Krauthammer: Trump's election charges a threat to tradition

Top Stories

Charles Krauthammer: Raise the Gas tax but make it revenue neutral.

With Senator Bob Corker and others talking about the need to increase the national sales tax on gasoline and Governor Haslam talking about raising the state tax on gas, as expected there has been a storm of protest from conservatives who think we are taxed enough already and never want a tax increase anywhere at any time on anything.

I have for a long time advocated a revenue-neutral carbon tax. The key term however is "revenue-neutral." One reason for advocating such is that I accept the prevailing scientific theory of global warming and I think it wise to curtail carbon production. Since gas for automobiles is a major source of carbon pollution, then a tax on gas is about the same thing as a tax on carbon.  Also I want to curtail urban sprawl and if gas cost more instead of less, people are more inclined to live closer to where they work and go rather than further away.  Also, if our roads and bridges are to be maintained from the tax on gasoline rather than general revenue, then the current gas tax is insufficient.

Another reason to favor curtailing gas consumption is a national security concern. Saudi Arabia finances the spread of Wahhabi Islam primarily by money earned from Americans driving gas-guzzling cars. While we fight radical Islam on the one hand, we fund it every time we fill up our cars.

I do not see how any conservative can take a principled stand against a shifting of taxes from one source to another if the shift will result in a positive change in incentives.  I think all of us who are not economics deniers recognized that if you subsidize something you get more of it and if you tax it you get less of it, so why would one oppose a reduction in a tax on income to be replaced by a tax on gas?

I was pleased to see one of the political thinkers whom I most admire make the case for a revenue-neutral gas tax in a recent syndicated column. Charles Krauthammer writes, "For 32 years I’ve been advocating a major tax on petroleum." I urge you to read his thoughtful essay.

Krauthammer's proposal is to cut the Social Security tax and make up the revenue by taxing gas. He says his proposal, "is not to feed the maw of a government raking in $3 trillion a year. The point is exclusively to alter incentives — to reduce the disincentive for work (the Social Security tax) and to increase the disincentive to consume gasoline."

"Employment taxes are a drag on job creation. Reducing them not only promotes growth but advances fairness, FICA being a regressive tax that hits the middle and working classes far more than the rich," he writes.

"A high gas tax encourages demand for more fuel-efficient vehicles," he says. "Constrained U.S. consumption — combined with already huge increases in U.S. production — would continue to apply enormous downward pressure on oil prices." He says a gas consumption tax would constrain consumption much more effectively than CAFE standards.

Krathammer also says, "lower consumption reduces pollution and greenhouse gases."  I know many conservatives think "greenhouse gases" are nothing to be concerned about but I agree with Krahammer and most scientist who think that they are.

While I agree with the logic of Krathammer as far as it goes, I am concerned however about what will happen to Social Security if funding is taken away from it, in order to make a gas tax revenue-neutral.  From Krathammer's essay, I assume he advocates that the money raised from a gas tax should replace revenue taken from social security but he does not explicitly say such.

FICA taxes have always been the funding source of Social Security benefits and thereby led many to think of Social Security as an insurance program rather than a government scheme of transfer payments. To fund Social Security from a source other than the FICA tax would be a radical departure, but not one I would oppose. If that is what he advocates, then his proposal does not worsen the funding crisis facing social security but we are still left with the issue of how we will repair roads and rebuild old bridges.

Top Stories

Global warming true believers, global warming deniers and settled science

I have been a "believer" in global warming for most of the time since it has been an issue on the radar screen of the public. However if you were to measure my belief, it has wavered from strongly believing to just barely being over the fifty percent belief mark that would move me from being a "denier" to a "believer."  During the few periods when I have been a "denier," such as after climate gate and the "hide the decline" revelation, even then, my "denier" status was just barely below the fifty percent mark that made be a "denier" rather than a "believer." Often I think global warming is a complicated issue that I am uncertain about and my opinion can not be reduced to a bumper sticker slogan (link).

