The Official and Undeniable Palin, Part 2

I did the first part of this post back here.  I have toned down the title as it doesn’t matter as much any more.  Palin is Alaska’s problem now.

How big a problem?  Well, luckily there’s aren’t many Africans in Alaska, or they might have a few questions for Sarah…

I’m sure more specific stuff will be coming out, but this kind of stuf…

An angry aide characterized the shopping spree as “Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast,” and said the truth will eventually come out when the Republican Party audits its books.

…is a lot more nasty than I could be.   And that was a McCain adie, a senior one.  I saw an interview with the author of the above newsweek article, which I’m featuring in another post, so I give it quite a bit of credibility.  McCain’s staff was really, really, frustrated with Palin.  Not the least of which was because….

On the Sunday night before the last debate, McCain’s core group of advisers—Steve Schmidt, Rick Davis, adman Fred Davis, strategist Greg Strimple, pollster Bill McInturff and strategy director Sarah Simmons—met to decide whether to tell McCain that the race was effectively over, that he no longer had a chance to win. The consensus in the room was no, not yet, not while he still had “a pulse.”

That was three weeks ago…when the race had ended but for something crazy happening (and by crazy I mean terrorist attack/alien invasion-type crazy.)

The race was over because the American people learned that when the question is……is Africa 1)a country or 2)a continent….and you have to think about it, and then get it wrong….it’s over.  It’s just over.

Palin was a joke, and she can blame the economy all she wants, but that’s the kind of stuff good world leaders are supposed to be prepared for.   Very prepared for.  Like, studying-your-whole-life prepared for.  It turns out that Palin wouldn’t even cram for two weeks, and so someone who didn’t know what the “Bush Doctrine” was (not a minor oversight we see know, but evidence of mass ignorance) had no chance of dealing with an economic crisis in a rational way.

The video above is textbook “throwing under the bus” and you’ll see it more and more over the next few weeks.  Then come the books.  And then come the movies.

Does Palin have a future?  I’m not sure.  I really don’t think so.  I think the embarrassment of some of the campaign gaffes (“go buy 3 suits” != “go spend $150K on your family”) are going to linger, and she is going to bear the brunt of the backlash when Republicans stop blaming everyone else and look for someone in their own party to blame.

Sadly Sarah fits the bill.

Did I just forget a comma?   I don’t know, never really learned no grammarin’.

Charles Krauthammer’s Lie (and read up on the “Bush Doctrine”)

[Charles Gibson] asked Palin, “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?”

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, “In what respect, Charlie?”

Sarah Palin ponders the Bush Doctrine

Sarah Palin ponders the Bush Doctrine

Sensing his “gotcha” moment [1], Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube [2] that the Bush doctrine “is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense.”


I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, “The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism,” I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.

Then came 9/11 [3], and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror.

[1] It was the “moose in headlights look in her eyes.
[2] “I’m a victim” argument.
[3] [And, as you’ve said any number of times…everything changed…including what you called the “Bush Doctrine.” ]

Charles Krauthammer – Charlie Gibson’s Gaffe –

So a bunch of right-wingers have been using this to defend Palin’s complete lack of knowledge regarding the fact that Bush and his neocon buddies (one of which is teaching her foreign policy) completely changed the foreign policy philosophy of the United States.

The lie is easily exposed quickly. Watch now, if you can ignore facts like this, you too, can be a hack.

KRAUTHAMMER: I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, “The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism,

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view.

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

So in his inredibly egotistical daydreams, Charles Krauthammer has forgotten 9/11.

You see, in between Krauthammer writing BS policy for PNAC and AEI in June 2001 and the U.S. invading Iraq in 2002, there was a rather large event.

Since Gibson specifically mentioned what he was talking about, and Krauthammer specifically omitted Gibson mentioning that, you can see who the liar is here.

Palin had no idea was any of them was, and offers a couple of complete non-answers. Some, like Krauthammer, have jumpted to Palin’s defense and said that the term is ambiguous. But given Gibson’s clarification, that Kruathammers somehow missed, and the fact that the official through colloquial understandings of the term all have nothing to do with how she answered (I think she thought it was the “War on Terror” which is even more ambiguous).

She didn’t know what it was. If you would like to, please read on.

Then, if McCain nominates you for Vice President (and it is possible) you can know better….he certainly did….

Continue reading