« Not good... | Main | Ta-Nehisi Falls Off » The most revealing thing I've seen about Sarah Palin11 Sep 2008 09:26 pm I like to think I've been at least sober in my criticism of Palin. Maybe not. Either way, today, I finally got it. Forget about Trooper-gate and creationism. Forget about the truly low, cynical people who think that being the target of "liberal ridicule" neccessarily means your qualified to lead the country. Forget about moose-hunting and pipelines. You simply can't be a credible VP nominee and have no idea what the Bush doctrine is. Watch this clip. And then think about the people who say Andrew has lost his mind over Palin's nomination. I admit, for a while I wondered why he was going so hard. Now I know. And now I know who, truly, must be out their minds. UPDATE: Many have noted that the Bush Doctrine has actually been a somewhat amorphous phrase. Fair enough. But she seemed to not even have a handle on any of the various definition. It was almost as if she'd never heard the phrase. It wasn't like she said "Well what aspect" or "It's changed a few times." She seemed to be basically clueless. Comments (130)Comments on this entry have been closed. |
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
I'm not even watching but have this to offer up front...
... perhaps McCain thinks about her the same way he seems to think about the American people... as described by Jeff Goldberg here just today:
http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/why_mccains_campaign_peddles_n.php
Personal privilege: I actually respect Jeff Goldberg very much, mainly for his courage at looking at certain issues (eg., Israel... but not only) more seriously and honestly than many in his position, but his latest line of reasoning has really challenged that reservoir of confidence... which I find saddening more than anything else.
I'd like to see reporters making shit up and asking her about it.
"Governor Palin, what do you think about Vice President Cheney's proposal to develop robots that could function as prison guards?"
"Governor Palin, the Chinese have developed a new beet and a 12 ounce serving provides 100% of the necessary nutrients human diets require. Should schools be required to include these beets in their daily lunch menus?"
I put this on the other thread but it works here. From Hilzoy:
I want someone who might end up being President to have a reservoir of background knowledge to draw on in times of crisis. And Sarah Palin just doesn't have one.
It's the same reason I get mad at those overly-internetted people who claim kids no longer need to know facts because if they need to know where Pakistan is or what 82x7.2 is or how fission works they can just look it up. A huge part of intelligence--maybe the basic definition of it--is to see patterns. To make metaphors: hey, that thing I'm seeing is like this other thing I know. To do that, you need a large solid knowledge base, both general and in your specific field.
Moe, your comment made me laugh hard enough to wake up my baby.
I think I'm just overwhelmingly happy that Palin demonstrated the depth of her knowledge...
TNC:
What is truly sad, is that this doofus could be the infamous "one heartbeat away" from the fucking nuclear trigger.
Think about it.
Soooo...was Mr. Damon being condescending, or just expressing common sense? Methinks the latter.
You simply can't be a credible VP nominee and have no idea what the Bush doctrine is.
While I agree with the sentiment here, I have to say that after 8 years, it's entirely unclear what the Bush Doctrine is. I think it is something like "Do what you want, and fish about for a rationale that works at any given moment."
It sounds flip, but I don't think anyone could answer that question smoothly.
Is it about nations that harbor terrorists? Something like a 1% doctrine of WMD, which might be nuclear but also might be something like a small amount of chemicals that sound a lot more dangerous if we manage to categorize them with nukes? The need to depose dictators as an act of global mercy? That even though nation-building was an awful idea, the world changed forever (and ever, amen) seven years ago today, so now it's ok?
If it's Thursday, the Bush Doctrine must be American exceptionalism, where we get to act unilaterally because our previous "coalition of the willing" fell apart three years ago.
I mean, can you make sense of the "Bush Doctrine"?
[I haven't seen the interview yet. The best strategy to answer such a question would probably be to pick one aspect of Bush's foreign policy "explanations" and go to town on whether it was right or wrong, and why.]
