Gibson explains Bush Doctrine to Sarah Palin

[TennTradition]

The issue rests squarely on Safety Commissioner being fired, not the trooper. The Commish has his hands tied since the trooper has already been disciplined for the Taser incident and others. Its called double Jeopardy and the Commish basically told Palin that and then he got fired. The investigation is only looking into abuse of powers of office for the firing of the Commissioner.

Right...thanks for filling in the details on who it was. I knew the investigation centered around Palin and him...but I didn't know who "he" was exactly....

 

[notverycrucial]

NVC, I have seen you post for sometime now and I have a couple of observations:
You minimally criticized some stances of McCain and pronounced yourself an independent, some here saw through your obvious bias toward the democrat party early on. As time has gone on you have revealed more about yourself through your posts (nothing wrong with that).

I look at this post today and you announce to us all that the media has an anti liberal and pro conservative slant today. This has to qualify you for most ignorant post of the year! If you believe the printed press along with cable news is overwhelmingly conservative then there is very little hope for you. Obama has been given a free ride this entire election (not to mention a cheering section).

Here is the proof you need to show the medi does not have a conservative slant. Of all those questions asked Sarah Palin, how many of those have been asked of Obama? Has he been challenged at all by the media, or do they seem to let him just talk about his wonderful plan of "hope and change" (yet to be defined and laid out). The answer to that question is one, there has only been one interview in which he was asked the tough questions or challenged to expand on his answers. It was an interview on Fox News the only one of those media outlets with a conservative slant!

Please just give it up! You are what you are, don't try to hide behind your cloak of objectivity, especially when it is as see through as mosquito netting. You'll get more respect that way.

KB,

I have made no such claim that the media has an objectively pro-liberal or pro-conservative bias. In fact, I have said that "the media" appear to favor both sides at one time of another. In the case of the AP, they are led by a person with a strong conservative background in Ron Fournier. No problem. It is what it is. I just think it's ridiculous to scream liberal bias all the time when it's patently false in many cases.

To show that I am an independent thinker, I think that the AP was totally unfair in their assessment (framing) of the Palin interview last night. But it was really no different than some of the anti-liberal framing we've witnessed from the AP as well. You see, I see the bias on both sides.

Another example is the article on Page One of the Washington Post today about Sarah Palin apparently linking Iraq to 9/11.
washingtonpost.com

It's a total hitjob. She wasn't claiming that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 as the writer implies. She was simply saying that the Al Qaeda is there now and that's who we're fighting now. Either the Washington Post is being pro-liberal or they're just being stupid. I honestly don't know, but whatever the case, this article is unfair to Sarah Palin, no matter what you think of her.

I'm amazed that drivel like this can get published at all, yet we see it everyday in major publications like the NYT, WaPo, and AP. Whether it's liberal bias or conservative bias, it's definitely bad journalism. But it should come as no surprise b/c these jokers have controlled the national discourse for a long time.

For the record, I have a background in journalism so that's why I have such strong feelings on the subject.

 

[notverycrucial]

Pull me out some quotes where obama gives a definite "yes or no" answer. It has already been pointed out that politicians like to avoid those type answers regardless of the question. You are ragging on Palin for avoiding it but fail to point out that they all do it.

Please re-read my posts. And, no I'm not going to find an example of Obama or Biden giving simple yes or no answers. I agree politicians should usually avoid such traps. Gibson set her up with that question, and she failed to deliver no matter how she answered it. Tough business.

 

[volinbham]

Another example is the article on Page One of the Washington Post today about Sarah Palin apparently linking Iraq to 9/11.
washingtonpost.com

It's a total hitjob. She wasn't claiming that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 as the writer implies. She was simply saying that the Al Qaeda is there now and that's who we're fighting now. Either the Washington Post is being pro-liberal or they're just being stupid. I honestly don't know, but whatever the case, this article is unfair to Sarah Palin, no matter what you think of her.

I'm amazed that drivel like this can get published at all, yet we see it everyday in major publications like the NYT, WaPo, and AP. Whether it's liberal bias or conservative bias, it's definitely bad journalism. But it should come as no surprise b/c these jokers have controlled the national discourse for a long time.

