Thinking in Print - Cogito Ergo BlogitoThinking in Print - Cogito Ergo BlogitoThinking in Print - Cogito Ergo BlogitoThinking in Print - Cogito Ergo BlogitoThinking in Print - Cogito Ergo Blogito
I don’t agree with everything this young man says. But his passion and his general observations make some eloquent statements. Men and women such as this are the future of the Right. Why do I say so? Just one quote …
“It’s one thing to reach across the aisle to the other side. It’s quite another to have so much gravity that the other side of the aisle comes to us!”
While I’m unwilling to concede just yet that Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States, it would be foolish to deny that possibility. Even if John McCain wins, the status of Conservatism in the GOP and politics generally is troubling at best.
Politicians and The People, with few exceptions, seem determined to abandon sound, proven truths for the warm, fuzzy rhetoric of the Economic and Social policies of “Hope!” and “Change!” It’s difficult to blame The People. They gave the GOP a shot at letting Conservative ideology work it’s magic on the country for years. Turns out the Pols weren’t as Conservative as advertised.
The years after the Reagan era are defined by a GOP wanting more to breed and less to lead. GOP strategy was “What must we do to increase our power and get re-elected?” instead of “What must we do to serve the people and earn our re-election?”
The nominations of Bob Dole, W and now John McCain coupled with the strategy of many GOP House and Senate candidates has reinforced that approach. A notable exception, AZ Representative John Shadegg, says even at the height of 1994’s Republican Revolution the GOP’s advice was his most important job wasn’t to represent his district or promote his constituents’ values; it was to get re-elected.
This approach has tainted Conservatism in the minds of the people. It has become identical to, or at least wed to the GOP. Thus the sins of the Party become the sins of the Principled. Even if Conservatives object, pointing out they never countenanced bad behavior by the GOP (The Bailout, No Child Left Behind, Medicare Reform) The People still see them as part of the problem and not the solution. How else to understand what happened to Rick Santorum, George Allen and others?
Such losses make the Democrats’ job easier. Each defeated Conservative frees up time, energy and moneyto defeat those remaining. Squishy GOP members voted with Democrats enough to permit them to establish portions of their agenda and to regain solid Congressional majorities. Two things will follow: those who believe the Left can be reasoned with and appeased will be rudely awakened and the country will suffer. To date, only the second is happening.
GOP snubbing of Conservatives has produced much soul searching. The choices are stay in the GOP and work internally for change or leave to found or join a third party. I’m not advocating either choice. But enabling the status quo is not an option. We each must decide what the best use is of our time and talents. To decide, regardless of who wins the White House, a few things should be influential.
It is impossible to predict the consequences of next week’s election. It is, however, quite possible to predict what will happen if Conservatives do nothing. Surrender and chains being unacceptable options, regrouping and fighting on will have to do for now …
Sitting in airports most of yesterday, I got an earful of CNN’s coverage of Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama.
It effectively undercut two of the most damning truths about Obama. Particularly galling was the interview with Claire McCaskill. Grinning like the Cheshire cat, she gushed Obama must be the best choice since Powell, a military man, would never support someone unqualified to serve as CinC or who trafficked with terrorists. This despite the fact Powell’s endorsement included nothing addressing the validity of those two points. Even afterward, General Powell did not address with specificity his rationale for endorsing Obama.
By far, however, the most disappointing aspect of Powell’s endorsement was his contention that, despite his decision, he still considers himself a Republican. I do not know the General nor have I ever spoken to him. I believe he is a good man and his skilled service to our country as a military man is beyond exemplary. But I cannot accept his contention that he is a Republican. It is not because he endorsed the nominee from the other side. It is his stated reasons for doing so.
Over the last 8 years, three prominent Democrats endorsed the GOP nominee; Zell Miller, Democratic Senator from Georgia; Ed Koch, former Democratic Mayor of NYC and Joe Lieberman, former Democratic Senator from CT and 2000 Democratic VP nominee. When these Democrats endorsed the GOP nominee, they did so deliberately and with specificity. They did so while remaining Democrats. With the exception of Zell Miller, they did so while disagreeing with Republicans on almost every other point except the War on Terror. Concluding aggression against the US was the greatest threat to the nation and that Democrats could not or would not see that, these men broke with their party to support a GOP nominee. Miller’s endorsement followed in the well established DixieCrat tradition of Conservative southern Democrats. There was nothing that demanded these men be excluded from the Democratic Party.