To some, belief in global warming is a measure of political ideology.  I have been assailed by fellow conservatives as not a very good conservative because I accept the preponderance of scientific opinion on global warming.  It is not so much that I am passionate in my believe about global warming as that I acquiesce in accepting the best available information on the topic. I know that the big bucks for scientific research is in proving global warming to be true, however I do not accept that the many scientist who have concluded that global warming is a reality have sold their soul and abandoned scientific objectivity just to make a buck. Call me naive, but I believe most scientist can not be bought. Despite what some popular conservative talk show host proclaim, I simply cannot believe that global warming is all a hoax perpetrated by Al Gore

I know the scientific opinion is not unanimous, but it is almost so.  Global warming skeptics like to trot out their scientist who dissent from the majority opinion, and there are a few skeptics who have good credentials. However, when opponents put out list of hundreds of "scientist" who dissent from global warming theory, often the list is full of TV weathermen "meteorologist" or scientist who are scientist is totally unrelated fields. A great chemical engineer or biologist may know no more than I do about climate change theory. Face it, the overwhelming opinion of scientist in the field is that global warming theory is valid.

While I have been disappointing in the number of conservatives who have dogmatic views on global warming, I have been dismayed at how those who are true believers offer no practical solutions for combating it.  They engage in symbolism and often treat it as a spiritual issue rather than a problem to be solved. They talk of properly inflating tires and changing light bulbs as if that will solve the problem.  They like to do things that make them feel virtuous. They support programs such as ethanol that are very costly and damaging to the environment. They support out and out scams such as carbon offsets.  Earth day and the annual one-hour black-out and other symbolic things seem to be designed to call attention to the issue and to show how cool the true believers are rather than do anything about it.

I am not sure we can do anything about it, but many of the true believers lack common sense when they favor carbon reducing activity without any cost-benefit analysis. They lack humanity when they would condemn Africa to remaining the third world tragedy that it is rather than supporting modernization. If they can't redistribute wealth to make the wealthy of the world less wealthy, they want to condemn the poor countries to perpetual poverty. Many true believers seem interested in redistributing wealth and growing government and see the global warming crisis as a vehicle for achieving that aim.  Few true believers endorse revenue-neutral carbon tax programs, which could actually reduce carbon output.  Revenue-neutral pricing of a negative externaility does not fit in with their political views. They may believe in global warming but they do not believe in economics. Also, there seems to be little support for technological solutions to offsetting the growth of carbon in the atmosphere. It often seems that the truest believers of the true believers do not want to find a solution that involves pricing and markets or technology.

Ever since climategate, my acceptance of climate change theory has never reached the high mark that it once did.  One thing, in addition to climategate, that has made me almost a global warming agnostic is that we have had no global warming in the past seventeen and half years (link).  This is not coming from some right-wing talk show host. It is a fact. Do the research.

Another things that makes me a less of an orthodox believer in global warming is that the north polar ice cap was to be melted by now and it is not. All of the polar bears were to be dead by now and they are thriving. While the Artic ice cap has shrank some, the Antarctic ice cap has grown to a 35 year record.  The dire things that were supposed to have already happened have just not happened. The global warming alarmist are like the Christians who predict the end of time and when it doesn't happen, they just predict it again for a latter date.

Since we are not seeing global warming occurring it has been renamed, first to "climate change" and now "climate disruption."  Now  it is fair to blame blizzards, floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes and volcanoes and all natural disasters on "climate disruption," formerly know as "global warming."  Maybe, global warming is occurring and is caused by human activity, but maybe global cooling from natural causes is occurring at the same time and the two are cancelling each other out. I don't know, but maybe. I would like to see the theory researched.

Please read the following by Charles Krauthamer. It comes close to representing my point of view.  

The myth of ‘settled science’

Charles Krauthammer, February 20 - I repeat: I’m not a global warming believer. I’m not a global warming denier. I’ve long believed that it cannot be good for humanity to be spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I also believe that those scientists who pretend to know exactly what this will cause in 20, 30 or 50 years are white-coated propagandists.

“The debate is settled,” asserted propagandist in chief Barack Obama in his latest State of the Union address. “Climate change is a fact.” Really? There is nothing more anti-scientific than the very idea that science is settled, static, impervious to challenge. Take a non-climate example. It was long assumed that mammograms help reduce breast cancer deaths. This fact was so settled that Obamacare requires every insurance plan to offer mammograms (for free, no less) or be subject to termination.