For the record, I have a background in journalism so that's why I'm so I have such strong feelings on the subject.

Agree - whether it's bias, sloppiness or the 24hour news cycle this election is really exposing the state of journalism and it's not pretty.

 

[MontereyVol]

Maybe it is just me but if you have a trooper who has had repeated issues involving violence and threats of violence you don't need to be sanctioned by the state to enforce the law. Maybe the commish needed to go based on his reluctance to do what is in the best interest of the public.

What you're talking about is a non issue in the eyes of the law. I agree it sounds like this trooper is a complete A-hole but remember ALL charges brought against him are from the Palin family. Also keep in mind the Taser incident was only brought to light after the divorce started. if the mother was that concerned why wasn't it brought up before? she was there you know.

But it all goes back to the same issue, the Commish probably did not like the trooper either, Palin put him in a catch 22. He could have fired the trooper and then lost his job or not fire the trooper and have Palin fire him. The only person who looks like they did the right thing in this entire mess is the Commissioner, the only person who lost their job.

 

[volinbham]

The pundits will slice and dice this a hundred different ways. Her supporters will highlight her good answers and explain away her bad ones as bad questioning or context or what have you. As on here, some will ignore the criticism in favor of just saying, "Oh, yeah? Well, Obama sucks!" Her detractors will emphasize her worst answers.

I am not listening to either side because I know what I saw and heard and I trust my own judgment on this.

Congratulations. The rest of us cannot think independently and must rely on pundits and our own internal biases. Since we are sheep, perhaps we should start listening to you...:crazy:

 

[KB5252]

What you're talking about is a non issue in the eyes of the law. I agree it sounds like this trooper is a complete A-hole but remember ALL charges brought against him are from the Palin family. Also keep in mind the Taser incident was only brought to light after the divorce started. if the mother was that concerned why wasn't it brought up before? she was there you know.

But it all goes back to the same issue, the Commish probably did not like the trooper either, Palin put him in a catch 22. He could have fired the trooper and then lost his job or not fire the trooper and have Palin fire him. The only person who looks like they did the right thing in this entire mess is the Commissioner, the only person who lost their job.

I see your point, I guess we just have to wait and see as more details are made public.

 

[KB5252]

KB,

I have made no such claim that the media has an objectively pro-liberal or pro-conservative bias. In fact, I have said that "the media" appear to favor both sides at one time of another. In the case of the AP, they are led by a person with a strong conservative background in Ron Fournier. No problem. It is what it is. I just think it's ridiculous to scream liberal bias all the time when it's patently false in many cases.

To show that I am an independent thinker, I think that the AP was totally unfair in their assessment (framing) of the Palin interview last night. But it was really no different than some of the anti-liberal framing we've witnessed from the AP as well. You see, I see the bias on both sides.

Another example is the article on Page One of the Washington Post today about Sarah Palin apparently linking Iraq to 9/11.
washingtonpost.com

It's a total hitjob. She wasn't claiming that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 as the writer implies. She was simply saying that the Al Qaeda is there now and that's who we're fighting now. Either the Washington Post is being pro-liberal or they're just being stupid. I honestly don't know, but whatever the case, this article is unfair to Sarah Palin, no matter what you think of her.

I'm amazed that drivel like this can get published at all, yet we see it everyday in major publications like the NYT, WaPo, and AP. Whether it's liberal bias or conservative bias, it's definitely bad journalism. But it should come as no surprise b/c these jokers have controlled the national discourse for a long time.

For the record, I have a background in journalism so that's why I have such strong feelings on the subject.

I misunderstood your statement then, my apologies.

 

[volinbham]

I see your point, I guess we just have to wait and see as more details are made public.

A novel concept...

 

[notverycrucial]

Agree - whether it's bias, sloppiness or the 24hour news cycle this election is really exposing the state of journalism and it's not pretty.

It's downright pathetic. How the hell is anyone supposed to know what's going on anymore with these guys acting as filters for both campaigns. I mean, the political press is basically acting as PR arms for both campaigns. If these jokers didn't exist already, I imagine that the campaigns would have to invent them, but that's not necessary b/c they do already exist and they exist in almost the exact form the campaigns want.

