For weeks, the national news media has been screaming for Palin to come forward and meet with reporters. They have complained that Palin has been unavailable and that the McCain campaign has been hiding her. Well, the long wait is over and last night, ABC aired an interview conducted by Charlie Gibson, their evening news anchor.
This was an opportunity for Gibson to play “gotcha” with Palin. He was obviously trying to confuse her, cause her to make a major mistake and make her look stupid. Unfortunately for Gibson, Palin did quite well in the interview. She appeared confident and poised and gave reasonable answers.
Her weakest answer involved a question about the “Bush Doctrine.” Gibson wanted Palin to define the doctrine, but she stumbled over the answer and for good reason. Very few people can give a definition of the Bush Doctrine. In fact, Democratic operative Lanny Davis even admitted the question was unfair.
What is especially impressive is that Palin was knowledgeable, despite trying to remember loads of facts that were crammed into her head over weeks of training with foreign and domestic policy professionals.
Now, Palin will be interviewed by other media outlets and the game will continue. Sadly, the media seems most interested in trying to trip up Palin as opposed to gathering important information for the voters of this country.
Ever since Palin was announced as McCain’s running mate, she has been subjected to a relentless stream of inquiries and attention. A team of Democratic operatives have landed in Alaska to investigate Palin and her background. The media is also trying to find “dirt.”
The more this continues, the more this will backfire. The American people are very aware of what is happening and have decided to take out their anger on the media and not Sarah Palin.
Jeff Crouere is the Host of “Ringside Politics,” which airs at 7:30 p.m. Fri. and 10:00 p.m. Sun. on WLAE-TV 32, a PBS station, and 7 till 11 a.m. weekdays on WGSO 990 AM in New Orleans and the Northshore. He is the Political Analyst for WGNO-TV ABC26 and the Political Editor for NewOrleans.com. For more information, visit his web site at RingsidePolitics.com. E-mail him at jeff@ringsidepolitics.com.
HA....I'm lovin it. Dems are quaking in their boots. MCCAIN/PALIN 08 Written by Nana
on 9/18/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Now where the duties and powers of the Vice President of the United States of America are to be concerned, they are as follows;
The formal powers and role of the vice president are limited by the Constitution to becoming President should the President become unable to serve (e.g. due to the death, resignation, or medical impairment of the President) and acting as the presiding officer of the U.S. Senate. As President of the Senate, the Vice President has two primary duties: to cast a vote in the event of a Senate deadlock and to preside over and certify the official vote count of the U.S. Electoral College. For example, in the first half of 2001, the Senators were divided 50-50 between Republicans and Democrats and Dick Cheney's tie-breaking vote gave the Republicans the Senate majority. (See 107th United States Congress.)
The informal roles and functions of the Vice President depend on the specific relationship between the President and the Vice President, but often include drafter and spokesperson for the administration's policy, as an adviser to the president, as Chairman of the Board of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), as a Member of the board of the Smithsonian Institution, and as a symbol of American concern or support. Their influence in this role depends almost entirely on the characteristics of the particular administration. Cheney, for instance, is widely regarded as one of George W. Bush's closest confidants. Al Gore was an important advisor to President Bill Clinton on matters of foreign policy and the environment. Often, Vice Presidents will take harder-line stands on issues to ensure the support of the party's base while deflecting partisan criticism away from the President.[citation needed] Under the American system the President is both head of state and head of government, and the ceremonial duties of the former position are often delegated to the Vice President. They may meet with other heads of state or attend state funerals in other countries, at times when the administration wishes to demonstrate concern or support but cannot send the President himself. Not all Vice Presidents are happy in their jobs. John Nance Garner, who served as vice president from 1933 to 1941 under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, famously remarked that the Vice Presidency wasn't "worth a pitcher of warm piss,"[9] although reporters allegedly changed the spelling of the last word to "spit" for print.
In recent years, the vice presidency has frequently been used to launch bids for the presidency. Of the 13 presidential elections from 1956 to 2004, nine featured the incumbent president; the other four (1960, 1968, 1988, 2000) all featured the incumbent vice president. Former vice presidents also ran, in 1984 (Walter Mondale), and in 1968 (Richard Nixon, against the incumbent Vice President Hubert Humphrey).
