Yes, we can.

[scaeagles]

Hope and change mean nothing. They are a campaign slogan. They are most certainly used to put things in a tidy little box.

Gibson was most certainly attempting to do "gotcha", and in fact made himself look like an idiot. The question about the "Bush doctrine" that he was so visibly disgusted that she didn't know what he was talking about, when in fact there have been 4 distinct Bush doctrines, and the one Gibson expanded upon isn't even regarded as the current one. I can post a link to a couple of write ups about it (Krauthammer did a good one) if anyone really is interested.

Couric asked Palin about a depression. Her words. Then she later jumped on palin for using the word depression about the economy (disclaimer - I did not actually see the Couric interview. This is what I read, and I do not recall who wrote it up. It is entirely possible that I am wrong about this one and apologize if I am. I don't have time nor the desire to watch Couric).

Palin certainly stumbles. No doubt. But she most definitely gets help doing it from some rather hostile members of the media.

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by COURIC

But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.

Originally Posted by PALIN

He's also known as the maverick, though. Taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about — the need to reform government.

Originally Posted by COURIC

I'm just going to ask you one more time, not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation?

Originally Posted by PALIN

I'll try to find you some, and I'll bring them to you.

How was that a "gotcha"?

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

(disclaimer - I did not actually see the Couric interview. This is what I read, and I do not recall who wrote it up. It is entirely possible that I am wrong about this one and apologize if I am. I don't have time nor the desire to watch Couric).

I really wouldn't try defending her if you haven't watched it.

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

(disclaimer - I did not actually see the Couric interview. This is what I read, and I do not recall who wrote it up. It is entirely possible that I am wrong about this one and apologize if I am. I don't have time nor the desire to watch Couric).

Then you should have no opinion on the subject, imho.
Not seeing it nullifies your take on the interview.

That was like me arguing about The Passion of the Christ without even seeing it. I said, how can I have an opinion without doing the homework? So I saw it and then continued my rant...

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

The question about the "Bush doctrine" that he was so visibly disgusted that she didn't know what he was talking about, when in fact there have been 4 distinct Bush doctrines, and the one Gibson expanded upon isn't even regarded as the current one. I can post a link to a couple of write ups about it (Krauthammer did a good one) if anyone really is interested.

I read the Krauthammer piece, and my reaction then and now is that watching her answer, she couldn't have named any of them. Otherwise, she would have responded that his question was vague and explained why it was vague: "Well, Charlie, that's a phrase that's been thrown around a lot. Which Bush doctrine are you talking about? The one where . . ." And so on.