 

[lawgator1]

Congratulations. The rest of us cannot think independently and must rely on pundits and our own internal biases. Since we are sheep, perhaps we should start listening to you...:crazy:

Interesting, trying to paint me (when critical of Palin) as closed minded when in reality all I said was that I am not going to allow others to tell me what to think about her interview with Gibson.

What this is really about is McCain's judgment in selecting her as VP. You can misdirect all you want in terms of the fact that she is not running to be president. But she might become POTUS (that is her primary role -- to be ready to do that). And her selection, if she is as unqualified as she appears to be, makes me nervous.

 

[KB5252]

Interesting, trying to paint me (when critical of Palin) as closed minded when in reality all I said was that I am not going to allow others to tell me what to think about her interview with Gibson.

What this is really about is McCain's judgment in selecting her as VP. You can misdirect all you want in terms of the fact that she is not running to be president. But she might become POTUS (that is her primary role -- to be ready to do that). And her selection, if she is as unqualified as she appears to be, makes me nervous.

Given your concern for Palin I guessed I just missed your voiced concern over the democrats picking an equally if not less qualified candidate in Obama.

 

[volinbham]

Interesting, trying to paint me (when critical of Palin) as closed minded when in reality all I said was that I am not going to allow others to tell me what to think about her interview with Gibson.

What this is really about is McCain's judgment in selecting her as VP. You can misdirect all you want in terms of the fact that she is not running to be president. But she might become POTUS (that is her primary role -- to be ready to do that). And her selection, if she is as unqualified as she appears to be, makes me nervous.

I'm not trying to paint you as close-minded at all.

It is the pompous nature of your "open-mindness" that I'm reacting to. You frame your posts (the one I quoted in particular) in a way to suggest anyone not calling the performance terrible is not being objective, is listening to pundits or simply hates Obama.

How about giving us some credit for doing our own analysis and making decisions on what we see? If you want us to believe you are a neutral, objective observer why not give the same benefit of the doubt to us?

 

[BigPapaVol]

But she might become POTUS (that is her primary role -- to be ready to do that).

that is not remotely true. Her function is in presiding over the senate and casting deciding votes there when necessary.

Your concerns about her ill-preparedness to be president should easily carry over to Obama, but you just don't approach those in the same manner. That's what the indignation is about.

 

[lawgator1]

Given your concern for Palin I guessed I just missed your voiced concern over the democrats picking an equally if not less qualified candidate in Obama.

As predicted by me, you do not defend Palin but attack Obama.

As I have said, I share some of those same concerns about him. But that does no diminish my worries about her.

I'm not trying to paint you as close-minded at all.

It is the pompous nature of your "open-mindness" that I'm reacting to. You frame your posts (the one I quoted in particular) in a way to suggest anyone not calling the performance terrible is not being objective, is listening to pundits or simply hates Obama.

How about giving us some credit for doing our own analysis and making decisions on what we see? If you want us to believe you are a neutral, objective observer why not give the same benefit of the doubt to us?

Oh, okay sorry.

I did not mean to say that you, or anyone else in particular on here, would not form their own opinion. Not my intent at all. What I was trying to say was that the debate we might have amongst us should not be influenced by others' perceptions (particularly when they are paid to generate those perceptions). I think on that we agree.

 

[VolDad]

Interesting, trying to paint me (when critical of Palin) as closed minded when in reality all I said was that I am not going to allow others to tell me what to think about her interview with Gibson.

What this is really about is McCain's judgment in selecting her as VP. You can misdirect all you want in terms of the fact that she is not running to be president. But she might become POTUS (that is her primary role -- to be ready to do that). And her selection, if she is as unqualified as she appears to be, makes me nervous.

As opposed with Obama's judgement when selecting Biden?

Biden living up to his gaffe-prone reputation

Biden living up to his gaffe-prone reputation - International Herald Tribune

I do not think she has told a wheelchair bound man to stand up and take a bow.

