Love it. It's tiring to think that ignorance is so popular.

Not just Sarah Palin has no knowledge of the Bush doctrine - so too do many reporters not know what it is.

And perhaps... if they were to think about it really, really hard... they might realize that their lack of knowledge played a role in Bush's re-election in 2004, if not his election in 2000.

Paul, thanks for this discussion. I hope the content of the "Bush Doctrine" will come under scrutiny again by people who had their heads in the sand as we marched off to war. Bush had an obvious agenda from the start. He was fortunate the evil events of 2001 turned his ideas towards viable options ( at least as far as his cronies and advisers were concerned). We need to re-visit the utter outrage of preemptive strikes and misdirected aggression. The discourse must take up where it was forced out of the American psyche.

I get the sense that people who are embracing Palin on the ticket are actually revved up by her lack of knowledge about key policy issues; it's a sort of rebellion against liberalism in general. When as a part of the culture war she sneers at "thick resumes" (though her condescension was dialed way down in the Gibson interview from her acceptance speech last week) people who are drawn to her are defying what they have been sold as elitism.

(See today's NYT's David Brooks column where he tries to explain to Republicans how they have to broaden the party's philosophy from individualism to community, yet insidiously slips in the words "airy-fairy" in as code for liberal thought, casting a cynical shadow on his premise.)

Gergen is aware that his comparison to reporter ignorance as an excuse for Palin's ignorance is a smoke screen. The plan is this. No matter how crystal clear it is that Palin is seriously deficient is all areas where mastery should be a prerequisite, that perspective will be spun as a defamatory liberal slur upon the herione of the fascist right wing.

The world view of that wing is being portrayed as mainstream. It is evident that too many Americans are moronic sheep, as they seem to be falling in line, as if hypnotized. Their grandchildren and great grandchildren will curse them for their complicity in delivering the death of American Democracy.

Naomi Wolf, in her book, The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, tried to educate us on how a fascist regime comes into power. Not surprisingly, it was only read by liberals who understood the danger to begin with.

My conclusion, based on the events of the last several weeks is that it is too late. It was too late in 2000 when the right wing necons installed Bush as president despite the fact that Gore won. They have no intention of letting their hard work be undone.

Thanks for the comments, folks.

Shell - incurable optimist that I am, I still think that Obama will win ... the other part of Palin's interview that was on tonight made even more clear how unqualified she is.

Palin's evident ignorance of the Bush doctrine was neither more nor less relevant than her apparent knowledge in other areas, such as the entailments of the NATO treaty. Her answer on Israelt, repeated three times almost verbatim, demonstrated how entirely scripted her foreign policy performance was. That she didn't know about the Bush doctrine just means that her handlers forgot to tell her. That she knew about NATO only means that on that one they remembered.

Really she doesn't know anything about foreign policy at all, but that is precisely why so many Americans love her. They don't know anything either--they couldn't place say Kuwait on a map if you gave them five tries--and by making her a rock star they reassure themselves of just how ordinary you can be in America and still be special--at least in theory. Isn't that the real meaning of the "American exceptionalism" that McCain was touting at the service forum?

As they say, be careful of what you pray for because you just might get it.

What we see in Sarah Palin's nomination is the result of the right-wing critique of "elitism." Sarah Palin is certainly not an elitist. She has modest personal, political, and educational accomplishments. She has no experience that would distinguish her as "elite."

Consider a definition of 'elite' -- "The best or most skilled members of a group."

The problem is that anyone who is has a deep understanding of foreign policy and is competent to deal at the international level is, by definition, an "elitist." Such a person probably has a superior education, perhaps even a graduate degree. Certainly such a person would have foreign policy experience, perhaps even military experience, would have traveled overseas, probably would have met with world leaders, and so on. And certainly this person would have thought deeply and talked to many educated people about foreign policy issues.

But in right-wing culture such an elitist is part of the problem, not the solution. No, for them the solution is someone with "family values," down-home interests, preferably from a small town, with a simple faith and simple conservative answers, remarkable only for his or her ordinariness.

Comes now Sarah Palin, a small-town girl, cheerleader, Bible-believer, hunter, hockey mom, whose qualification is that she is not too qualified, not an "insider," whose simple wisdom and values trump anything that an "elitist" would have to offer.

And so we end up with a vice-presidential nominee who doesn't know the first thing about foreign policy, who when pressed for simple answers can't do anything but blather on and on, spouting right-wing one-liners and talking points, and even mangling some of those in the process, whose performance in an ordinary interview is embarrassing to watch.

But she's not an elitist, I'll give her that. And in the same spirit maybe next Olympics, instead of sending the elite athlete Michael Phelps, we can send Joe Blow from Moose Jaw, Wyoming. We'll just have to give Joe a couple of swimming lessons in order to prepare him.

Charles Krauthammer, WaPo necon columnist extraordinaire, is jerking us around this week-end by criticizing Charles Gibson's manly if muddled attempt to plumb the brain of Gov. Palin on the Bush doctrine.

Most people understand that, of the several so-called national security decrees of the Bush administration, the one that is most mind-bending and most troubling, in terms of a sharp departure from constitutional norms, is the preemptive war one.

Krauthammer, while offering self-serving claims to authorship of the term "Bush doctrine," quibbles that Gibson was not trying to get Gov. Palin to comment on the latest one, which, according to Krauthammer, is the so-called "freedom for every one everywhere on the planet" doctrine. Or something like that. Krauthammer seems to imply that the preemptive war one, or, as Gibson clumsily phrased it, the "anticipatory self-defense" one, is inoperative.

Is it?