Top Stories

Obamacare’s Phony 7.1 Million Enrollment Number.

The administration and the liberal supporters of the administration are celebrating the 7.1 million people who signed up for Obamacare. Most of the media are accepting the claim of 7.1 million as gospel and reporting the news with a straight face if not with glee. The truth is we don't know how many net new people got covered by insurance.

In Tennessee alone, 82,000 people lost their private insurance plans due to Obamacare and in October Forbes magazine said 92 million Americans would be unable to keep their plans under Obamacare. How many of those ended up enrolling on an exchange? Due to the Obamacare prohibitions on limited-benefit plans, TnCover was no discontinued by the State and 16,000 lost coverage. Also, due to Obamacare, most child-only insurance plans have been discontinued.

Of the 7.1 million we don't know how many actually sent in a premium. We don't know how many were ordering insurance on an exchange after they lost their private coverage. We don't know how many were covered by programs like TnCover and we don't know how many were covered by programs like Bridges to Care. Also, we don't know if those who did sign up were young and health which the programs needs in order for it to work, or if they were the expensive to serve sick and dying.

For all we know there may have been a net loss of people covered by insurance under Obamacare. Unfortunately, the Obamamedia are not going to dig for the truth and the administration is still not providing answers.

Here is Charles Krauthammer's commentary on the 7.1 million phony number.

Top Stories

Sen. Bob Corker: "What is it you're seeking?" Military has no idea why we about to go to war with Syria.

Sen. Bob Corker: "What is it you're seeking?" Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: "I can't answer that, what we're seeking." — Senate hearing on the use of force in Syria, Sep. 3

Unless President Obama is serious about Syria, vote no

by Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON — We have a problem. The president proposes attacking Syria, and his top military officer cannot tell you the objective. Does the commander in chief know his own objective? Why, yes. "A shot across the bow," explained Barack Obama. (link)

My Comment
While  Charles Krauthammer is often one of my favorite pundits, I was disappointed that in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq that he was a cheer leader for that military action.  I still think the war in Iraq was a mistake. However, in the war with Iraq we at least had clear objectives. When Senator Corker asked our top general what our objective is in Syria and he doesn't have a clue, then no one should even consider supporting military action against that nation. As Krauthammer explains, there appears to be no purpose in military action in  Syria except for the President to avoid humiliation. Congress should not authorize military action against Syria! 

Top Stories

Krauthammer On Fiscal Cliff Negotiations: "Republicans Ought To Simply Walk Away"

Krauthammer On Fiscal Cliff Negotiations: "Republicans Ought To Simply Walk Away"

www.realclearpolitics.com

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: It's not just a bad deal, this is really an insulting deal. What Geithner offer...

Top Stories

The Arizona Law has been fixed.

"Fixed," as in when you have your dog fixed. It has been neutered and that is a good thing.

I have been a critic of the Arizona law lining up with other conservative critics like Jeb Bush, Karl Rove, Fred Barns, Charles Krauthhammer and Mario Rubio. I know our own local Rush imitator and the big showmen of talk radio thought the Arizona law was just dandy as it was and they denounce all critics of the law as not real conservatives. Critics of the law are "RINO's," "inside-the-beltway types," and "the chattering class."

I don't take my marching orders from Steve Gill and Sean Hannity. I am disappointed so many conservatives seem to. When they are right, I am with them but I don't like those who would shred the constitution be they conservative or liberal. And to Steve and Sean, please stop yelling at me to read the bill. I have read it and it is not that difficult to understand. I would suggest you read it. It is only ten pages long. I will send you a link to it if you like.

Anyway, I am not now as critical of the law as I was on April 23rd when it was passed. On April 30, Governor Jan Brewer signed an amendment to the law that makes it "crystal clear and undeniable that racial profiling is illegal and will not be tolerated in Arizona." Also, the law changes the standard for demanding someones papers from "reasonable suspicion" following a "lawful contact" to a standard like that in the other states of the union. As amended, police can stop suspected illegal immigrants only while enforcing some other law or ordinance.

It still may be an ugly law, but now it is not much more than meaningless empty symbolism. It is probably no longer unconstitutional.