There was a fair amount of criticism from the Left directed at these men for their decision. Like Powell, however, they maintained they were still Democrats while breaking with the party on the war. That break cost them. While Miller retired shortly after his endorsement, he was villified by Leftists. Lieberman was actively opposed by the Democratic Party in his bid for reelection to the Senate. These men remain Democrats in all things except for their endorsements. Ed Koch is supporting Obama and thinks Palin is scary. Joe Lieberman still caucuses with Democrats and votes with them on virtually all matters not related to the war. It is clear, whether or not you agree with their assessment of the war, that was the reason they supported the nominee from the GOP.
Colin Powell’s rationale isn’t even close to as specific. It’s filled with nebulous and meaningless platitudes. Obama brings a fresh set of eyes to the problem. Well, so does Sarah Palin. Obama is inclusive. This is simply laughable as there is literally zero evidence for that. If inclusiveness is the criteria by which we are to judge, McCain is the hands down winner. Powell is uncomfortable with the rhetoric coming out of the McCain camp regarding Obama’s association with terrorists, both foreign and domestic. Evidently he is OK with the rhetoric coming from the camps of terrorists, both foreign and domestic, that support the Illinois Senator.
In short, Powell’s objections to McCain aren’t policy based. They aren’t ideologically based. They seem to be based in personality. That is not to say personality has nothing to do with how to evaluate a candidate. But it ought to be last on the list and certainly not a basis for abandoning party policy and ideology. Unless, of course, your policy and ideology is more akin to the other guy’s than to the one you are generally associated with.
Colin Powell, when asked if he was still a Republican, responded that he was. With all respect to the General, I must disagree. There is little evidence from his speech that he is. His endorsement of Obama ignores that Obama is for bigger Government, higher Taxes, decreased personal Liberty, weaker national Defense and a host of other anti-GOP notions. Powell does not list a single issue or policy with which Obama is at odds with the GOP and which he considers paramount beyond all considerations for the safety and security of our nation. Instead, he gives a general and sweeping endorsement of the man and his policies which are unquestionably Left of center.
If you can explain to me how this is a Republican view, I’m willing to listen. But from here it sounds like a Democrat in GOP clothing standing up for what he believes in. I have no issue with the good General if he wants to hold Democratic views. I would appreciate, however, the intellectual honesty to admit the same and make the announcement that he cannot, in good conscience, remain in the GOP any longer and that he was endorsing the Democratic agenda.
Chief Executive magazine’s most recent polling of 751 CEOs shows that GOP presidential candidate John McCain is the preferred choice for CEOs. According to the poll, which is featured on the cover of Chief Executive’s most recent issue, by a four-to-one margin, CEOs support Senator John McCain over Senator Barack Obama. Moreover, 74 percent of the executives say they fear that an Obama presidency would be disastrous for the country.
3 out of 4 business leaders believe Obama would be a disaster. Some went so far as to predict he would bankrupt the country in just 3 years. From my perspective, these are stunning results and it is not possible to overemphasize them.
Have you not been watching the news, or reading any newspapers? With what the wealthy CEO’s have done to the American economy. I know that anything they want, I’m against. First they steal my money, then they want me to pay them again with my tax money? Oh, and go on a $400,000 vacation after they get it. I’m thinking I’ll vote for the other guy. I don’t care if he is black. The rich are rich enough. It’s time I got something other than a trickle.
The comments at this brief piece say it all. The prevailing wisdom seems to be if CEOs are for it, then it’s good for the little guy to be against it. After all, CEOs are all just money grubbing bastards who don’t care about anyone but themselves.
I must admit, even I was a bit surprised at the vehemence of the disparaging and the bitterness and cynicism expressed by these folks. Because it makes no sense. Should the people be concerned about the fact that many CEOs, including Big Government type Democrats like the execs at Freddie and Fannie, make millions while they don’t? Sure. Especially if the CEO isn’t the company’s founder and never risked a penny of his own money in the enterprise. But in the end, it’s sort of childish whining to pursue the “Corporate Execs are for it so I’ll be against it” test for determining one’s opinion apart from the occasional foray into humor.
