This is an excerpt from an article on huffingtonpost.com by Michael Seitzman:
"Now, I want to be clear and speak directly to those of you who LOVED that Palin interview [with Charles Gibson]. You're an idiot. I mean that. This is not one of those cases where we're going to agree to disagree. This isn't one of those situations where we debate it passionately and then walk away thinking that the other guy is wrong but argued well. I'm not going to think of you as a thoughtful but misguided person with different ideas who still really cares about the country and the world. No, sorry, not this time. This time, if you watched those interview excerpts and weren't scared out of your freakin' mind, then you're mentally ill, mentally disabled, or mentally disturbed. What you are NOT is responsible, informed, curious, thoughtful, mature, educated, empathetic, or remotely serious. I mean it.
But I like to think that anyone can change.
Stop voting for people you want to have a beer with. Stop voting for folksy. Stop voting for people who remind you of your neighbor. Stop voting for the ideologically intransigent, the staggeringly ignorant, and the blazingly incompetent.
Vote for someone smarter than you. Vote for someone who inspires you. Vote for someone who has not only traveled the world but who has also shown a deep understanding and compassion for it. The stakes are real and they're terrifyingly high. This election matters. It matters. It really matters. Let me say that one more time. This. Really. Matters."
For the full article, visit:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-seitzman/sarah-palin-naked_b_125861.html
5 years ago
I'm confused as to what I'm supposed to be so afraid of. It was actually Charlie who was in the wrong in that interview and Palin was completely right to ask him what aspect of the Bush Doctrine he was referring too.
ReplyDeleteThere have been four distinct meanings of the Bush Doctine that have progressed over an 8 year period. The one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. Palin's was :)
Palin actually made Gibson look bad in that interview.
And who's the idiot?? lol :)
Now who's in denial, Tracy?
ReplyDeleteI watched that interview. She CLEARLY did not know what in the hell he was talking about.
She didn't say, "Which meaning would you like, Charlie?" Nor did she proceed to recite any of them.
She DID NOT know.
What you should be scared of is that, if elected, she will be one heartbeat away from the Presidency of the United States of America. (I know that phrase is overused, but it works.)
If we wanted someone with so little knowledge of national policy that close, we should send the current Mayor of Wasilla to the White House.
Ok Smalltownamerica, let's look at the transcripts and see what was said, shall we?
ReplyDeleteGIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
Palin asked, "In what respect" because the question "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine" is not a question that can be answered without clarification. It has changed over the last 8 years. One needs to know what aspect of the Doctrine Charlie is referring to.
And continuing on......
GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view.
Which is correct. Any presidential doctrine can change with time and be malleable to fit the situation. The only fixed "doctrines" in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines. The Bush Doctrine is indeed Bush's world view.
carrying on.........
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
That would be when Bush said: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." Palin's response was spot on and completely appropriate.
continuing on...........
PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation.
She was talking about the war on terror and that was indeed the current meaning of the Bush Doctrine.
continuing.........
GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?
Gibson was actually wrong here. It was a year AFTER the initial statement that Bush justified a doctrine of preemptive war. (And remember, Charlie himself has had several different, inconsistent definitions of the Bush Doctrine)...
Palin was not wrong......Gibson was.
The definition Gibson gave has long since been superseded by this statement by Bush, "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."
In other words......spreading Democracy throughout the world.
The only idiots involved in this were the ones who didn't do their homework :)
As far as your statement that Palin will be a heartbeat away from the presidency, that gives me far more confidence than knowing Obama IS the president. He has been a professional campaigner who has aligned himself with terrorists and criminals. His community organizing skills are tarnished with his involvement in ACORN and the corruption that took place in that organization. He has voted for sex education to kindergarteners and he has voted for children who are alive and viable after an abortion shall be left to die with no treatment.
He has spent years agreeing or disagreeing and nothing more.
Palin has actually ran a state and town. She is involved in all the details that Obama knows nothing about.
Obama has NO experience except what his corrupt friends have touted he has.