The Arizona law is now like an offensive dog that is less offensive once it has been fixed. The worse part of the Arizona law has been fixed.

And, Steve and Sean and their followers, if the law was so wonderful as it was, why do you think they had to fix it?

Top Stories

The Arizona Law has its Conservative Critics.

While the bombastic, loud-mouthed, angry, radio conservative entertainers have been very vocal and enthusiastic in support of Arizona’s new immigration law, some of the more thoughtful conservative commentators say the law is flawed and goes too far.

I heard Mark Levine today and I think he was foaming at the mouth. I thought he was going to blow a casket. He argued we have a right to protect our borders and this new law is the way to go about it. He was very hostile to critics of the law and belittled and attacked David Brooks and Jeb Bush who have been critical of the new law. Several of the other talk show conservative have been equally supportive of the law and critical of the laws critics.

Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard and Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post both disapprove of the bill. Barnes says the bill goes "way too far" and calls it "draconian." Krauthammer agrees with those who argue the bill could create civil rights abuses. David Brooks says the law is "terrible" and "an invitation to abuse."


Jeb Bush, former Florida governor has said, "I think it creates unintended consequences." "It's difficult for me to imagine how you're going to enforce this law. It places a significant burden on local law enforcement and you have civil liberties issues that are significant as well."

Actually the new law, while bad, may not be quite as draconian as I first thought. The law may not amount to much. The text of the bill, “Requires officials and agencies to reasonably attempt to determine the immigration status of a person involved in a lawful contact where reasonable suspicion exists regarding the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.”

That is nuanced. The police are required to enforce the law but yet still must make some judgment calls. The original police contact has to be “lawful.” I am not sure what a “lawful” police contact means and I am not sure what constitutes “reasonable suspicion.” I’m glad I am not a policeman. I suspect that the first time a Hispanic American citizen is thrown in jail for not having proof of citizenship the law will be challenged and we will find out what the law means.

While the law may not be quite as bad as I thought it was the first time I read it, it still is a transfer of power from the individual to the state. “Reasonable suspicion” following a “lawful contact” is no doubt a less stringent standard than “probable cause.” If it is not, then nothing really changes.

I find it disturbing that so many conservatives are ready to take the side of a lessening of the rights for the individual and a support more power for the state. Conservatives who generally profess love of the constitution and really like the 2nd Amendment and the 12th Amendment don’t seem equally as keen on the 6th Amendment. They don’t care for all that pansy-ass liberal stuff about “right of the people to be secure in their persons” and they don’t like all that stuff about “probably cause.”

And all that talk about “limited government?” Well, conservative want a government that is not powerful enough to force you to purchase health insurance but that doesn’t mean they want a government unable to throw you in jail if you are not carrying proof of citizenship.

Although they risk being labels “RINO,” or attacked as “elitist,” or labeled “inside the beltway,” or members of the "chattering class," I am glad that we have conservatives like Krauthammer, Barnes and Brooks who will do more than just feed people’s anger. I am glad that we have conservatives who will think and analyze. I am glad we have conservatives who will stand by their support of the constitution and stand for less government even when it is not the popular position to take.

Top Stories

Is Obama following the George W Bush foreign policy?

While I have been extremely disappointed in Obama's economic policies, I have, so far, been pleased by much of his management of foreign affairs. Candidate Obama never presented himself as the most pacifist and isolationist of the Democratic field of candidates. He was much more centrist than Dennis Kucinich or Bill Richardson, yet he was very critical of the Bush administration’s foreign policy and promised a change. We have seen some real change and some superficial change and much of the same.

Some Republicans have criticized Obama’s recent making nice with Hugo Chavez. I don't. Reagan made nice with Gorbachev. Nixon made nice with Mao. FDR made nice with Joseph Stalin. There is nothing wrong with being diplomatic and friendly with your enemies. It may be beneficial to be on a first name basis with the bastards. Sometimes if is even necessary to ally ourselves with the most ruthless and despicable of people, as was the case in World War II. I am not so sure that Hitler was a lot worse than Joseph Stalin, but Germany was a threat and Russia was our ally and FDR had to make nice with Joseph Stalin. While Chavez may be irritating tin-horn dictator, he is hardly a Mao or Stalin.

