made last night in the debates about whether Kissinger thought the US president should enter into direct negotiations with Ahmadinejad. Kissinger came out today and said that he never said that the president should talk directly to A-jad. Yeah he would say that wouldn't he. This whole scenario seems riminiscent of the time during the 04 election cycle when Rumsfield admitted we had no evidence that Saddam's Iraq had any ties to Al Qaeda, and then later that day tried to take back what he had said. "Did Kissinger Back Obama? McCain attacked Obama for his declaration that he would meet with leaders of Iran and other hostile nations "without preconditions." To do so with Iran, McCain said, "isn't just naive; it's dangerous." Obama countered by saying former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger – a McCain adviser – agreed with him: Obama: Senator McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who's one of his advisers, who, along with five recent secretaries of state, just said that we should meet with Iran – guess what – without precondition. This is one of your own advisers. McCain rejected Obama's claim: McCain: By the way, my friend, Dr. Kissinger, who's been my friend for 35 years, would be interested to hear this conversation and Senator Obama's depiction of his -- of his positions on the issue. I've known him for 35 years. Obama: We will take a look. McCain: And I guarantee you he would not -- he would not say that presidential top level. Obama: Nobody's talking about that. So who's right? Kissinger did in fact say a few days earlier at a forum of former secretaries of state that he favors very high-level talks with Iran – without conditions: Kissinger Sept. 20: Well, I am in favor of negotiating with Iran. And one utility of negotiation is to put before Iran our vision of a Middle East, of a stable Middle East, and our notion on nuclear proliferation at a high enough level so that they have to study it. And, therefore, I actually have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level so that we -- we know we're dealing with authentic... CNN's Frank Sesno: Put at a very high level right out of the box? Kissinger: Initially, yes.But I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations. Later, McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, was asked about this by CBS News anchor Katie Couric, and Palin said, "I’ve never heard Henry Kissinger say, ‘Yeah, I’ll meet with these leaders without preconditions being met.'" Afterward Couric said, "We confirmed Henry Kissinger’s position following our interview." After the McCain-Obama debate, however, Kissinger issued a statement saying he doesn't favor a presidential meeting: Kissinger: Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain." - FactCheck.org: FactChecking Debate No. 1

Maxim, you never responded to this, do you see how kissinger changed his story? And how obama and couric were correct in bringing it up?

[trueheart]

You bet. I'm still a fan of Palin.

She's making Democrats very nervous; which alone would be reason enough.

But it's great that we will have the first woman in one of the two top positions, just as we had the first Black Secretary of State!

Republicans are the party for everyone..........we don't try to divide the population by sex/race/gender. We don't need GRIEVANCE GROUPS.

We don't need to pit one group of Americans against another.

Go Palin!

[ShadowFox]

Quote by: trueheart You bet. I'm still a fan of Palin. She's making Democrats very nervous; which alone would be reason enough. But it's great that we will have the first woman in one of the two top positions, just as we had the first Black Secretary of State! Republicans are the party for everyone..........we don't try to divide the population by sex/race/gender. We don't need GRIEVANCE GROUPS. We don't need to pit one group of Americans against another. Go Palin!

She makes people from both parties nervous. She often seems like she doesn't know what she's talking about. She is still trying to defend her stance that Alaska's proximity to Russia gives her foreign experience.

Plus, she may not be elected. Also, if your trying to argue that she's the first women nomination for the VP, your wrong. Geraldine Ferraro was, back in the 1984 election.

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: Median Maxim, you never responded to this, do you see how kissinger changed his story? And how obama and couric were correct in bringing it up?

I'm assuming you are referring to this part:

Kissinger Sept. 20: Well, I am in favor of negotiating with Iran. And one utility of negotiation is to put before Iran our vision of a Middle East, of a stable Middle East, and our notion on nuclear proliferation at a high enough level so that they have to study it. And, therefore, I actually have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level so that we -- we know we're dealing with authentic...

CNN's Frank Sesno: Put at a very high level right out of the box?

Kissinger: Initially, yes.But I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations .

Isn't this buttressing the position that the PRESIDENT of the US should not meet Iran without preconditions? Isn't Kissinger saying that the very high level of meeting without precondition is at the State Department level and not presidential level?

Because what this is all about is still that comment Barry made oh so long ago (I think it was during a debate with Hillary) that he (Obama) would as president meet without preconditions with practically every tyrant and thug in the world. If he would just say, "Look, I was caught off guard. I wasn't thinking straight when I made that comment." all of this would go away. People forgive a mistake.

Instead what Barry keeps doing is empretzeling himself to turn "preparations" into "preconditions" which isn't the same. Then he takes a nebulous, statement (an interrupted statment I might add from Frank Sesno so it isn't even a complete thought) from Henry Kissinger and runs with it to say, "Aha! See? I wasn't that wacked with the original statement I made!" The problem with that is that for people who have read Kissinger's Diplomacy ( Not Katie, I think she was still doing morning TV in 2002--like make-up tips and chimpanzees from the zoo) it would be a stretch to think that Kissinger had taken Obama's position.

A major additional problem is that Henry Kissinger is a million years old, a permanent policy fixture within the Beltway, and definitely someone whom Obama was supposed to be eschewing when he was on his "I am new, improved, and will change the tired, broken old place known as Washinton DC" kick. So besides looking immature he is also way off message with this.

[JTsteelblu]

Quote by: maximdewinter I'm sorry, I forgot we were in ridicule Sarah Palin mode. It won't happen again. Now when Sarah Palin is wrong about something should we say it is her "source for info" too?

Why not use that tired old dodge? If it was good enough for GW Bush to take us into a first strike war, and then remain there even after claiming the intel reasoning for it was flawed, then I would expect any republican candidate to use it too....but "we informed Americans" aren't fooled by it, and never were!

[Slevin57]

I don't support Palin because of her stance on political issues.

I can't judge her intelligence based on news media interviews. She was intelligent enough to get elected to the governors office, so she can't be all that bad.

I think the news media knows the public wants to focus on Palin's inadequacies right now. They did the same thing with President Bush. In reality if you have ever heard the president speak behind closed doors he is a very different man.

I am ready for a well educated, well spoken president. I think both go a very long way in our credibility. No, you don't have to be perfect but you do need to avoid simple mistakes. Palin does not have a good stance on national issues because she hasn't needed to have one until a few months ago!

The VP is the wing-m....woman. I don't think she is ready to lead and the responsibility of the presidency would overwhelm her. She at least needs to learn how to properly bullshit

[jb_1430]

Quote by: Sonart I'm pointing out that there's a well-defined Bush Doctrine that's been well discussed in political and media circles, and the only reason you're denying that fact now is a desperate attempt to defend Sarah Palin's ignorance.

Well defined. LOLOL!!! here you go. There are 4 different doctrines that the media has used the buzz words "Bush Doctrine" to label. Thats why Sarah asked. Bush Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia First it was unilateralism in his withdrawing from the ABM treaty. Then it was pursuing nations who support terrorism. Then it was pre emption against developing threats. Then it was spreading democracy as a way to combat terrorism.