Posted on 11/20/2010 11:43:11 AM PST by Islander7
It was a rhetorical question.
Thank you.
As for Gov Sarah Palin, I would love nothing more than her getting elected president. More than any other candidate.
At the same time I fear she will lose to Zero for various reasons.
2012
I can't imagine any Republican -- even McCain (shudder) -- losing to Obama in 2012.
Let's face it -- the bloom is off his rose. He managed to stimulate the right to turn out in droves. The moderates -- who had voted for him -- voted against him. His base decided not to turn out in his support.
We'll never elect another "first black President" again. And without that cachet, Obama has to stand on his record -- and that won't be a lot of help.
If he runs in 2012 -- and isn't defeated in the primary -- his support will be restricted to the moonbat left and the blacks -- 40% of the country, maybe.
Fell out of chair, laughing.
Literally! I love this guy!
I am definitely warming to this man.
Christie is the type we need. He goes on the attack and offensive and is way smarter than these far left hacks.
I hope you are right. I will need a whole bottle of scotch on election night 2012 if Zero wins.
After this crowd leaves, hopefully in ‘13, we’ll be so overdue for a grown up in the White House again. And this guy is tougher than nails. So refreshing to see an elected official who’s unafraid of the bullies on the left, and gives it right back, in spades.
Me, too!
The reason that Palin couldn’t define the Bush doctrine was because the Bush doctrine was a creation of the MSM. There was no real Bush doctrine. It was a silly trap question.
It was Katie Couric who was mistaken....or misinformed...or ignorant.
LOL,
Now, now, don't go interjecting facts.
It just messes up the whole snark thingee.
I think it was Charlie Gibson, ABC, who was the stinko to Sarah and who asked her about the controversial Bush Doctrine. However, when simple me had listened since 2002 of W.’s controversial tactic of pre-emptive war, from the Vatican to the weekend shows, even I was pretty stunned by Sarah’s question mark expression. When asked her opinion on Bush Doctrine, that her reply was instead in the context of a question, something on the order of “what is Bush Doctrine?”, or “tell me what you mean?”. One can reasonably expect a VP candidate to be up to speed on a common term now six years old at least, that nearly by itself brought Bush down.
The term “Bush Doctrine” described a first for our country in war time, it was real, and common enough that I knew it, which means it was dang common. Pre-emptive war is a pretty big deal and not a creation of the media but for the fact that neo conservatives gave the tactic its due by calling it the Bush Doctrine. It’s an accurate term that elevates a FIRST theory to doctrine. The problem is Palin was caught off guard and didn’t look game ready. She is now.
>>One can reasonably expect a VP candidate to be up to speed on a common term now six years old at least, that nearly by itself brought Bush down.<<
“The Bush Doctrine” was coined by the MSM and was whatever they wanted it to be this week. Any answer she gave was WRONG.
So keep on blaming Palin for skipping the gotcha moment. Personally, I blame it on her handlers.
I am not blaming Sarah, nor did I see the Bush Doctrine question as a particular “gotcha” moment given there were some real ones Gibson threw. Gibson was awful on a bunch of questions, and he was the scandal. Too much was made of the whole thing against Sarah, who was new to the degree of scrutiny that comes with the national stage, and on enemy ground (ABC) at that. However, truthfully, Sarah asking “what do you mean?” is not really a deft example of ignoring something.
>>However, truthfully, Sarah asking “what do you mean?” is not really a deft example of ignoring something.<<
If it had been a Dem that asked that, it would have been touted as a brilliant dodge or clarification exposing the ridiculousness of the question. Don’t you see? She couldn’t come up with any answer that satisfied the MSM.
“She couldn’t come up with any answer that satisfied the MSM.”
BUSH DOCTRINE = PREMPTIVE WAR STRIKE
How hard is that? The answer is “yes”, or, how about, “I agreed with it.”
>>BUSH DOCTRINE = PREMPTIVE WAR STRIKE<<
Are you sure that’s what it was at the time of the interview?
Because depending on when you look, it meant anything from not signing the Kyoto Treaty to Spreading Democracy around the world. Even Wikipedia has that simple fact down pat.
It changed, according to the MSM as the wind blows.
Now do you see what kind of a spot the woman was put into?
Like I said, her handlers failed her.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.