Obama has also been criticized for changing our policy toward Cuba. Again, I think he is pursuing the correct policy and that our isolation of Cuba has been a mistake. I am glad to see us move toward normalization with that nation.

I am pleased that we are escalating the war in Afghanistan. I think Bush made a big mistake in going to go to war in Iraq and failing to pursue victory in Afghanistan. We cannot allow the Taliban to reestablish their rule in that country. I am pleased that we are pressuring and prevailing in persuading Pakistan to take a more aggressive role in suppressing the Taliban in that country. I am pleased that Obama has only tweaked the timetable for withdrawal from Iraq and seems committed to exiting that conflict in an orderly fashion that will preserve the peace and stability and leave behind a sizable American presence. .

In the war on terror, which we no long call the “War on Terror,” Obama is essentially continuing the Bush policies. While Obama uses less bellicose language and does not have the cowboy swagger that irritated so many, there is very little to distinguish Obama from Bush. He sounds more moderate but his policies are the same. It was Teddy Roosevelt who said “talk softly and carry a big stick.” I am not displeased with the more moderate tone. I have mixed feelings about the continuation of some of Bush policies.

When Bush was president and prominent national conservatives formed the American Freedom Agenda, I cheered. I was concerned that the Federal Government was amassing unchecked power. I did not approve of the government claiming the authority for warrantless searches of Internet communications. I do not approve of torture. I did not approve of special rendition. I thought George W. Bush was exceeding his constitutional authority.

Many of the same policies that were continued or initiated by Bush are being continued under Obama. Special rendition is a policy that started in peace time under Bill Clinton. It is the practice of kidnapping suspected enemies and turning them over to other countries where they can be tortured. We are speaking of real torture not a gray area that may or may not constitute torture. By letting a third country do the dirty work we can claim to have clean hands and not have engaged in torture ourselves. George Bush expanded the rendition policy and Obama has not ended the practice.
.
One Obama proposal that should concern all civil libertarians is the Cyber-security Act of 2009, which is essentially the same as Bush’s Total Information Awareness but under a new name. It would grant the government authority to monitor and mine Internet traffic for patterns that indicate links to terrorist activity. My concern is that such authority will be misused. This seems to violate the constitutions prohibition against an unreasonalble search. The same people that were outraged about Total Awareness are very quite about Cyber Security.

Obama was very critical of the bush administration policy regarding prisoners held at Guantanamo. I do not think the issue of what to do with irregular forces captured on the field of battle is an easy riddle to solve, however I do not think that we should hold indefinitely people who may be innocent. Recently, when the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that non-Afghan detainees at the US Bagram Prison in Afghanistan, captured outside Afghanistan, had the same due process rights that the Supreme Court last year gave to prisoners at Guantánamo, the Obama administration argued they did not. Bagram is a less high profile prison than Guantanamo but the issue regarding Bagram is exactly the same as Guantanamo and the position of the Obama administration is exactly the same as the position of the Bush administration.

In a recent article in the Washington Post, columnist Charles Krathamer pointed out that on policy after policy the Obama administration is continuing the policy of the Bush administration. “The latest flip-flop,” writes Krathamer. “is the restoration of military tribunals. During the 2008 campaign, Obama denounced them repeatedly, calling them an ‘enormous failure.’ Obama suspended them upon his swearing in. Now they're back.”

I admit I am conflicted. On the one hand, Obama’s policies seem to vindicate the policies of George W. Bush. I could conclude that George W. Bush was right all along and when faced with the enormous responsibility of keeping this country safe, that Obama came to a realization that the only prudent course to follow was that that was set by his predecessor. When one does not have the responsibility for our country’s security it is easy to snipe from the sidelines. Obama put aside partisanship and campaign promises and did the right thing.

On the other hand, I could conclude that Obama is an opportunist who did a complete flip-flop. He would say anything to get elected but he is a power hungry opportunist who cannot turn down the occasion to amass more power. I don’t know which view is correct.

What I cannot understand is how civil libertarians and pacifist of the left, who loathed George W. Bush, are letting Obama get by with continuing the same policies they professed to hate. If these policies were wrong when enacted by George W. Bush, are they still not wrong?