I'll postulate that Palin is painfully unqualified, but I don't see why it's so egregious that she didn't know what the Bush doctrine was. How often has this term been used in the past few years? Why not just call it the preemption doctrine (which is was called before Bush espoused it)? If she didn't know what preemption was, rather than a term used for a couple years to describe it when practiced by the U.S., I'd see it as a bigger problem.
She really does sound like the Church Lady.
"While I agree with the sentiment here, I have to say that after 8 years, it's entirely unclear what the Bush Doctrine is."
Well then she should say that.
i agree wholeheartedly. i'm an avid reader of sully's blog and have always been skeptical of palin, but i was beginning to get a little uneasy with his tone concerning her---especially knowing how excitable he can be. but the man has been right all along. the woman is functionally clueless.
it's especially devastating the way gibson has to tell her the defintion of the bush doctrine after she tries to bullsh!t her way through the answer. this was a total deer-in-the-headlights moment on national TV. she just is not ready. and who could be with only 60 days to prepare??
i see now that picking her was really mccain's jump the shark moment---although no one dares report it as such. this whole situation proves that mccain isn't as serious about governance as he is about electioneering. this race isn't over yet---but it sure as hell should be.
we really will get the president we deserve. that much is clear.
He asked her numerous questions to try and trap her into making a mistake. That's his perogative.
My belief is the media is actively trying to discredit and destroy her along with actively trying to support and advance Obama's candidacy.
I don't care anymore, the old saying that you eventually get the government you deserve couldn't be more true than in the U.S. We're going to go from a conservative radical to a liberal radical, oh joy.
As wonkette.com suggested, it would have been hilarious if Charlie Gibson asked to go Palin into more detail about the Orange and Rose revolutions to see if she could pass a quiz on it.
I do sympathize with Palin-- after all I might drop the Orange and Rose revolution to impress a woman at a cocktail party. Although, I think I can discuss the Bush doctrine-- but don't ask me for details about the Orange and Rose revolutions.
But then again, I think the stakes are somewhat higher with Palin screwing up (the national security of the country vs. Lemar trying to get into some woman's pants)
Well then she should say that.
She can't, of course, and we all know it. It would amuse me, but it would be political suicide. She did start off in an ok fashion about terrorism being the grand global threat. That is a decent characterization of Bush's position there. Lord knows we heard enough about Evil-Doers.
I finally got to see this (now, with sound!), and I think this is run-of-the-mill bobbing and weaving.
I love that he tried to pin her down on a specific question, over and over, when she wanted to give vague answers about "doing what it takes."
And this is what makes her look weak, not the fact that she can't answer a question about the Bush Doctrine. She either doesn't know what she would do, or she is too afraid of contradicting John McCain (and unsure of what he would do) to provide a substantive answer.
My belief is the media is actively trying to discredit and destroy her along with actively trying to support and advance Obama's candidacy.
LOL! The "media" is trying to take her down - by asking questions about foreign policy! OOOooh, scary media. Give me a break.
Libertarian,
"He asked her numerous questions to try and trap her into making a mistake. "
Good grief, man. Did you watch the same interview I did? The woman didn't have a clue. Only a Republican could believe that aksing "numerous questions" during an interview could be an insidious plot to destroy someone.
And the media is not "actively trying to destroy her", so much as do the vetting job McCain apparently did not see fit to do. The simple truth is that McCain is a 72-year man who has survived four bouts of cancer and hasn't been in the best of health the last 10 years. The chances of him dying through his first term are real. Palin is woefully underqualified to be the president--but that's exactly what we could be faced with. The media is just doing it's job trying to find out what the hell this woman thinks about the pivotal issues of our time before she gets command of nukes.
Why is that wrong?
PS,
Bush was not a "conservative radical". Conservatives believe in small gov't, fiscal responsibility, the rule of law, upholding our international treaty obligations and a prudent foreign policy backed up by a wise deployment of our armed forces. It is obvious that Bush believes none of those things.
He asked her numerous questions to try and trap her into making a mistake.
