First off, paraphrasing Gibson's assessment/response of the Doctine solely and simply meaning "anticipatory self defense" is, at best, dishonest. He stated initially, "the Bush Doctrine, as I understand it...." and then he goes on to paraphrase one of the constituent part of said Doctrine. This was certainly more than Palin was able to give with her "his worldview" response.
So, did "Charlie" get it wrong with "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?
Or did Palin just absolutely nail it with "his worldview."
I think if this were horseshoes, Gibson would have taken the point.
Regardless,I'm honestly not so sure why the right is so fast to defend Palin's
1. Deer in the headlights, obliviousness.
2. Inability to take a personal
position (ie "yes, I agree with the Bush Doctrine and here's why", or "Yes, I agree with the Bush doctrine and here's why.")
3. Inability to even respond in a manner that actually followed from the initial question.
Mr. Gibson didn't need
to get it right (although he got it partly right), in the way Palin needed
to get it right...he's a journalist, not a Vice Presidential candidate. Gibson doesn't have his agent or publicist claiming to the world that he has suitable foreign policy experience or that he could be the one taking the call at 4am.
We do and should have higher expectations of a VP candidate. I would have railed against Biden if he looked like such an oblivious ass. Palin is most certainly fair game.
If Palin would have simply responded to the question, there would have been no need for Gibson to prod her along. If she did understand the Doctrine, or, at minimum, heard of it, she could have presented a far better response.
She could have broken it down on a few levels and spoken in a manner that gave even a hint that she was informed. But "his worldview" is the generic, forgot to read that chapter sort of response.
Are you seriously claiming that because Gibson got it wrong, Palin has a pass?
Are you seriously claiming that there is an equivalence between what Gibson knows and tells the world and what Palin knows and tells the world?
I'm curious why, when this candidate drops the ball so badly, lies so often and looks so academically sophomoric that so many otherwise intelligent republicans jump to her defense?