Thanks, but no thanks on Obama. I'll take my chances that McCain will live through the next 4 years. His mother is still alive and his genes are good. It bodes well for McCain :)
Alright, let me reiterate:
ReplyDeleteShe CLEARLY did not know what in the hell he was talking about. You can cite transcript all you like, and I will say again: She CLEARLY did not know what in the hell he was talking about.
Words are just words on paper. It is the body language and intonation behind words that tell people how to take them.
When Palin said, "In what respect, Charlie?" she shifted position in her chair, clasped her hands, and sat back with a little bounce--a clear indication she was on the defensive.
Further,
You quoted: PALIN: His world view.
That was more a question from her, not a statement as you indicate. She was looking for approval.
Moving along, your comment of "He has voted for sex education to kindergarteners," is so blatantly out of context, I would swear you wrote spin for Karl Rove. The intention of that legislation was to educate young children and protect them from sexual predators. With the detail and thought you put into your comments, I thought you would have been above quoting such bullshit.
People want to crucify Obama for being "guilty by association."
So play the devil's advocate for a moment--What does that say about Catholics who knowingly participate in a religion that has rampant sexual abuse practiced by its own clergy? Holy men that have taken a vow of chastity, men we look to for guidance and blessing, preying on our little boys while counseling us on the path to righteousness and atonement. You can't get much more dangerous and hypocritical than that. Yet, people, day after day, file obediently down the aisle to worship at the feet of a man who may be molesting their child. Couldn't it be said you are abetting these crimes by continuing to patronize the Catholic Church?
I realize this whole idea is a bit of a stretch, but it needs to be understood that because someone associates with someone or some entity, does not necessarily mean that person condones, believes or practices what that someone or some entity stands for.
Pretty evocative to take on the Catholic Church...pretty evocative to suggest Obama wants to teach "sex ed" to my five year old like he is some sort of pervert.
At least he promotes sexual awareness--if Palin had her way, every teenage girl in America would end up like her daughter.
If Palin had her way, she would ban books without even reading them because someone told her it was a bad book. With Palin as President, she would tell me what I could and could not do with my body--a violation of my human rights. If Palin were President, she would tell me what I could and could not read-- a violation of my right as an American to read whatever the hell I want. She is on the fence about evolution, when it has been scientifically proven. She would rather have creationism taught in our classrooms. There are some things I hold very dear. She threatens those things. Therefore, she threatens me.
Oh my.......smalltownamerica...I think you WANT to believe she was clueless and because her answers were spot on, you've resorted to studying her body language? lol... Could it be that she was uncomfortable because Charlie was being so vague and making it impossible for her to give an immediate answer? He not only made it look like she was wrong but he then gave her the wrong answer to his own question. I'm pretty unflappable but that would throw me, lol :)
ReplyDeleteI'm not even addressing your whole church thing. It is just such a silly comparison. Obama admitted to his friendly relationship with Ayers and Dohrn. They hosted his first fundraiser. The only way I could compare those two would be to say I knew of a pedophile priest and I frequented his home and took money from him and he was a friend. And I would say you would be completely justified in condemning me.
If this is how you justify his shady associations, so be it. I gotta say though smalltown, it's a stretch :)
If this were John McCain being long-time friends with a terrorist who used to blow up abortion clinics and kill abortion doctors and who still defends his horrible acts today, I think that both you and I know it would be the end of his career. Obama has gotten a free ride on this and it's reprehensible.
On to the sex ed~
I would NEVER suggest Obama was a pervert. I think he has a problem with good judgement.
The wording of that bill was such:
"Any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV."
That needed some clarification. If they want to teach about inappropriate touching to kindergarteners, fine. Don't leave it wide open like that. Who determines what is said to the 5 year olds? When exactly DO they start telling about the penis, ejaculation and how it's transmitted? I NEVER would have voted for something so vague.... It's unacceptable.
On to Palin and her daughter...
Wow.....do you really believe Palin wants every young girl pregnant? Is that what you read on those other dem blogs? That is just silly. We have been teaching our young women about birth control for many many years now. There are still record numbers of teen pregnancies. It happens sometimes whether you teach abstinence or send them to planned parenthood. Even with all the education we provide in schools about sexually transmitted diseases, even going so far as to hand out condoms, our teenagers are contracting STDs more every year. Neither side has a lock on that :)
Let me finish by saying that you seem to have forgotten that it is McCain running for president.