Since 1974, the official residence of the vice president and his family has been Number One Observatory Circle, on the grounds of the United States Naval Observatory in Washington, D.C.
The Vice Presidential Service Badge is a U.S. military badge of the Department of Defense that is awarded to members of the U.S. military, personnel of the commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and personnel of the commissioned corps of the United States Public Health Service who serve as full-time uniformed service aides to the Vice President.
President of the Senate
As President of the Senate (Article I, Section 3), the vice president oversees procedural matters and may cast a tie-breaking vote. There is a strong convention within the U.S. Senate that the vice president not use his position as President of the Senate to influence the passage of legislation or act in a partisan manner, except in the case of breaking tie votes. As President of the Senate, John Adams cast twenty-nine tie-breaking votes—a record that no successor except for John C. Calhoun ever threatened. His votes protected the president's sole authority over the removal of appointees, influenced the location of the national capital, and prevented war with Great Britain. On at least one occasion he persuaded senators to vote against legislation that he opposed, and he frequently lectured the Senate on procedural and policy matters. Adams' political views and his active role in the Senate made him a natural target for critics of the Washington administration. Toward the end of his first term, as a result of a threatened resolution that would have silenced him except for procedural and policy matters, he began to exercise more restraint in the hope of realizing the goal shared by many of his successors: election in his own right as president of the United States of America.
In modern times, the vice president rarely presides over day-to-day matters in the Senate; in his place, the Senate chooses a President pro tempore (or "president for a time") to preside in the Vice President's absence, and the Senate maintains a Duty Roster for the post, normally selecting the longest serving senator in the majority party.
When the President is impeached, the Chief Justice of the United States of America presides over the Senate during the impeachment trial. Otherwise, the Vice President, in his capacity as President of the Senate, or the President pro tempore of the Senate presides. This may include the impeachment of the Vice President, although legal theories suggest that allowing a person to be the judge in the case where he or she was the defendant wouldn't be permitted. If the Vice President did not preside over an impeachment, the duties would fall to the President Pro Tempore.
One duty required of President of the Senate is presiding over the counting and presentation of the votes of the U.S. Electoral College. This process occurs in the presence of both houses of Congress, on January 6 of the year following a U.S. presidential election. In this capacity, only four Vice Presidents have been able to announce their own election to the presidency: John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Van Buren, and George H. W. Bush. At the beginning of 1961, it fell to Richard Nixon to preside over this process, which officially announced the election of his 1960 opponent, John F. Kennedy. In 1969, Vice President Hubert Humphrey announced he had lost to Nixon. Later, in 2001, Al Gore announced the election of his opponent, George W. Bush.
Vice President John C. Calhoun became the first vice president to resign the office. He believed he would have more power as a senator. He had been dropped from the ticket by President Andrew Jackson in favor of Martin Van Buren. Already a lame-duck vice president, he was elected to the Senate by the South Carolina state legislature and resigned the vice presidency early to begin his Senate term.
Growth of the office
For much of its existence, the office of Vice President was seen as little more than a minor position. John Adams, the first vice president, described it as "the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived." Thomas R. Marshall, the 28th Vice President, lamented: "Once there were two brothers. One ran away to sea; the other was elected vice president of the United States. And nothing was heard of either of them again."[10] When the Whig Party was looking for a vice president on Zachary Taylor's ticket, they approached Daniel Webster, who said of the offer "I do not intend to be buried until I am dead." The natural stepping stone to the Presidency was long considered to be the office of Secretary of State.
For many years, the vice president was given few responsibilities. After John Adams attended a meeting of the president's Cabinet in 1791, no Vice President did so again until Thomas Marshall stood in for President Woodrow Wilson while he traveled to Europe in 1918 and 1919.[citation needed] Marshall's successor, Calvin Coolidge, was invited to meetings by President Warren G. Harding. The next Vice President, Charles G. Dawes, was not invited after declaring that "the precedent might prove injurious to the country." Vice President Charles Curtis was also precluded from attending by President Herbert Hoover.
