Thanks for your opinion, Linda.

So pleased that you’re okay, and your damage has been limited. Stay safe, Sandbee.

Hi Kip, Let’s be fair. This is what transpired: 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. Her answer was not inconsistent with the definition of “the doctrine of pre-emptive strikes or declaration of pre-emptive war.” I respect that you are not in favor of this candidate, but feel that this is a baseless attack.

Hi Bonita, There is a person titled “Duchess of Delete” (named ‘B. Nyce’) who periodically goes through and deletes inappropriate posts (naughty language, dating sites and the like). She’ll get to this one evenually. She has asked in the past not to respond to the inappropriate poster by hitting the “reply” button, and she’ll find it evenutally.

Hi Kip, Some people are not defending Governor Palin by responding to you. I, for one, am defending no one. I am merely pointing out that there are at least seven different doctrines to which the “Bush Doctrine” may be referring, and that the fact that Governor Palin was asking which Mr. Gibson was referring to was not necessarily indicative of the fact that she was unfamiliar with the subject matter.

Hi Mary, I posted this earlier in this thread, but thought it appropriate to repeat the issue of Governor Palin’s response to the question of the Bush Doctrine here as well: I think most people don’t know what “the” Bush Doctrine is, because there is more than one. One, is states that harbor terrorists will be treated by the US as would be a terrorist state, another is to form a “coalition of the willing” if the UN Security Council does not take action against terrorist threats, the doctrine of “pre-emptive” strikes or declaration of pre-emptive war, the use of the unilateral stance on the US missile defense system, deposition of regimes thought to be a national security threat to the US and willingness to pursue US military interests unilaterally. The fact that Governor Palin did not know to which specific Bush doctrine Mr. Gibson was referring does not necessarily mean that she does not know what it means.

I second Eve’s message, and look forward to hearing from each of you soon. You’re in our thoughts.

Hi Linda, I was so very happy to hear from you yesterday, and know that you’re in my thoughts. Please drop a line when you can. Take good care of yourself. Your lovely voice has been missed lately.

Hi Kip, I think most people don’t know what “the” Bush Doctrine is, because there is more than one. One, is states that harbor terrorists will be treated by the US as would be a terrorist state, another is to form a “coalition of the willing” if the UN Security Council does not take action against terrorist threats, the doctrine of “pre-emptive” strikes or declaration of pre-emptive war, the use of the unilateral stance on the US missile defense system, deposition of regimes thought to be a national security threat to the US and willingness to pursue US military interests unilaterally. The fact that Governor Palin did not know to which specific Bush doctrine Mr. Gibson was referring does not necessarily mean that she does not know what it means.

Hi GT, According to the latest Tax Policy Center analysis, “Senator McCain proposes to replace the current income tax exclusion of employer-paid health insurance premiums with a refundable income tax credit of $2,500 for individual coverage or $5,000 for family coverage, whether acquired at work or purchased in the individual nongroup market. (The current exclusion of employer-paid premiums from payroll taxes would continue.) He would also establish a special high-risk pool to enable individuals with chronic health conditions to purchase health insurance. Senator Obama would provide subsidies that decrease with income for low- and middle-income families to help them purchase insurance in a new nongroup purchasing pool, mandate health insurance coverage for children, penalize employers who fail to provide health insurance to their employees, expand public health insurance programs for poor children and families, and provide subsidies for small employers that offer health insurance. Senator Obama’s plan would reduce the number of uninsured Americans by about 18 million in 2009, and 34 million in 2018. Almost all children would have coverage because the law would require it, but nearly 33 million adults would still lack coverage in 2018. Senator McCain’s plan would have far more modest effects, reducing the number of uninsured by just over 1 million in 2009, rising to a maximum of almost 5 million in 2013, after which the number of uninsured would creep upward because the tax credits grow more slowly than premiums. Both plans are highly progressive, although Senator Obama’s plan targets subsidies more toward low- and middle-income households and is thus significantly more progressive than Senator McCain’s proposal.” Hope that answers your question. Full analysis can be found at http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411749_updated_candidates.pdf

Hi Rocky, If inefficiencies in public spending were completely negated, that would account for about 3% of the total $3.1 trillion US budget. The first part of the non sequiter would an be ineffective goal to deal with an enormous problem. You make a good point, though. I AM in favor of prosperous families!

Hi Carol, I vote primarily on my perception of the economic policies that will be supported by the party in power. She has not in the past, nor did anything in this interview that gave me any indication of her acumen in this area. I had no opinion of her before and continue to have none, other than that she is a skilled public speaker and well coached interview subject. Was curious as to whether anyone heard anything of substance from her that swayed their opinion one way or the other, and it seems not. Thanks for asking, and my best wishes for a lovely week-end.

I would be very interested to know if anyone’s opinion has changed after having watched this interview.

Then there’s her father. Marrying a girl 2 years older than your daughter is apparently okay with her God-fearing daddy-boy. Maybe not attending her wedding would be a good thing.

Hi Rainbow, As much as I hate to say this, I agree with the strategy for FNMA and FHLMAC. It’s the loans that are being protected - not the stockholders - and without that protection, the ultimate price would be much higher in the unwinding of confidence, the destruction of the housing market and the ancillary effects on other financial institutions. This was, in my opinion, the best (and least costly) alternative, but it was the best of a selection of alternatives that included nothing good.