Thursday, September 11, 2008

This cannot happen

I'm not sure what pisses me off more, her ignorance of even the topic of what he's trying to ask or the why she says "Charlie." OK, it's the first one but for some reason something about this woman angers me more than anyone has since Bush. We gotta win this one.

This is just brutal to watch. It's like watching some kid who didn't do the reading trying to bullshit his way through the question the professor just asked. "In what respect, Charlie" Please, God, bail me out, bail me out. Dammit! "His worldview?" Please be his worldview, please be his worldview. 2002, what the fuck? They didn't have this on any flashcards. Time to break out the old Islamic Extremism card. That always gets the cheers in my stump speech. At least she didn't go all "U.S. Americans" on us.

Here's another video at one of my new fave blogs, Terrace Agenda, of McCain trying to come up with how exactly she has foreign policy experience. If you don't want to click through the answer is "energy." He actually said she "knows more about energy" than anyone in this country. Somehow, I doubt that.

The thing is, it really doesn't matter if she knows anything about the Bush Doctrine or didn't actually do anything to cut government pork or whatever. It doesn't matter because they want to turn it into an election about personality and how she relates to all those "hockey moms" and the conservative Christians and our media has been pretty complicit. Even when people call them out on their lies there is always a conservative there repeating the same lie back and in the order of "balance" they are never really called on it so it turns into a "he said she said" muddled issue for most people even when we actually have the facts in front of us. They'll turn something like this into a positive by saying, "well, it's not really fair because most people don't know what the Bush Doctrine is." And Joe Sixpack will say, "yeah, they're right, I don't know that either." Well, Joe Sixpack isn't potentially our president and this was pretty much the entire basis for the invasion of Iraq so it might be good to know what the hell it says and whether you agree with it or not.

Our elections have turned into American Idol in that it's all about coming up with a narrative and right now we're getting smacked with that. There's plenty of time but they've got to keep hitting on the things that matter to people because those still can work but the fact is if it turns into a personality contest with skirmishes over "lipstick" and "sexism" I can see us losing just like we did the last two elections when I would tell myself there's no way America will elect this man. Lord knows I've been full of righteous indignation over Bush the last 8 years but none of that did any good and it won't do any good here either. Of course that's not going to stop me from pointing all of that out but I won't be surprised if it just doesn't matter to most people.

Edit: Interesting read from CBS on this Bush Doctrine question:
For that reason, one of the most striking things about Palin's response, to me, was this: in answering Gibson's question, she seemed to think that she was accepting the Bush Doctrine, but what she actually said just restated the old doctrine of preemption. When, as Palin said, "there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people", the claim that we have the right to preempt that strike does not require the Bush Doctrine; it just requires the old, and much more widely accepted, doctrine of preemption. That is: in what Palin says here, she's not actually supporting the Bush Doctrine at all. She's just saying what generations of American Presidents and candidates have said: that when a country is actually about to attack us, we don't have to wait for them to actually land a blow before we can strike back.

Labels: , ,


Blogger Paul Hattan said...

Joe Sixpack has nothing on CaseRace Claire.

1:47 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home