Garret Hobart, the first Vice President under William McKinley, was one of the very few vice presidents at this time who played an important role in the administration. A close confidant and adviser of the President, Hobart was called Assistant President.[11]
In 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt raised the stature of the office by renewing the practice of inviting the vice president to cabinet meetings, which has been maintained by every president since. Roosevelt's first vice president, John Nance Garner, broke with him at the start of the second term on the Court-packing issue and became Roosevelt's leading political enemy. Garner's successor, Henry Wallace, was given major responsibilities during the war, but he moved further to the left than the Democratic Party and the rest of the Roosevelt administration and was relieved of actual power. Roosevelt kept his last vice president, Harry Truman, uninformed on all war and postwar issues, such as the atomic bomb, leading Truman to wryly remark that the job of the vice president is to "go to weddings and funerals." Following Roosevelt's death and Truman's ascension to the presidency, the need to keep vice presidents informed on national security issues became clear, and Congress made the vice president one of four statutory members of the National Security Council in 1949.
Richard Nixon reinvented the office of vice president. He had the attention of the media and the Republican party, when Eisenhower ordered him to preside at Cabinet meetings in his absence. Nixon was also the first vice president to temporarily assume control of the executive branch; he did so after Eisenhower suffered a heart attack on September 24, 1955; ileitis in June 1956; and a stroke in November 1957. President Jimmy Carter was the first president to formally give his vice president, Walter Mondale, an office in the West Wing of the White House.
Written by
on 9/17/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
And of course everyone is looking towards the Vice Presidential running mate FOR WHAT? The Vice President of the United States[1] is the first person in the presidential line of succession, becoming the new President of the United States upon the death, resignation, or removal of the president. Every presidential term ends on January 20 of the year immediately after a presidential election. As designated by the Constitution of the United States, the vice president also serves as the President of the Senate, and may break tie votes in that chamber.[2] He or she may be assigned additional duties by the president but, as the Constitution assigns no executive powers to the vice president, in performing such duties he or she acts only as an agent of the president. Written by
on 9/17/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Now where the duties and powers of the President of the United States of America are to be concerned, they are as follows; The president is the chief executive of the United States, putting him at the head of the executive branch of the government, whose responsibility is to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed". To carry out this duty, he is given control of the four million employees of the vast executive branch, including one million active duty personnel in the military. Both the legislative and judicial branches maintain checks and balances on the powers of the president, and vice versa......
Various executive and judicial branch appointments are made by presidents, including presidents-elect. Up to 6,000 appointments may be made by an incoming president before he takes office, and 8,000 more may be made while in office. Ambassadors, judges of the federal court system, members of the Cabinet, and other federal officers are all appointed by the president, with the "advice and consent" of the Senate, granted by a simple majority. Appointments made while the Senate is in recess are temporary and expire at the end of the next session of the Senate. He may also grant pardons, as is often done just before the end of a presidential term.......
In addition, while the president cannot directly introduce legislation, he can play an important role in shaping it, especially if the president's political party has a majority in one or both houses of Congress. While members of the executive branch are prohibited from simultaneously holding seats in Congress, they often write legislation and allow a member of Congress to introduce it for them. The president can further influence the legislative branch through the annual constitutionally-mandated report to Congress, which may be written or oral but in modern times is the State of the Union Address, which often outlines the president's legislative proposals for the coming year. If Congress passes a bill that the president disapproves of, he may veto it; the veto can be overridden only by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, making it substantially more difficult to enact the law.........
Perhaps the most important of all presidential powers is command of the armed forces as commander-in-chief. The framers of the Constitution took care to limit the president's powers regarding the military; Alexander Hamilton explains this in Federalist No. 69:
“ The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. [...] It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces [...] while that [the power] of the British king extends to the DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, all [of] which [...] would appertain to the legislature.[9] ”
While the power to declare war is constitutionally vested in Congress, the president commands and directs the military and is responsible for planning military strategy. Congress, pursuant the War Powers Act, must authorize any troop deployments more than 60 days in length. Military spending and regulations are also governed by Congress, providing a check to presidential power. Along with the armed forces, foreign policy is also directed by the president, including the ability to negotiate treaties, which are ratified with the consent by two-thirds of the Senate.