And anyway, if the United States intends to spread freedom to every living soul on the planet during the 21st century, won't there still need to be some arm-twisting along the way?

Maybe even a few two-buh-fours over the head? For emphasis?

I remain impressed that she has seen Russia from the Aleutians.

Krauthammer really is a pox on the Washington Post, not to mention the sphere of public discourse in America. One of the most dishonest editorialists out there.

Lack of knowledge is really so different from lack of experience. That Obama has not been in public service all that long is belied by his breadth and depth of understanding of the issues. It's clear that he's taken seriously all he needs to learn.

How does someone like me--a regular suburban mostly stay-at-home mom all these years--know what the Bush doctrine is without being coached? It's about paying attention, isn't it? I can't help but think about the contrast between Kerry's daughters and Bush's daughters during the last election. My brother-in-law made an eloquent case that it wasn't fair to drag the children of the candidates into it. But my intuitive feeling then was that their seeming ignorance and immaturity reflected the level of seriousness that the family takes real issues. When asked about how the family was taking Bush's scathing press, Bush's sister once said on Larry King that at family gatherings (closer to the beginning of the Iraq war) they never even talked about it, that they only focus on family issues. And I thought, "Yeah, that's kind of the problem, isn't it?"

Come on, folks . . . Sarah Palin isn't a serious political candidate . . . she's a serious political prop for an old Senator whose campaign was failing.
We don't care about Palin's ability to answer a question Rick Davis and his boys didn't prepare her to answer . . . that was simply the luck of the draw. They didn't think or forgot to think about the so-called Bush Doctrine.
Permit me to quote myself: "We only care about whether or not Sarah Palin, the hockey mom, the former mayor, and twenty-some month governor of a state with fewer people than Austin, Texas has what it takes to take over for John McCain . . . if he ever does become President and if he ever does become incapacitated.

"After all, Senator McCain is 72 years old, has had more than a few bouts with cancer, and, frankly, he doesn’t appear to be the most physically fit presidential candidate we’ve ever seen.

"Let’s get to the heart of the matter . . . what do you think of Sarah Palin?

"I’m talking about whether or not you think she’s qualified to become President of the United States of America . . . whether she’s capable of handling the toughest job in the world!

"So, do you really think that Sarah Palin possesses the ability, the confidence, and the shrewdness it’ll take to successfully negotiate with world leaders like Prime Minister Putin, Hu Jintao, Hugo Chavez, Nuri al-Maliki, King Abdullah II, or the Saudi Arabian Royal Family?

"If so, why?

"Do you think that Sarah Palin has the political savvy, the insight, the relationships, and the leadership qualities necessary to reach across political aisles in the House of Representatives and in the United States Senate to advance an aggressive agenda of ‘change-legislation’ required to rebuild our domestic and international economies, to rebuild our educational institutions to prepare our children to compete with students in other countries, to repair our crumbling infrastructure, to rebuild our moral, economic, political, and military standing in the world, to revamp and modernize our military institutions including reserves and the National Guard, and to reduce the size of and eliminate waste in the federal government?

"If so, why?

"Do you think that Sarah Palin has the background, education, and experience necessary to recruit, motivate, and inspire capable cabinet members, department heads, and to select and appoint qualified Federal judges and Supreme Court Justices?

"If so, why?

"Do you think that Sarah Palin has the vision, the wisdom, and the skills necessary to create, design, build, and drive the broad-based ‘green’ infrastructure we need to lead the United States of America toward energy independence over the next four to eight years?

"If so, why?

"Do you think that Sarah Palin has the knowledge, understanding, and tenacity necessary to rebuild America’s image around the world and initiate viable relationships with emerging economic and political factions and nations in an ever-changing world during the next several years?

"If so, why?

"Do you think that Sarah Palin has the courage, fortitude, and strength required to successfully prosecute the war on terror to ensure the safety of United States of America and its embassies, consulates and bases overseas?

"If so, why?

"Do you think that Sarah Palin has the judgment, strength, and temperament to be a wise, prudent, and effective Commander-in-Chief of the strongest military in the history of the world?

"If so, why?

"Do you think that Sarah Palin is the best qualified person in the entire country to become President of the United States in the event John McCain is incapacitated during the next four years?

"If so, why?

"So what do you think of Sarah Palin?

"Think she can do the job?

"Yes?

"No?

"Not sure?

"You’ve got fifty-some days to find out.

"Hope you all watch closely."

l.t. Dravis

To be blunt, Palin’s supporters have less understanding of the “issues” than she does, and their prejudices overshadow their sense of reason. She is a star to the Republican base who badly needs someone to worship. Sadly, her experience and knowledge is of no consequence and she will not be held in judgment nor accountable. Bush proved that in 2000 and 2004.

As far as paid political commentators, they are not paid based on their level of knowledge; they are paid to represent and advocate a highly politicized point of view. Therefore, their comments are seriously compromised and to a large extent should be dismissed.

The Bloom coming off of Palin as Alaska Women Reject Palin Rally is HUGE!

http://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/09/14/alaska-women-reject-palin-rally-is-huge/

Politicians who lie to the public are engaging in a Betrayal of the Public Trust and it should be deemed unethical and a part of the past as we move toward a more Holistic way of life here in America.

Great Film Exposing John McCain’s Lies — Pass it on!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH0xzsogzAk

Are we finally pulling back the Curtin on the Wizards?

Lastly, Ground Zero is a Symbol and a message of Republicans' failed policies and a gaping Wound, that after 7 years Ground Zero is still a hole, still zero -- that we were unable to lift ourselves out of the ashes and make ourselves whole again. You see, nothing from nothing leaves nothing and that is not Change we can believe in!