What happens when he is on a national stage saying stupid stuff to heads of state. She did some dancing but she did not say anything stupid.

 

[BigPapaVol]

As predicted by me, you do not defend Palin but attack Obama.

As I have said, I share some of those same concerns about him. But that does no diminish my worries about her.

It's not about defending anyone. It's your radically different approach to two candidates, but seemingly unqualified for the job in front of them.

You might share some concerns about Obama, but you certainly have shared them in a different manner than those that you share about Palin.

 

[volinbham]

As opposed with Obama's judgement when selecting Biden?

Biden living up to his gaffe-prone reputation

Biden living up to his gaffe-prone reputation - International Herald Tribune

Now this is funny.

Earlier in the week, in Columbia, Missouri, Biden urged a paraplegic state official to stand up to be recognized.

"Chuck, stand up, let the people see you," Biden shouted to State Senator Chuck Graham, before realizing, to his horror, that Graham uses a wheelchair. "Oh, God love ya," Biden said. "What am I talking about?"

 

[KB5252]

As predicted by me, you do not defend Palin but attack Obama.

As I have said, I share some of those same concerns about him. But that does no diminish my worries about her.





Oh, okay sorry.

I did not mean to say that you, or anyone else in particular on here, would not form their own opinion. Not my intent at all. What I was trying to say was that the debate we might have amongst us should not be influenced by others' perceptions (particularly when they are paid to generate those perceptions). I think on that we agree.

I do not need to defend Palin, she is not on the top of the ticket. Worst case scenario she has enough time to get experience under her belt before she is the leader of the free world. Obama does not have that luxury, unfortunately he is at the top of his ticket and does not get a chance to get up to speed. He has to hit the ground running.......And just like your assessment of Palin's performance Obama's performance during the Georgia/Russia flareup was slow, indecisive and not very well thought out. He did get it right after a few days and I'm sure Palin would have gotten her answers to your satisfaction given a few days as well.

No offense but you simply come off as condescending just because we have a differing opinion, or don't see it through the same perspective as you.

 

[VolDad]

Now this is funny.

nvm

 

[KB5252]

Now this is funny.

That sounds like a Peter Griffin moment from Family Guy.

 

[MontereyVol]

Its better than shoving people in wheelchairs.

McClatchy Washington Bureau | 09/07/2008 | McCain's history of hot temper raises concerns

As McCain continued walking, Jane Duke Gaylor, the mother of another missing serviceman, approached the senator. Gaylor, in a wheelchair equipped with portable oxygen, stretched her arms toward McCain.

"McCain stopped, glared at her, raised his left arm ready to strike her, composed himself and pushed the wheelchair away from him," according to Eleanor Apodaca, the sister of an Air Force captain missing since 1967.

Round and round...... where it stops no one knows?

 

[VolDad]

Now this is funny.

Actually, I kind of felt bad for Joe. He seems like a nice guy and I would probably enjoy having a few drinks with him (no comment from you OE ).

But, IMO, questioning McCain’s judgment based upon her interview is silly. The media blasted him saying that she had not been properly vetted, and then she gives a speech and is immediately a rock start. She revitalized his campaign. Pretty good judgment so far!

Fact is they all have warts. Not 1 of them is perfect. My personal leanings are more fiscally conservative than what I hear from Obama and more socially liberal than what I hear from McCain. No legitimate candidate possesses my views. But since I must make a choice, fiscal conservatism wins out.

 

[MontereyVol]

Fact is they all have warts. Not 1 of them is perfect. My personal leanings are more fiscally conservative than what I hear from Obama and more socially liberal than what I hear from McCain. No legitimate candidate possesses my views. But since I must make a choice, fiscal conservatism wins out.

Well said, for me McCain's history doesn't sit well on the fiscal conservatism. So I am going for the "throw them out so we can get some new guys theory"

 

[Chemvol]

I only saw the Bush Doctrine part linked her and thought it wasn't a great performance.

However, I'd like to see Gibson treat each candidate to the style questioning he did here.

Gibson's not about to hammer Obama that way.

Obama would have simply responded w/ a parable, and then no one in the press would have dared ask him any more questions.