Written by
on 9/17/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Everyone wailing over spilt milk... The President of the United States is the head of state and head of government of the United States and is the highest political official in United States by influence and recognition. The President is at the head of the executive branch of the federal government; his role is to enforce national law as given in the Constitution and written by Congress. Article Two of the Constitution establishes the President as commander-in-chief of the armed forces and enumerates powers specifically granted to the President, including the power to sign into law or veto bills passed by both houses of Congress. The President also has the power to create a cabinet of advisers and to grant pardons or reprieves. Finally, with the "advice and consent" of the Senate, the President is empowered to make treaties and appoint federal officers, ambassadors, and federal judges, including Justices of the Supreme Court. As with officials in the other branches of the United States government, the Constitution restrains the President with a set of checks and balances designed to prevent any individual or group from taking absolute power. Now in as far as the economy goes, well, don't bank on any President being able to turn it around.. It is up to the individual citizens and workers of the United States to do this coupled with determination of industry in the United States to make this complete. So, the solution is; figure out what you as an individual can contribute, or conserve..... That's as good as it gets. God Bless America
Written by
on 9/17/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
"BS" is in the eye of the beholder. No, perhaps you meant very few Democrats knew about her? That doesn't mean no one else did. The DNC had 9 "The Next Cheney" up on its web site and she wasn't on their list. Imagine the nerve of McCain, picking someone they - and Gibson - did not know. I knew about her because the sites I regularly checked advanced her name. (That's also how I knew about Trig months ago; NRO covered her decision not to abort him.) We'll have to agree to disagree on Palin 'cause I think she's a great pick. On the WMD, I DID answer your question. He didn't have WMD. Every intel shop was wrong; ours, the Germans, Brits, French, Russians, Israelis, you name it. As the MSM, I really don't want to get in their way. They're doing a better job of blowing themselves up than I could ever hope to do. As to shutting her up for two weeks before the public discovers the-man-behind-the-curtain and her empty suit, here's another great set of lines: "There is a growing public anger at the petty amateurish biases of those who claim they are sophisticated and subtle; and it is not just that they sympathize with a smeared Palin, but are angry that the media thinks they are so stupid not to catch on. The odder thing still is that the media obsession has turned into some sort of compulsive disorder — they know that they are way out of bounds; know that they are hurting their own candidate Obama — and they know that they simply can't and won't quit now."
Written by Kelly Haggar
on 9/16/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I still get to call BS when I see BS. There was no answer to my question of where the weapons were/are because, as the the comprehensive 2004 Duelfer report concluded, Iraq in fact did not have weapons of mass destruction going into the 2003 invasion. Intelligence was spectacularly wrong. Not the first time for that, either. I'm not predicting who'll win. I know that McCain seems to want to, very badly, to the point of selling his soul and lying and distorting in his campaign and choosing a highly questionable running mate. She's just the poor victim of the media? More BS. Hardly anyone knew anything at all about her before McCain picked her. She was on no one's short list possible of running mate picks. No one's, period. Thus, especially now, we all have every right to try to get to know who she is and everything about her. But what does the McCain campaign do except hold her back from the media for two solid weeks. Are they hoping that by the time people really see who she is and what she's all about it will be too late? You bet. Written by Richard P.
on 9/16/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Here's two more takes on Palin's answer. FIRST, a CBS guy also puts the "doctrine" into just one cubbyhole, although a different one than Gibson used: "The Sarah Palin Phenomenon Is Doomed, MarketWatch Columnist Jon Friedman Warns, The Media Live To Build You Up, Then Knock You Down, NEW YORK, Sept. 15, 2008, (MarketWatch) This column was written by MarketWatch's Jon Friedman,
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/15/business/marketwatch/main
4448337.shtml
Specifically, Palin seemed to have little idea about the Bush Doctrine, in which the U.S must spread democracy around the world to halt terrorist acts. When Gibson put it to her and asked if she agreed with the doctrine, she answered, "In what respect, Charlie?" Some analysts have suggested that Gibson knew more about the Bush Doctrine than the vice-presidential candidate." [side note: the thrust of this whole column is hoot; this guy thinks the media can destroy Palin. No, I suppose she could make a fool of herself with a few, choice, Biden-esque gaffes, but more bold headlines unsupported the following story won't do that. Read a great bon mot to the effect that the media's self-immolation these last two weeks spilled lighter fluid on Obama's coronation robes.]