Obama has some deep seeded issues that cause him to repeatedly align himself with the likes of Rev. Wright and Ayers. One common thread is hatred of this country and all it stands for. It can't be a coincidence. I've lived my whole life and never had a friend that bombed an abortion clinic :)
OK, Tracy, you've given me a lot to respond to, and I feel, as I look at the clock, that I may have to do most of it tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteBut here are a few highlights...
1) Body language has been studied since ancient Greece. It is a prominent area of study in social psychology. It is the topic of many top business lecturers. Yes, I watch body language. You can tell more about a person from their body language than from what actually comes out of their mouth. There is a whole science to it--look into it. It has nothing to do with desperation--it is just a part of what I do. I read people. She didn't read well to me. Call it what you wish, but you are so plainly and sadly convinced the woman knew what she was talking about that you will resort to picking on me for picking up on her defensive body posture.
2) Terrorist associations. We have someone with close associations to terriorists in the White House now--so what's the dif?
3) And as for Palin--
(a) Sarah Palin does not support sex education in schools. She supports abstinence only education. We see how far that got her with her daughter. Statisics show that teen pregnancy has been on a steady decline since it hit an all time high in 1990. Visit the Center for Disease Control's National Center of Health Statistics here:
(http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hestats/teenpreg1990-2002/Figure1.png)
And she wants to take sex ed away from our teens?
(b) I do not forget who is running for President. You commented on this post. I am simply replying to you.
As for questioning her credentials, damn right I am. Damn right I have and will continue to do so. It is my right to question whether or not she deserves a wing in the White House--and if that affects who I vote for--well, that is my right, as well.
More later--gotta get to bed.
6am comes fast!
Smalltown,
ReplyDeleteLet me start by saying that I think your body language theory is ludicrous. She gave the right answers and that is not enough for you. She asked "His world view." as in, "are you asking about the Bush Doctrine as a whole or a specific part of it?" Again, that is the correct answer. You are resorting to reading body language when there is no need too. If it had been a written test, she would not be judged on her body language no matter how nervous or uncomfortable she was. The only important thing would be whether or not her answers were correct and they were.
On to Obama.....
Your response about Obama and his problem with aligning himself with shady characters was so vague and diversionary it was a waste of your time and mine. If your objective is to respond with indistinct, nebulous retorts then I have to inform you that I don't like it. Let's leave that to the benighted flamers, shall we?
Palin and sex ed.....
I'm not really sure where you are going with the whole Palin daughter thing. It's an easy insult and not one I would expect you to resort too. Sarah Palin does not believe in explicit sex ed in schools but that does not reflect what she is teaching at home. She is a member of Feminists for Life and she is pro-contraception. You have no idea what she talked to her daughter about.
Many young women who are fully versed in pregnancy prevention still become pregnant.
I will point out that according to National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, 70% of teen girls wish they had waited to have sex. There is a place for abstinence education and I believe these young women needed to hear about it.
Abstinence is not a bad word :)
Palin's credentials.....
You seem very defensive because I pointed out that you are stuck on Sarah Palin. I have just as many concerns about Joe Biden and his plagiarizing, racist ways. He himself admitted that Hillary Clinton may have been better for the job of vice president. He has admitted that he lies and says inappropriate things when angered. He's already had 2 aneurysms and is at a higher risk for another. He is also a heartbeat away my friend.
I don't begrudge you your questioning of Palin. It's just that I have found many of the points the dems make about Palin to be a tad hypocritical. Bringing up experience for VP when you are voting in for PRESIDENT an 8 year professional campaigner with no Executive experience. I'm just sayin'......lol
Oh yeah......I wanted to point out that on your poll about whether or not Palin should know about the Bush Doctrine, I didn't see an answer, "she did"..........just thought I'd point that out, lol :)
Only have a moment here, but what exactly do you determine "explicit" sex education to be?
ReplyDelete