Rationally, CEOs make such sums because they have the ability to wring sufficient profit out of the sweat and exploitation of their abused employees and successfully dupe enough consumers into buying their shoddy product. Except that would be disastrous for their personal fortune building, wouldn’t it?
Or, to continue to make big money over a long time, CEOs must do something different. Perhaps they hire and retain good people with good benefit packages and wages. Perhaps they manufacture good products or provide good services at affordable prices so consumers buy and keep buying. Perhaps some don’t behave like this. Perhaps these are those we see on TV with their businesses failing and under indictment. Perhaps the vastly larger pool of CEOs not in that situation are also not engaged in that behavior. Except that would be disastrous for the opinions of the whining class.
Objective reflection indicates the second scenario is more likely. Which means whiners need to pay attention. Those providing a steady paycheck for them for years are, indeed, concerned about them; specifically with their ability to continue doing so should Obama be elected. In their vengeful glee over evil CEOs will “getting what’s coming to them”, they forget if the company goes broke, more than the CEO will be out of a job and an income.
The point is CEOs are good at other things which we ignore at our peril. One of those is analyzing Market trends to stay ahead of or away from bad ones. Hate them all you like for being successful. But don’t be blind to the wisdom they also possess. Can they be wrong? Absolutely! But if they are saying these kinds of things, smart people will listen …
Following up on my post featuring an excellent video background for America’s current financial woes, I thought to dig deeper into The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA). A lot of scrutiny is going to be directed toward it, and rightly so. Well intentioned at the outset, CRA was hijacked by the political Left and driven to this place and time by the unscrupulous with no regard for the consequences.
Signed by Jimmy Carter, CRA purposed to increase credit availablity in Lower and Middle Income areas (LMI). Such areas were often largely inhabited by the poor or minorities. Thus, if banks were lending less in LMI areas, it could mean they were discriminating. There was even a term coined, “redlining”, for the alleged bank practice of outlining areas on maps in which they would not do business, with a red pen. When the Housing and Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) of 1976 did show low levels of lending in LMI areas, discrimination was assumed and CRA passed the following year.
Realistic alternative meanings for HMDA data were proposed and evaluated, but it was too late. Howard Husock reports
A September 1999 study by Freddie Mac, for instance, confirmed what previous Federal Reserve and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation studies had found: that African-Americans have disproportionate levels of credit problems, which explains why they have a harder time qualifying for mortgage money. As Freddie Mac found, blacks with incomes of $65,000 to $75,000 a year have on average worse credit records than whites making under $25,000.
That assessment was over 20 years too late to stop CRA. By then it had already infected the banking industry and a catalyst had been found to accelerate the process.
In 1977 banking was heavily regulated. CRA required banks to report compliance. This information was used by regulators to approve mergers, to OK opening new branches and closing old ones. Doing business required good CRA compliance. During the 70s and 80s “Regulators asked banks to demonstrate that they were trying to reach their entire “assessment area” by advertising in minority-oriented newspapers or by sending their executives to serve on the boards of local community groups.” These softer compliance reporting requirements drastically changed in 1995 under Bill Clinton’s administration. CRA was amended, adding 2 features which began and drove the Housing Bubble.
First, compliance would now be measured only by one criteria: actual loans made. Husock writes
The new regulations de-emphasized subjective assessment measures in favor of strictly numerical ones. Bank examiners would use federal home-loan data, broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race, to rate banks on performance. There would be no more A’s for effort. Only results—specific loans, specific levels of service—would count.
It was no longer acceptable to prove you were looking for the smaller number of good loan candidates in a larger pool of bad candidates. CRA compliance would only be granted if you actually found someone to loan to. True to Leftist ideology, banks were no longer good community citizens if they provided equal access to loans. They were only good if they provided equal outcomes to borrowers. Responsible lending be damned!
As bad as the first change was, the second would prove even worse, especially seen from 2008’s perspective. Once again, Howard Husock says it best.
Crucially, the new CRA regulations also instructed bank examiners to take into account how well banks responded to complaints. The old CRA evaluation process had allowed advocacy groups a chance to express their views on individual banks, and publicly available data on the lending patterns of individual banks allowed activist groups to target institutions considered vulnerable to protest. But for advocacy groups that were in the complaint business, the Clinton administration regulations offered a formal invitation. The National Community Reinvestment Coalition—a foundation-funded umbrella group for community activist groups that profit from the CRA—issued a clarion call to its members in a leaflet entitled “The New CRA Regulations: How Community Groups Can Get Involved.” “Timely comments,” the NCRC observed with a certain understatement, “can have a strong influence on a bank’s CRA rating.”