SECOND From the WSJ, GLOBAL VIEW, SEPTEMBER 16, 2008, Palin and the 'Experience' Canard By BRET STEPHENS, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122152769721840385.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
Gibson: "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"
Palin: "In what respect, Charlie?"
Which was a sensible answer, given that no higher authority than Jacob Weisberg of Slate has counted six versions of the thing (including "absence of any functioning doctrine at all"). Further pressed on the subject, Gov. Palin explained that "what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism," which better sums up the gist of Bush policy than Mr. Gibson's cramped definition of the doctrine as "anticipatory self-defense." END WSJ QUOTE
If you can't rebut the legal point, and if the record won't support the transcript, I suppose going sideways into Palin's record in Alaska makes perfect sense. I don't know what "more and more" can mean given her 80% approval standing up there. Somehow I suspect this year's edition of "Troopergate" will continue to fizzle out, just like the librarian, creationism, and Holy War did. To me, cutting off the "Pray that" and then doubling down that it was her "exact words" should be enough all by itself to take Gibson's credibility off the table. As to Palin as Palin, the rest of the this morning's Stephens WSJ piece is a nice point, and not the first time I've seen these comparisons to the previous history of TR et al. Back to pre-war intel, not that it has any relevance to the thread, but EVERY intel agency on the planet thought he had or was close to getting WMD. Finally, it seems we've reached the end of useful point-counterpoint about Palin's interview. As to the ultimate question, we'll all know in about 6 weeks. I think McCain will win both the state and the election.
Written by Kelly Haggar
on 9/16/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
If the intelligence was that valid, if they were that sure that the weapons were there, then I'd sure like to know whatever exactly happened to all those weapons whose presence (never mind about Iraq having no long-range bombers or long-range missiles or missile subs to deliver them). If Iraq such as it was was such an instance of a justifiable war, in a practical sense Pakistan should have rated much higher on the priority list given that they DO have the weapons and the proximity if not the outright presence of terrorist organizations, not to mention a corrupted intelligence agency. Anyone may cite whatever legal precedent they want but War Hawk neo-conservativism is simply not a feasible, workable policy. Bush the father and some of his associates, e.g. Brent Scowcroft understood that but the son simply had to have his way. Maybe an Oedipal thing. If Palin can't see that war very often gains a momentum of its own, always carries great risks and costs that must be weighed (I believe that the American people understand that quite well now even if, amid the fears and anger post-9/11/2001 that the GOP has shamelessly sought since to capitalize on for its own political advantage they didn't) and can't function beyond how the McCain campaign obviously programmed her then I can't see how she's ready in any way to be "a heartbeat away." For goodness' sakes, there are plenty of people in Alaska, it's coming out more and more, who don't think that she was even ready to go from being small town mayor to being governor (see how she's handling this state trooper matter). It's not just a matter of knowledge (maybe indeed she has learned a lot just by living so close to Russia that she can see it) but also and maybe important temperament. Scratch the surface and it seems that "Sarah the barracuda" is not far from it. Combined with her obvious lack of experience, seasoning and knowledge, she is a shockingly poor choice, maybe not so much politically but I'm talking about actual governing, and especially so considering that someone like McCain who should so well know better made that decision. "Country first??" That may be what he likes to say and about what I had expected before the last few weeks. These decisions and others, however, sadly, really smack of "McCain first," as in selling his soul just to win. Written by Richard P.
