Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui
|
This argument would have more validity if she had enunciated anything that could be considered the Bush doctrine. Instead she described a policy that was replaced by Bush. At least some conservatives get this and don't rush to defend her irregardless of facts. From National Review's Rich Lowry:
Quote:
|
She somehow bluffed her way through the Bush doctrine question. Gibson apparently didn't want to go into full "gotcha" territory by asking flat-out if she knew what it is. And then he muddled things further with his dubious definition of it, so she was never truly nailed and there was enough ambiguity there for conservatives to defend her. The fact still remains that she very likely didn't know any of the possible definitions of the Bush doctrine. I can't imagine if Obama had picked Gov. Tim Kaine and he had had a similar moment, conservatives would have rushed to say that the Bush doctrine is just too amorphous and complicated for him to know anything about it. Palin seemed weak on economic and budgetary policy too, talking in the vaguest generalities.
|
__________________
To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers
|