This led to all manner of abuse. Deregulation massively changed the environment which existed in 1977 when CRA was first passed. Those changes were not taken into account by the 1995 changes to CRA, they were merely exploited by activists with agendas having nothing to do with lending. Deregulation meant more bank mergers, which in turn were dependent upon good CRA scores. But scores could be depressed, meaning expensive delays in business development, simply by formal complaints directed against a bank. It mattered not if the complaints were legitimate. The process was the costly component, not the outcome. Leftist groups like ACORN and others used this to their financial advantage. In vintage Jesse Jackson style shakedowns, they received real windfall profits as banks paid them not to follow up on threats of costly, frivolous complaints.
Even more disturbing, lending decisions were removed from bankers and handed over to activists as the activists were given a powerful seat at the table. ACORN in part, not banks alone, now controlled who got CRA mandated loans. Banks got the risk, while ACORN and others just got rich! In light of this, it is realistic to say it was not just Government Democrats who brought America’s current financial woes down on us, Democratic activists also played key roles!
It makes more sense that activists with no incentive to pay attention to risk would make bad loans than would bankers who understand the lending process. Why should ACORN care if the loans they hand out, but for which banks are responsible, are defaulted on? As we have learned in the last few months, ACORN should have cared. The numbers are staggering and the impact cannot be overestimated! Husock reports in 2000,
By intervening—even just threatening to intervene—in the CRA review process, left-wing nonprofit groups have been able to gain control over eye-popping pools of bank capital, which they in turn parcel out to individual low-income mortgage seekers. A radical group called ACORN Housing has a $760 million commitment from the Bank of New York; the Boston-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America has a $3-billion agreement with the Bank of America; a coalition of groups headed by New Jersey Citizen Action has a five-year, $13-billion agreement with First Union Corporation. Similar deals operate in almost every major U.S. city. Observes Tom Callahan, executive director of the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance, which has $220 million in bank mortgage money to parcel out, “CRA is the backbone of everything we do.”
Even worse, ACORN gets to double- and even triple-dip. Again from Husock, “In addition to providing the nonprofits with mortgage money to disburse, CRA allows those organizations to collect a fee from the banks for their services in marketing the loans. The Senate Banking Committee has estimated that, as a result of CRA, $9.5 billion so far has gone to pay for services and salaries of the nonprofit groups involved.” Activist organizations such as ACORN get shakedown payments, community influence and stature from being a reliable source for loan money and get what amount to “broker’s commissions” for doing so.
This is made even more relevant when one considers that the demon in the Housing market crisis is “greedy lenders” who engaged in “predatory lending practices” giving “huge loans to borrowers who couldn’t afford them”. I, personally, have wondered about the the numerous claims from borrowers that lenders didn’t fully explain their loan terms. I’ve often wondered why banks would engage in such suicidal practices. But if “lenders”, with literally NO liability or expertise yet armed with an agenda, controlled vast sums of loan funds, it becomes easier to understand. While many types of mortgages are currently in default, including loans to speculators who borrowed just to “flip” houses and not to live in them, it would be interesting to know how many bad loans came from banks and how many from ACORN’s “mortgage lenders”. “Greedy lenders making bad loans”, indeed!
I’m reminded of the old saying about putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. Obama’s association with ACORN and specifically with lawsuits involving CRA compliance in Chicago taint him sufficiently in my mind to disqualify him as a candidate to lead this nation. If his idea of proper tactics and procedures is embodied in this sort of activity, if this is organization he sees as beneficial for a community, he should not be trusted with an even larger community to organize.
There will be more investigation into this matter in the days ahead. Stay tuned. And stay engaged. It may mean the difference between electing a man and a party that believes this sort of outrage is good for the American people and a man who believes in service to country over to service to self.
In 218 BC, Hannibal took on Rome with cutting edge tech, including elephants.
Today, “elephants” are large, slow moving, easy, tempting targets.
Why, then, try to salvage the GOP?
The GOP and G.W.Bush claim to be Conservative. But the gap between GOP and Liberals is narrowing considerably.
Record deficits, increasing Government employment, Government bailouts resulting from bad Government policies without any Government hearings during a Lame Duck administration are NOT Conservative.