on 9/15/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
"Now, why didn't Saddam Hussein come clean and stop playing games with the U.N.? Who knows? I don't, but I suspect that maybe he wanted the Iraqi's and neighboring countries to think that he did have something he could use on them -- or else his grip on power would have been a tenuous one." Good hunch, but we don't need to speculate about his motives since they are known. He said more or less exactly that before he was hanged. As to the larger point of "How close to launch is close enough to launch", again, reasonable minds can differ. For a while opponents of invasion tried to make the case that only "imminent" would qualify. They lost that argument because we had a full debate, in and out of the UN, in and out of Congress, and the various authorizing resolutions all passed. Moreover, the reasons adduced were not solely tied to possession of WMDs. (For my own two cents, if you wait until force is your only resort as well as your last resort, you're likely to end up using rather more of it than an earlier, smaller effort would have needed to resolve the question. Imagine spending 10% of our 1945 budget in 1935 or 1937 - would there still have been a D-Day? A Nagasaki?) After the conventional, state-on-state direct conflict had ended, the debate shifted to "Bush lied" in place of "Bush was mistaken." The problem with that line of argument was that both our bipartisan Congressional investigation and the Brits' independent investigation found no book cooking by anyone's intell shop. Now we're back to the original point of the thread - did Gibson succeed in exposing Palin as unqualified to be Veep? Or Prez? I think he tried, but failed. Written by Kelly Haggar
on 9/15/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
The salient point is that the basis of the 2003 Iraq War was the 2002 Bush doctrine that merely the vaguest of threats from some foreign country was sufficient reason to launch a full-scale invasion and I dare say that that is what the Bush doctrine is most peoples' minds. Now, if the bombers, aircraft carriers, ICBM's, etc. are already launched by the other country or even at the state of being about to be launched then most people could understand doing something drastic as "anticipatory response" but Iraq of 2003 was nowhere near that. No ICBM's, no missile subs, no long-range bombers and, most of all, no actual nuclear weapons or major role in the 9/11/2001 attacks or substantive not-too-sketchy "equal-partner" connection to bin Laden et al. Just an army and a fairly ragtag one at that. Now, why didn't Saddam Hussein come clean and stop playing games with the U.N.? Who knows? I don't, but I suspect that maybe he wanted the Iraqi's and neighboring countries to think that he did have something he could use on them -- or else his grip on power would have been a tenuous one. So why didn't Sarah Palin just come right out with a simple "yes, I support it...?" After all, her would-be boss-to-be has supported Bush 90 percent of the time and definitely had no qualms about the idea of invading Iraq in 2003. Written by Richard P.
on 9/15/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Richard P: the Dems' argument here is first that a clarity response was a Palin error and second that Gibson's supplied prompt - anticipatory self defense - was the correct answer. The first is a matter of opinion about which reasonable minds can differ; the second is just flat wrong. The Caroline incident predates Bush by almost 150 years, nor was it the first such incident on record. Written by Kelly Haggar
on 9/15/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Is the glass half empty, or is it half full? MC CAIN AND PALIN, OBAMA AND BIDEN, HOWDY AND DOODY, GUNS 'N ROSES, YOGI AND BOO-BOO, SHAGGY AND SCOOBY DOO...... It really isn't important anymore, and the trying times have yet to begin. Kind of hard to put all that spilt milk back in the glass now isn't it? Because the glass isn't half full, and it isn't half empty... It is broken..
Written by
on 9/15/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I generally agree with your post, however what we as a nation also need to "get" is that any course of action involves costs, that our social safety nets only function well when the costs are distributed to many and that the fewer who are recipients of these safety nets the better these programs will be in providing to those in need. This country cannot keep adding more and more benefits to more and more people - particularly those who never contribute but only collect from these programs - without us going bust (or more realistically scaling back our benefits and/or standard of living). We cannot just keep raising taxes without adverse effects so the best way to make tax dollars stretch is to eliminate needless spending. Unfortunately the special interests will lobby to keep every unnecessary government spending program funded despite the adverse effect upon our country and people. My hope is that either Obama or McCain will be a leader who will take on the moneyed special interests to get us moving in the right direction. I won't be surprised if this needed change does not take place regardless of who wins this November – nevertheless, hope springs eternal. Written by kpf
on 9/15/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Obama is a fine campaigner but how exactly he'll govern is not clear. McCain has been an off-and-on campaigner, however my sense is that he'll govern pretty much as Bush has been governing. Clinton was not the greatest nor the worst in terms of governance but a very strong campaigner. Bush BTW is, again, a smart campaigner. His actual record of governance has been horrid starting with that the 9/11/2001 attacks happened on his watch, he's let bin Laden off the hook, he's let the Taliban come back into power, he's made enemies of many nations who'd otherwise be decent allies (at a time when this country needs all the allies it could stand), he's had this country involved in a prolonged unnecessary and very wasteful war and occupation of a distant nation based on distortions and half-truths, he's overseen the weakest economic performance, GDP-wise and employment-wise especially, of any post-WWII administration and is, pretty much as said, an idiot (who's turned the controls over, more than any other administration in history, to his vice-president) which is how history will be viewing him years from now. We keep electing the stronger campaigners but we as a nation really need to start getting it that campaigning and governing are two different things. Written by Richard P.