I'll grant that the question was vague and open-ended at first. Maybe it was a trap, maybe it was a chance for her to actually set the direction of the answer.
But once he asked her a specific question, one that is very pertinent and timely, she should have been able to come up with a more specific answer. I'm not sure what the converse position here is -- that the question was out of bounds? That he was out of bounds for being persistent in seeking a concrete answer? I don't think either of those is true.
"He asked her numerous questions to try and trap her into making a mistake."
"My belief is the media is actively trying to discredit and destroy her along with actively trying to support and advance Obama's candidacy."
I don't really understand this point. first off who else has even interviewed her to be apart of a media conspiracy to trip her up? This is her first interview. Secondly, if the media is trying to help Obama they have a strange way of showing it. Lastly, should she only ask questions that he thinks she could answer?
Hmmm, let me count the ways
-She lied about her son's parentage, the public wants a DNA test.
-She's a bad parent because her daughter is pregnant
-She can't be VP because she has 5 children.
-She can't be a family values candidate because her daughter is pregnant.
-OMG she's exploiting her family, how dare she let her pregnant daughter and special needs son be seen in public!!!
-OMG she wanted to get her dirtbag 10 year old tasering ex brother in law fired.
-OMG Heart doesn't like her.
-She wasn't vetted!!!
-She was having an affair with her son's business partner, or not.
-Breaking, motion to seal divorce papers that don't mention her.
-She sold the aiplane at a loss!!! and everyone knows that airplanes don't depreciate. A liar!!!
-She takes earmarks!!!!! like every other governor. Liar, liar pants on fire.
-OMG she flip flopped!!!!
-She only just got her passport. Woo hoo.
-She bans books!!!
-She makes rape victims pay for their own rape kits [like a lot of other states in 2000]!!
-She wants to attack the Russians!!!
Give me a break. They did it to Al Gore and they did it to John Kerry and they're doing it to her.
To all the people contending that the Bush doctrine is somehow ambiguous, before I saw the interview my wife preciently asked me if I knew what it was. I said, "Pre-emptive strike based on credible threat from a foreign state." Sure, there are ambiguities in how it could be interpreted in a given context. But really, on a general level, it's a pretty obvious. Moreso when you are given the date on which Bush announced it.
And then think about the people who say Andrew has lost his mind over Palin's nomination. I admit, for a while I wondered why he was going so hard. Now I know. And now I know who, truly, must be out their minds.
I vote for option #3, all of the above: people who think Palin's qualified are out of their minds, and so is Andrew Sullivan.
not knowing what the bush doctrine is=n00b
Man, it's pretty trippy to see someone with the handle "Libertarian" characterize concerns about government book banning as some kind of swift boating.
FFS, I can at least give a passable answer to the question Gibson asked, as could almost anybody who has been paying attention the past eight years. Where was Gov. Palin?
dragnet writes: "Bush was not a "conservative radical". Conservatives believe in small gov't, fiscal responsibility, the rule of law, upholding our international treaty obligations and a prudent foreign policy backed up by a wise deployment of our armed forces. It is obvious that Bush believes none of those things."
If those are the standards I'm not sure we've had a conservative president since Eisenhower. I prefer to judge a political movement based on what it actually does, not what it claims it will do. I know what current conservatives stand for, and they're crazy warmongering cheapskates with penchants for racism and torture.
I hope they revert - I think there was a whole lot to admire about Eisenhower. And I've voted for some Republicans - Bill Weld, for example. But I will never vote for a Repiglican. I consider them to be anathema to the best ideals of America.
Cole Moore Odell writes: "Man, it's pretty trippy to see someone with the handle "Libertarian" characterize concerns about government book banning as some kind of swift boating."
I think "libertarian" may be the most misused word in the English language. "Libertarian" is just another example.
It's not even so much that she clearly doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is . I actually think that her knowledge gap is the least of our concerns. Knowledge can be attained and facts provided from subordinates.
