It’s well-known by now that Sarah Palin loves to go moose hunting. But she looked more like a deer in headlights throughout much of her interview with ABC’s Charlie Gibson tonight. Her most notable stumble came when Gibson asked whether she agreed with the Bush Doctrine. After a pause and a blank stare (those headlights are bright) and some shifting in her chair, Palin fired back, “In what respect, Charlie?”
Gibson considered for a second about defining the Doctrine, but instead asked, “Well, what do you interpret it to be?” (Essentially, the Bush Doctrine says the United States has the right to preemptively strike another nation if the U.S. believes that nation is going to attack us.) Here’s Palin’s answer to Gibson’s question:
“I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell-bent in destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made, and with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.”
No mention of preemptive strikes in there. So, Gibson followed up. First by defining the Bush Doctrine, then by asking her again whether she agreed with it. Her reply:
“Charlie, if there is enough intelligent and legitimate evidence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country.”
Gibson moved on with more foreign policy questions, specifically why being the Governor of Alaska makes her an expert on Russia.
Palin: We have to keep our eyes on Russia. Under the leadership there.
Gibson: What insight into Russian actions does the proximity of the state give you?
Palin: They’re our next door neighbors. And you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska.
Well, maybe I’ve been too quick to judge Mrs. Palin. I didn’t know you could actually see Russia from land in Alaska. I can see my neighbor’s house from land in my living room, but I can’t even claim to be an expert on what groceries they buy. However, that wasn’t even Palin silliest argument of the interview. That came when Gibson pressed her on whether she had the necessary experience to be VP.
Gibson: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?
Palin: I have not, and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you. But Charlie again, we gotta remember what the desire is in this nation at this time. It is for no more politics as usual and somebody’s big, fat resume maybe, that shows decades and decades in that Washngton establishment, where, yeah, they’ve had that opportunity to meet heads of state.
So, essentially her argument is, less (or no) experience is actually a virtue. “Hey, who needs all that experience meeting foreign leaders and traveling to other countries? I went to five colleges in six years, after all! Don’t you realize how many history classes I must have taken?” Not to mention her derisive comments about politicians was a direct swipe at her running mate. Following her logic, the voters don’t want someone exactly like John McCain.
Also, did you happen to catch her little slip there about asking other vice presidents? Kick back there Sarah. You’re not the VP yet.