on 9/15/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I always find it interesting that staunch liberals (or conservatives) will always support the Democratic (or Republican) candidates no matter how - or in which way - they "fall short" of the traits an ideal candidate would possess. All the while pointing out how the opposition candidate - whom they would never vote for regardless of what qualities they might have - lacks "intelligence" or "experience" or what have you. Are we as a nation incapable of rationally discussing issues - most importantly the "pros and cons" of each option in any given issue – or are we forever doomed to discuss banalities more befitting National Enquirer or People magazine? If so, perhaps that explains why we’ve elected a predatory pervert and an idiot as the last two officeholders of the nation’s highest office… appropriate perhaps. Written by kpf
on 9/15/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Was Palin ever asked specifically to define or explain the "Bush doctrine?" I don't remember Gibson phrasing the question that way. I thought, rather, that he asked her whether or not she supported it and then she came back with "in which regard?...." She could have then answered his response simply and succinctly with a "yes" or with a "no." I sense that the way she answered that was indicative of the McCain campaign having thoroughly coached her. They programmed her and she performed just as she was programmed/ Folks, we clearly aren't dealing here with a veteran hand like Dick Cheney or Al Gore or George Bush the father or Walter Mondale or Nelson Rockefeller. More like Dan Quayle or maybe Spiro Agnew. Good for parroting the right catchphrases but not much else. Written by Richard P.
on 9/14/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Let's start with the easy part first; the definition/meaning of the "Bush Doctrine." This won't take long, since the fellow who initially coined the phrase has written that both the NYT and ABC got it wrong while Palin did OK. See http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTU5YmYzNjU2MThhOTFiZWNmNjE4MTc5MzY3ZGRkMGY=
Next, for those of you who don't believe an author has any superior insight in his/her own work, let's assume the author was wrong and that Gibson's understanding of international law was correct. (It's not, but let's cut him some slack and pretend he knew what he was talking about.) Try reading up on some international law. Hint: search for a ship named "Caroline," back when Daniel Webster was Sec State. If you really want to understand the theoretical foundations of the legal principles here, go back to the Romans, and consider these terms: bellum, legitimus hostis, guerra, and latrunculi. Don't forget Cicero, as in “Silent enim leges inter arma.” Extra credit: evalute the High Panel's take on Article 51 of the UN Charter, keeping in mind that the controlling US case on the larger principles here is Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957).
Finally, keep braying about who had which baby. My Casey Stengel imitation: "Can't anybody here play this game?" Written by Kelly Haggar
on 9/14/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
All I could think of during Sarah Palin's interview was, "When was the last time you fed your baby?" Written by KjunLady
on 9/13/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Charlie Gibson must have been constipated by the look on his face throughout the interviews. I thought she handled herself very well. The way the Bush Doctrine question was posed needed clarification. Whether you believe it or not she has more experience to govern than Obama. Ask him the same questions and you get sound bites given in a circular response. And someone says she's on a mission from God? God's new secret agent? She's conservative, pro life, loves the outdoors, has actual real life experience, with a modern day family and she's going to sink the republican ticket? Don't think so. Boy I can't wait till she debates the blow hard Biden. As far as "The View" goes, it rates right up there with Sean Hannity in regards to a legit interview...it doesn't. Written by Sid
on 9/12/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Jeff, I am really, really, really tired of those old insinuations about a so-called liberal media victimizing poor, virtuous conservatives who only have the best interests of everyone at heart. I've been looking hard for liberal media in the United States, and they're hard to find. Finally, I've located Counterpunch.org and a few others, but the corporate media were responsible for putting on the sidelines the only real liberals in the presidential campaigns, Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, so the corporate media are hardly liberal. Paul and Kucinich are liberal in the only sense that matters to me, that is, they are for Constitutional government. As for Ms. Palin, I encourage you to watch or read her claims about herself. She believes she is on a mission from God! That absolutely terrifies me. The last person I met on a mission from God almost killed me to save me. He was, of course, sure that my soul would be saved, even if I was physically hurt. I don't want people like that as Commander-in-Chief. I don't even want people like that in my house. Written by Robert Desmarais Sullivan
on 9/12/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Jeff says, "Palin was knowledgeable, despite trying to remember loads of facts that were crammed into her head over weeks of training with foreign and domestic policy professionals"....................EXACTLY......... she's needs to LEARN A LOT............We'll all certainly be watching tonight. ...Did you catch "The View" today with John McCain?..... Barbara Walters and "The gals" ATE HIS LUNCH!!... (Surely, it will be on every cable station tonight).. and, I doubt if "The View" will ever get Sarah Palin to appear-- If mild-mannered Charles Gibson ruffled her feathers, she'll be quite intimidated for that show and many other interviews. Big Sigh-- I feel real good about McCain's VP choice-- McCain's political suicide. Written by KjunLady
on 9/12/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Palin makes Dems so nervous they are quaking in their liberal panties....I LOVE IT.