Top Stories

Guess who’s coming to dinner? Some "so-called conservatives."

These are the columnists who recently had dinner with Barack Omaba at the home of George Will. These are the people that Hannity and Limbaugh referred to as “so called conservatives.”


David Brooks: Brooks served as an editorial writer and film reviewer for the Washington Times, a reporter and later op-ed editor for The Wall Street Journal, a senior editor at The Weekly Standard from its inception, a contributing editor at Newsweek and The Atlantic Monthly, and a commentator on NPR. He is now a columnist for The New York Times and commentator on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.


George Will: George Will is a Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper columnist and author and Washington Post columnist. Will served as an editor for the conservative magazine National Review from 1972 to 1978. He joined the Washington Post Writers Group in 1979, writing a syndicated twice-weekly column, which became widely circulated among newspapers across the country. In 1976, he became a contributing editor for Newsweek, writing a biweekly backpage column. He is a regualar panelist on This Week. He also was a teacher at Harvard University.


Charles Krauthammer: He is a Pulitzer Prize -winning syndicated columnist and, a contributing editor to the Weekly Standard and The New Republic. Krauthammer appears regularly as a commentator on Fox News and as a weekly panelist on Inside Washington.


Peggy Noonan: She is an author of seven books on politics, religion and culture, a weekly columnist for The Wall Street Journal, and was a primary speech writer and Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan.


Larry Kudlow: He is a supply-side economist, television personality, and newspaper columnist. He is the host of CNBC's Kudlow & Company. As a syndicated columnist, his articles appear in numerous U.S. newspapers and web sites.


Bill Kristol: Kristol is the founder and editor of the political magazine The Weekly Standard, a regular commentator on the Fox News Channel, and a conservative op-ed columnist for the New York Times.


These educated and accomplished people are all solid conservatives. They are scholars, thinkers, theorist and are wise men and women. They are the best and the brightest the conservative movement has to offer. Although many of Rush’s listeners may not be familiar with them, every conservative who can read knows these luminaries of the conservative movement. I would trust their judgement over that of Hannity and Limbaugh any day of the week. Do you suppose Hannity and Limbaugh are simply jealous because deep down they know that are nothing but loud-mouthed entertainers and don’t deserve to be in the same room with these people? Hannity and Limbaugh are not worthy of shining the shoes of the likes of these people.

Top Stories

Which "Bush Doctrine" Charlie?

Charlie Gibson's Gaffe

By Charles Krauthammer Saturday, September 13, 2008; The Washington Post, A17

"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. (link)


What Exactly Is the 'Bush Doctrine'?

by Richard Starr on September 12, 2008, The Weekly Standard

It's being taken in some quarters as revelatory of inexperience that Sarah Palin sought clarification when ABC's Charlie Gibson asked her about the Bush Doctrine. To review, here is the passage from the transcript.

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view.
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq
war.
PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this
world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on 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.
GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of
anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against
any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with
that?

Gibson should of course have said in the first place what he understood the Bush Doctrine to be--and specified that he was asking a question about preemption. Palin was well within bounds to have asked him to be more specific. Because, as it happens, the doctrine has no universally acknowledged single meaning. Gibson himself in the past has defined the Bush Doctrine to mean "a promise that all terrorist organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated"--which is remarkably close to Palin's own answer.

Consider what a diversity of views on the meaning of the Bush Doctrine can be found simply within the archives of ABC News itself:

September 20, 2001 PETER JENNINGS: . . . Claire, the president said at one point, 'From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.' Should we be taking that as the Bush doctrine?
CLAIRE SHIPMAN reporting: I think so, Peter, (link)

Commentary:

There is no single definition of the "Bush Doctrine." In the Weekly Standard article the author goes on to quote a total of eight different definitions of the Bush Doctrine including two different definitions from Charlie Gibson himself. All of these are from ABC news sources and include, in addition to Peters and Gibson, definitions by George Will, George Stephnopoulos, Terry Moran, and Bob Woodward.

Palin did not show herself uninformed; Gibson showed himself to be a biased, condescending, arrogant, elitist snob with an agenda. He owes her an apology.

Top Stories