These things appall Conservatives but both McCain and Obama approve of recent Government bailouts. How is this change or maverick?
McCain promised no more bailouts not all that long ago. But he’s supporting AIG, carmakers and more? Big Gov vs Bigger Govt is not a good choice.
Doing bad things like the other guys - just slower and not as egregiously! This is a lousy platform for GOP candidates.
There are other options. And it’s me, Bob Barr! I will not be apart of the Bizarro world tactics and policies of GOP in Washington.
In Superman’s Bizarro world, everything was opposites. Up was down, in was out - weird! But this is the policy of the GOP today.
For instance, buying up bad mortgages with taxpayer dollars is what got us in trouble in the first place. Why do it again?
We need MORE regulation? The most regulated arena of the Economy IS investments. That failed and we need MORE regulation to fix it?
Strip away the self congratulatory rhetoric and we find, increased spending, more regulation, less transparency from the GOP.
But at the end of the day, if GOP is elected, it will be a victory of the status quo. Turning to the guys who broke it and trusting them to fix themselves.
If we don’t stop it this election cycle, we may not have another chance to fix it.
Regarding Obama SCOTUS picks as reason to reject Barr and vote for McCain BB asks what about other great GOP picks like Souter?
Plus, McCain bills self as a maverick, outside the fold. After McCain-Feingold would JM appoint Justices to overturn his signature legislation?
Perot got huge numbers of votes but not a single electoral vote. He still moved the GOP to the Right.
Much of the later legislative successes of the Right depended on Perot’s influence on the process by running even without winning.
Participation in campaign debates is not about message and voter information. Even inclusion of Perot was more about control of race, not information.
I’m a “Cranky Conservative”. What is that? GOPers who express their displeasure over the policies of the GOP over the last 15 years.
Cranky Conservatives gave us Sarah Palin.
Sarah Palin herself is a Cranky Conservative. So if you are, too, you have an advocate on the GOP ticket.
Palin isn’t popular because she’s cool or fresh. She’s popular because she adheres to the principles she adheres to.
Liberals understand that Palin’s nomination is a game changing event. She’s more than just a Veep nominee, she’s a threat to them.
Vuguerie believes McCain/Palin could win with as much as 55% of the vote and perhaps 60% of electoral votes.
Many Dems and GOP in office are responsible for current financial market woes. There ought to be an investigation of Congress.
Power corrupts regardless of Party. GOP experienced that. If Obama wins, Democrats will fare no different.
GOP becamse what it beheld. They threw out corrupt Dems in early 90s only to become the thing they warred against.
GOP railed against Government spending throughout the 90s. But when they took power, what did they do?
They took up the politics of bribery. Give to everyone associated with GOP with the purpose of holding on to power.
GOP claimed Washington was a cesspool but when they got there proclaimed it, instead, to be a Hot Tub.
The work and accomplishments achieved over years by Conservative and Free Market devotees has been largely undone by Big Government Republicans.
This was accomplished largely because Conservatives allowed themselves to become little more than an appendage to the GOP.
Conservatives must become a 3rd Force, not 3rd Party, on the Right. Start new organizations and pull the GOP to the Right.
Do so by utilizing all the tools and opportunity of New Media and other up tools of new technology and modernity.
Don’t wait to be asked by any person or group. Do it yourself and do it with passion. You’re not invited to meetings? Organize a few of your own.
Don’t wait for orders from Headquarters, rush to the sounds of the guns.
Dems and GOP alike have been in power for years and have made sure it’s very difficult to bring change by making it hard to even get a seat at the table.
If Cranky Conservatives successfully move the GOP to the Right, they’ll successfully move even the Left to the Right.
That can happen as long as we don’t tie our issues to a particular party. Fight for them on the basis of principle.
Don’t ask, hat in hand, the GOP or Dems for anything. Work for your issues and passions and when the parties feel the heat, they’ll see the light!
If so, blog and link here so I catch your posts or email me with a link. I’m a bit indisposed at the moment and cannot investigate as much as I would like.
UPDATE: 2AM 9-19 Rusty at Rustmeister’s Alehouse and Mushy at The Silverbacks report that the hacker is likely David Kernell, son of Memphis Democratic Representative Mike Kernell. So far all Kernell has done is confirm that his son is the subject of speculation and allegation. There has been no formal admission or charge as of now. The FBI and the Secret Service have both started investigations into the matter but there is no confirmation that Kernell is the focus of their efforts. Terry Frank has some more in depth analysis and some great comments at her place.
