Preemptive surrender
Take from the makers and give it to the takers

Someone tell me what The Obama Doctrine is. IF anyone even knows what it is and means.

– RogerC

Let’s hope we never find out. For the sake of argument though (based on his career so far), I’d imagine it would be something like:

- Championing little (if any) legislation of any kind
- Allowing the Justice Dept to legislate from the bench
- Engaging us in a period of worldwide decline of US influence.
- Long speeches involving lots of vague feel-good catch-phrases.

Someone tell me what The Obama Doctrine is. IF anyone even knows what it is and means.

I’d love to see a response along the lines of the disingenuous one from Us Weekly.

On September 13th, 2008 at 11:47 am, Member-VRWC said:

Actually, I accept Krauthammer’s analysis because he took the time to explain it. I will also accept your analysis that there might be more, should you take the time to explain them. I remain open and am prepared to accept facts, and respect opinions.

No, I do not expect, or demand, that Gov Palin should have run through the many Bush Doctrines. If she was aware that there were more than one, she would have said, ‘Charlie, there are several Bush Doctrines, which one are you referring to?’ BTW, as I have noted before, Gov Palin did mention Pres Bush’s ‘world view’ as the Bush Doctrine. And, she answered the question.

Again, no. Had she picked any of the four Bush Doctrines that Krauthammer had mentioned (as she eventually did) that would have been fine. Why? Because she would have educated Gibson that there is more than just one Bush Doctrine. I would have been educated that there is more than one Bush Doctrine. Asking for clarification would have gone more along the lines of , ‘which Bush Doctrine, Charlie?’

And, yes I view her response as tap dancing. In a hostile interview tap dancing is expected, sometimes it is done very well. Sometimes it is done poorly.

Answering a question by claiming it is ‘above my pay grade.’ No, it is an evasion. ‘Hmmmm, what do you think?,’ is tap dancing. ‘There are different opinions and I understand them all,’ is tap dancing.

It was not so much a gotcha’ question as it was an assumption. An assumption on Gibson’s part that could have been handled and knocked down easily with the simple preface of stating what Gov Palin knew the Bush Doctrines were, had she known them all. Unfortunately, only Gov Palin knows if she knew them all, and we will never know.

An Aside -

This is more of a gotcha’ question.

Sen Obama discussed pursuing the terrorists into Pakistan. Do you agree that if a country is too timid to act, then we will?

Go ahead, give yourself some time, give it some thought and then answer it.

Ready for the gotcha part?

Well, in his address to Congress after the attacks of 9/11, Pres Bush said, ‘if a country is too timid to act, then we will.’ Pres Bush offered no caveats about a country being an ally, having permission, or because that country was not involved with the attacks of 9/11. You might even call it a ‘Bush Doctrine.’

On September 13th, 2008 at 6:15 pm, mistressjustice said:

(snip)

How does Alaska wanting money for crab research differ at all from other states wanting money to research animals and environments local to their state? I’d say that 99% of all earmark requests are for things just as important, if not more so, than Alaska crab research.

(snip)

You do know that crab fishing (Alaskan King crab fishing in particular), is a major industry in Alaska?

They aren’t researching the spotted owl or some obscure snail darter for the sake of some misguided environmental crusade. This is one of their major industries, and learning how to efficiently take crabs without depleting reserves or other measures to balance yields and future catches is rather important to the functioning of the state.

But if you can’t believe Ashish, who can you beleive?

My last post was taken from a blogger named Ashish at 411mania.com.

I stand corrected.