Where's the outrage?

[hork]

OK so everyone's up in arms about a pig and lipstick (context be damned) but how come none of you are screaming about ms. palin's comments about a holy war and her inability to stick by her own words (in fact trying to get out of having said it at all) and changing her story?

i'm not saying, just saying......

[BlackDiamond]

Hey,

She's just trying to back peddle.

People need to leave Allah out of this election.

[P562045]

Should we expect anything better from McCain?

Thank you for solving one of the great mysteries of Governor Palin for me.

My initial reaction to hearing her name late last month for the first time was what the heck is going on here and then I asked myself the very basic question why?

This clip to me tells me the reason why Governor Palin was picked by McCain in the first place.

McCain believed that he needed a person that would appeal to evangelicals.

That to me is exactly what Sarah Palin is doing in this clip is trying to attract evangelicals to vote for McCain.

Part of this clip focuses on one of the great mysteries to some people about a document that is celebrated every 4th of July.

And I quote.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Governor Palin comes right and says that she thinks these rights come from God. Charles Gibson looked very uncomfortable to me when Palin said this. Not trying to read anything into Gibson's reaction it was just very noticeable to me.

What this means to other people I will let them decide for themselves but to I always ask myself a very complex question when I read this section of the Declaration of Independence. Where does life come from in the first place?

But the real question to me about this clip is will evangelicals come out and vote for McCain or not because I can clearly see from this clip that McCain picked Palin because he thought he needed evangelicals to help him win in November.

One mystery solved what is part of the reason why McCain picked Sarah Palin in the first place.

There are several unresolved mysteries for me though. What exactly does the word creator mean in the Declaration of Independence and where does life come from in the first place?

These are very complex questions that people need to answer for themselves as I said earlier and as of this moment I can't really answer these question adequately.

[P562045]

I know full well that some people and I am talking in very general terms here are very uncomfortable with the mixture of religion and politics together.

This for some people is the very reason why they vote a certain way though when it comes to politicians.

Not going to say that using religion as a basis to vote for any politician is right or wrong because I would hopefully never come right and say that a person reason to vote for someone is just plain stupid. And if I ever to please come right out and call me out on it. But people that know me well enough know full well I am willing to discuss things when I think a person is flat out wrong.

[P562045]

Well I guess no one was watching CNN this past Tuesday.

An evangelical leader came right and said several things about McCain and Palin on CNN.

Many evangelicals are pleased with the pick of Sarah Palin but, "If they [the McCain campaign] become defensive and run from it [Palin's religious beliefs] and try to hide the fact that there is this element of faith, then I think it's going to turn off social conservatives, evangelicals, orthodox Christians."

And of course it would not be CNN without analysis on if the Palin pick is a risky one or not?

Why should CNN care one way or the other. CNN main purpose is to report the news and not try to make up voter's mind for them when it comes to the matter of is Sarah Palin's to religious to be vice president or not.

We are just going to have to wait and see if this very religious person in Sarah Palin that said in front of a church that the military people in Iraq are on a "task from God." is a risky pick or not. But this is being done by CNN because it wants people to have a certain perception of Sarah Palin as this person that may not be a person that can be trusted very well because of her religious beliefs.

This from CNN is very mild when compared with other things I have read about from Governor Palin from various news sources about Governor Palin and her religious beliefs just today.

I think that hork's clip is part of the reason there is much discussion today about Palin's religious beliefs.

So will McCain be shying away from Palin's religious beliefs or not?

That is a question that many evangelicals are watching very closely it appears to me from this particular article from CNN.

CNN article

[Bill Shaw]

Originally Posted by hork

OK so everyone's up in arms about a pig and lipstick (context be damned)

I hadn't commented on it, but come on. You don't see how nervous he was while dropping that line? Obama's desperate now, and his wheels are coming off.

Biden even seems convinced Hillary would have been a better pick. He won points with me for just being honest about it.

Originally Posted by hork

but how come none of you are screaming about ms. palin's comments about a holy war and her inability to stick by her own words (in fact trying to get out of having said it at all) and changing her story?

i'm not saying, just saying......

What, specifically, is so offensive about what she said?

Seems you are falling for the spin of: "She said something, and we got her to say something about what she said".

Big whoop.

[ocho cinco]

Guess we'd rather her lie about her beliefs...

[ocho cinco]

"At times visibly nervous . . . Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of 'anticipatory self-defense.' "

-- New York Times, Sept. 12

Informed her? Rubbish.

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.

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush Doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush Doctrine.

Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." This "with us or against us" policy regarding terror -- first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan -- became the essence of the Bush Doctrine.

Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.

It's not. It's the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush's second inaugural address: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."

This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy's pledge in his inaugural address that the United States "shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson's 14 points.

If I were in any public foreign policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume -- unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise -- that he was speaking about the grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda of the Bush administration.

Not the Gibson doctrine of preemption.



Not the "with us or against us" no-neutrality-is-permitted policy of the immediate post-9/11 days.

Not the unilateralism that characterized the pre-9/11 first year of the Bush administration.

Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed "doctrines" in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines which come out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few other contradictory or conflicting foreign policy crosscurrents.

Such is not the case with the Bush Doctrine.

Yes, Sarah Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage.

Washington Post Read

[hork]

Originally Posted by ocho cinco

Guess we'd rather her lie about her beliefs...

in other words, keep the status quo i guess, at least it's familiar