I’ve been engaging in a debate in the comments section of a piece I cross-posted at Media Lizzy’s blog. Over there, I’ve had a great, respectful give and take with a reader named Eric. It’s the sort of exchange we all enjoy - no profanity, not snarkiness - just the excellent literary stick-and-jab that makes political blogging interesting and fun. Would that all commenters were like Eric.
I wanted to respond here to something Eric said as this likely will be longer than your usual comment. Eric, as have so many others in the last few days, has made the mistake of viewing Sarah Palin’s comments on the Bush Doctrine question from Charlie Gibson through the “Best response for the Left” lens and not the more proper “Response most grounded in Reality” lens. When I read Eric’s statement in comment #14,
However, this issue is dead now that Sarah “In what respect, Charlie?” Palin has shown how vapid her knowledge on wordly issues really is. I think independents will view this performance, and ask themselves, “Do I REALLY want this woman to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?”
my response was
I haven’t seen the entire interview yet as I’m in Phoenix for a conference. I’ll be interested to see the quote you reference. As I mentioned, the Left will be going over her remarks with a fine tooth comb hoping to find some payback.
Vapid is not likely a word I would use for Palin. It’s unlikely that anyone accomplished enough to be considered for a VP slot would be vapid.
Sure enough, it turns out the “Sarahnator” was right and Eric was wrong. Not that he’s alone in that. Charlie Gibson was wrong, too. Turns out, even Barack Obama got it wrong! From their place on the floor, laid out from where the “Sarahnator” coldcocked them, one can almost imagine Palin extending a hand to them and saying, “Come with me if you want to live!” They see her as the enemy but she may yet save them all.
On what am I basing my opinion that Palin isn’t a vapid housewife, unfit to lead should she be called on to assume the Presidency? Here are just 3 authoritative comments on Sarah’s response to Charlie Gibson’s “gotcha” on the Bush Doctrine:
First up, a humorous and snarky response to the media from Catron at Health Care BS. In ‘Dear Mediatards, Thank You!’ Catron writes
Dear MSM,
Thank you for your mean-spirited and mendacious coverage of Sarah Palin. You have accomplished what no Republican strategist, talk radio host, or blogger could have managed—-you have energized conservatives and convinced many independents that they should vote for McCain-Palin. …
Also, I will be eternally grateful to ABC for using its exclusive Palin interview to take her quotes out of context, distort facts, and do a general hatchet job on her.
And I can’t forget to thank AP for insinuating that Palin is unqualified to be VP because she was allegedly “unable to describe President Bush’s doctrine of pre-emptive strikes against threatening nations.”
The consequence of this exchange has been the predictable and familiar litany of hand-wringing over Palin’s purported ignorance of basic foreign policy principles, and her concurrent fitness (or lack thereof) to lead the country. See Andrew Sullivan for a succinct demonstration of the shrieking; the rest may be found via the usual suspects.
Sullivan writes: “[A]ny serious person who has followed the debates about US foreign policy knows what the Bush doctrine is.” Charlie Gibson apparently agrees. They’re both wrong. The fact is that the “Bush Doctrine” is a term which has had an evolving definition over this decade. Though it’s obvious Palin was momentarily baffled by the query, she was far closer to the truth when she interpreted the phrase as signifying the President’s “world view.” What we know as the “Bush Doctrine” has many meanings.
Josh follows this up with a lengthy list of the various ways the term has been used, complete with links so you can see for yourself.
Finally, in the WaPo online edition, Charles Krauthammer’s article Charlie Gibson’s Gaffe also shreds Eric’s contention that Palin was confused and ignorant and thus, unqualified. Krauthammer notes that he knows something about the term “Bush Doctrine” as he was the first to use it. His analysis?
The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.
There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration — and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.
He asked Palin, “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?”
She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, “In what respect, Charlie?”
Sensing his “gotcha” moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine “is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense.”
Wrong.
Sarah Palin will weather this weak and baseless criticism. The Sarahnator is stronger than ever. I can hear it now in that confident Alaska cadence that’s more T888 than pitbull, “I’ll be back!”