McCain/Palin 08 Written by Nana
on 9/12/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Whether she's a Democratic or Republican, I do think she should be scrutinized as equally as any other person seeking such a high office. The media has a job to do and should not be deterred. There is something about her that makes me quite uncomfortable. We don't need any more "mavericks" using tough talk and intimidation to lead our country. We need someone intelligent who knows how to communicate with all people and on diverse issues that could impact our nation. McCain-Palin does not inspire trust or confidence in any of us. Written by Annat
on 9/12/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Palin is every bit as qualified to be VP as old worn out "liberal ideas" Joe Biden who doesn't even think he was the best pick for VP.He thinks Hillary,whom half the country despises, would have been a better pick.Obama had to make an impromptu worldwind foreign tour so he could point to it as "foreign policy" experience.Palin has so flustered the libs they are in a free fall and Obama's meeting with Bill Clinton is proof of the utter desperation that has engulfed the Democrats. The choice is a no brainer for anyone with enough sense to compare the two tickets. Written by poboy1
on 9/12/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Picking Palin will backfire on McCain. From earmarks to the Bush Doctrine, Palin has demonstrated she is not quite ready for prime time. Palin-McCain means more of the same. Written by David Quidd
on 9/12/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Sorry, but you're wrong. Her not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is is a very, very bid deal. She claims to be ready for the VP position, once it was explained to her what that is, but doesn't understand the prevailing attitudes that brought the US to it's current state? She claims her lack of foreign policy experience is not an issue, but doesn't understand how we got into a war with Iraq?
Your statement that it's impressive how many facts crammed into her head in the past weeks, and it would be if she were appearing on Jeopardy. Sadly, she's showing up to be the Vice President of our country. Anyone qualified to hold the VP spot would not need these facts crammed in there - they would know them already.
You are correct that there has been to much coverage of extraneous issues regarding Mrs. Palin. On the other hand, had she been made available to the press at all, they would have been able to cover something else. What was she hiding, or being hid, from anyway? She can't have it both ways. She can't claim the competence to tackle issues around the globe, but be unable to handle Wolf Blitzer.
I would love someone to explain somethings to me: why is it so hard for most of the right wing to admit choosing her was a cynical, calculated attempt to win over Hillary supporters, raise interest in McCain, and, perhaps most of all, to take the spotlight off Obama? In what possible way is her selection putting "country first"? To hear your talking heads resort to such silly and frankly ridiculous statements as her proximity to Russia giving her foreign policy cred boggles the mind. They must all carry gallons of Listerine around to get that taste out of their mouths when they say such things. McCain may be more willing to lose a war than an election, but he's clearly more interested in winning an election than making responsible decisions in governing it.
Written by Lisa
on 9/12/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
She continues to impress me and the more the liberals attack her the more I like her. Written by Sid
on 9/12/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
This nation can only GAIN WITH MC CAIN AND PALIN. Written by RhettsWife
on 9/12/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
For weeks, the national news media has been screaming for Palin to come forward and meet with reporters. They have complained that Palin has been unavailable and that the McCain campaign has been hiding her. Well, the long wait is over and last night, ABC aired an interview conducted by Charlie Gibson, their evening news anchor. 
