I’m not letting you make this into a stupid debate about what the bush doctrine actually is. It is a well-defined term which your own examples show being used coherently , employing different words to mean the same thing. The fact remains that the Republican Vice Presidential candidate has shown a poor grasp of these concepts. I sincerely doubt that, before the McCain campaign began giving her a crash course in national policy, she could even participate in this conversation.

What, did the rest of you expect me to say something else?

If it were ‘well-defined’ it would have a single definition. Charles Krauthammer – who was the first to use the term – identifies four.

It’s a term that has been used repeatedly in public discourse

Many terms are used repeatedly in public discourse without being well-defined.

Essentially, the Bush Doctrine, as outlined in the National Security Strategy of the United States published on September 20, 2002 by President Bush’s National Security Council,

If “the Bush Doctrine” is based on and defined by this document from 2002, it’s funny that Charles Krauthammer was able to write a column about the Bush Doctrine in July 2001. Anyway, if that document and/or your summary of it is “the Bush Doctrine”, then Charlie Gibson clearly didn’t know what it was when he asked about it (he asserted that the ‘Bush Doctrine’ “is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense.”).

This just illustrates that there’s no single “the Bush Doctrine” that has a hard and fast definition agreed upon by all. Like I said.

The fact that Sarah Palin wasn’t even aware of this

You know as a “fact” that Sarah Palin “wasn’t even aware” that Bush favored preemptive strikes and democracy promotion? Sorry that’s bunk.

Whether a media pundit coined the term or not, its precepts are well-understood

Well, apparently not by everyone…Charlie Gibson for instance.

and it has been used extensively to discuss President Bush’s foreign policy.

But not in a consistent, well-defined way. In fact, were I asked by some stranger whether I agree with “the Bush Doctrine”, I reckon I’d ask them to clarify too. I simply don’t know what a given person thinks they mean by that.

Since you claimed that nobody can explain what the Bush Doctrine is, and anyone who pays attention to US politics can explain it at least as well I just did,

I don’t think you explained it all that well, to be honest. Indeed, based on your explanation, I don’t even know what all the fuss is about; it sounds rather mundane (1: attack enemies, 2: promote democracy – this is a ‘serious departure’?) and hardly worth gussying up with the term “doctrine”.

I’m sure she has good intentions, but just meaning well hardly qualifies you for the #2 spot. The scary thing is that many people seem to think that a general fuzzy feeling can be substituted for any concrete substance or experience.

Alaska, in terms of population, is a very small state – around 600k. Rhode Island has nearly twice the population of Alaska. There are many mayors that have duties of a larger scope than she has yet seen.

The other disturbing trend that allows someone like Palin to be a contender are the concepts, many of them being “values voter” staples – like being from the “heartland” or from a “small-town”, and railing against the “educated elites”. When did education become bad? When did we dismiss the value of an informed world view? This is nothing but pandering to the ignorant masses, letting them bask in the continuing illusion of how poorly informed and unaware they are of the world at large.

The irony of all this is that so many of the traditional party roles seem to have been up-ended. Democrats were the populists, self-styled friends of the average worker. Republicans were the rich elite, who resisted everything from child labor laws, minimum wage, social security, and pretty much anything else that has ever benefited the common man. The Republicans really have most of their followers duped, and they are taking advantage of their small-town small-mindedness with simple high-impact topics that really mean nothing, my favorite being “family values”, Because as we all know, non-republicans all eat their babies.

It’s your response that was vacuous. I’ll explain.

The Bush Doctrine is indeed a well defined aspect of modern political parlance. It’s a term that has been used repeatedly in public discourse to describe the various aspects of George W. Bush’s foreign policy. Essentially, the Bush Doctrine, as outlined in the National Security Strategy of the United States published on September 20, 2002 by President Bush’s National Security Council, is based on preemptive strikes against potential enemies and promoting democratic regime change. This represents a rather serious departure from historical American foreign policy and has been widely discussed since.

The fact that Sarah Palin wasn’t even aware of this shows a startling lack of understanding of the nature of the world she’s entering. Whether a media pundit coined the term or not, its precepts are well-understood and it has been used extensively to discuss President Bush’s foreign policy. The Vice President should know these things at minimum to be remotely qualified for the job. Especially if said Vice President is a 72-year-old-heartbeat away from that job.

Since you claimed that nobody can explain what the Bush Doctrine is, and anyone who pays attention to US politics can explain it at least as well I just did, I can only assume you’re either ignorant or lying outright. In either case, you can hardly be taken seriously.

I was merely responding to various critiques of Sarah Palin raised in the above post – for example, the author called the whole “Bush doctrine” thing a “defining moment”. If you consider such things “pointless details” that is a criticism of the above post and an assertion that its critique of Palin is in fact vacuous.

I’ll stipulate to that.

You’re setting up a red-herring, distracting everyone by attacking pointless details (“is there an antichrist,” “there is no single bush doctrine”) instead of actually defending Sarah Palin as a VP nominee. Since you’ve failed the litmus of basic logic by engaging in fallacious debate, you can’t be taken seriously. Dismissed.

Anyway, I love this particular blog. Even without SNL’s parody, I find Palin scary. I like my uterus to be in my control, thank you. I want equal pay for equal work. I want sex ed in schools (since abstinence gets you pregnant, obviously). I like my planet green and clean, with an ozone that functions and water you can drink. I like the fact that you should not get a gun if you are a criminal. Last, I want to not have to choose between gas in my car, prescription medication, or groceries on my table-if I cannot make ends meet even living below my means, there is a serious problem that has nothing to do with my personal money management, dammit.

2. There’s no single “the Bush doctrine”. The interviewer’s description of it was just as wrong. I dare you or anyone else to tell me what “the Bush doctrine” is. President Bush likely doesn’t even know what “the Bush doctrine” is, or at least would get it “wrong” were he to try to describe it. It was a term made up by a columnist.

3. Re: SNL, yes, it’s quite natural and intelligent to get one’s political opinions from SNL skits. I did my whole Poli Sci PhD based on nothing but SNL skits.

4. Finally, I like how you saw a homemade sign, recognized it to be an exaggeration of her actual views, but it “made you think” anyway. *boggle*

Admit it: it was the photo of her holding a gun, wasn’t it? Scared ya, right?