The problem is that she appears to have a second-rate mind. She is doing nothing more than parroting talking points. Further, her pronouncements aren't rooted in any worldview or any set of values.
You may disagree with Obama, McCain, or Biden on foreign policy but unless you're being ornery, you can't deny that they've devoted a great deal of thought to their vision of global order. I saw no evidence whatsoever that Palin has thought about how the world should be. All I heard were regurgitated sound bites. THAT's what's so scary.
When you lack knowledge, but have the faculties of reason, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation, you can still lead.
But when you lack these faculties and good judgement, you abdicate decision-making to unelected kingpins. That's what been happening in the second Bush Administration. How the American people can bear to see another intellectual lightweight in the Oval Office is beyond me.
Sorry if I sound elitist but I expect more from the people entrusted to keep my children safe. I was genuinely withholding judgement on Gov. Palin until I heard her answer serious questions. I was hoping for more but am truly disappointed.
Libertarian,
You still haven't addressed how the mere act of asking "numerous questions" during the course of a nationally televised interview could constitute an effort to trap someone. It's okay, I don't expect a substantive reply from you on this score.
And some of thing bullet points you listed are truly problematic. In 2000, Wasilla was the ONLY town in Alaska that charged victims for their rape kits. That's just heinous--I don't care what other states did it. Those other states' govs aren't on a major party ticket for president.
The earmarks are indeed a problem because she has lied repeatedly about opposing the "Bridge to Nowhere". When Congress killed the project because of the political heat, she publicly recanted her support---but kept the money. That poses serious questions to her anti-earmark, reformer cred. I'm glad the media is digging this sh!t up.
And the fact that she is even considering an armed exchanged with Russia in reponse to Russian bullying of states that have for centuries resided within Moscow's sphere of influence---all without considering the effects that would have on our joint efforts with Russia to secure loose nuclear weapons, energy supplies and increase pressure on Iran, etc---proves that she is clueless about our true strategic priorities and that John McCain's decision to pick her is fundamentally unserious.
I could go on, but I won't. It's like shooting fish in a bucket at this point.
Here’s what scares me: All of you guys have a stronger grasp of foreign policy than most members of Congress – seriously. You guys can immediately spot all of her gaffes which required a bit of nuance when it comes to foreign policy. The average American voter, specifically the waitress in small town Ohio almost certainly cannot. These type of people heard: “We’ll go after any country that supports terrorism.” To these people, I’m worried she’ll come off as sounding strong and decisive. She’s being graded on a major curve and it will get spun into how great it is to hear a woman speak so strongly. They’ll be some crap about how mother can be the most dangerous creature on earth when she feels her children are threatened.
The McCain campaign will lambaste the press for being too hard on her and will insert this talking point. The press will play along and start debating this point, establishing the narrative and lending credibility to this.
Remember how we all laughed at Bush in 2000 for all of his gaffes, such as when he couldn’t name most of the major foreign leaders? This kind of shit played well in large swaths of the country and established his “everyman” credibility.
This whole “everyman” aspect of the election is one of the things I find so distressing. It’s the glorification of willful ignorance and represents a contempt for the world which is going to lead directly to a massive calamity in the next 10 years.
Her general demeanor was worrisome. She looked incredibly nervous...beyond the kind of nervous one would expect (Uhms and permasmiles), it was almost as if she were literally...frightened.
If she can't maintain relatively normal blood pressure (her neck was turning red) during an interview with Charlie Gibson, then maybe she should think about bailing out now.
I think I feel sorry for her (even though I probably shouldn't).
jsy writes: "The problem is that she appears to have a second-rate mind."
I wish. If she had a second-rate mind it wouldn't be so bad. She's a long way away from second-rate. Thirteenth-rate, maybe.
She's also a terrible blinker.
If those are the standards I'm not sure we've had a conservative president since Eisenhower. I prefer to judge a political movement based on what it actually does, not what it claims it will do.
Yeah, Bush clearly isn't temperamentally conservative, and I don't think his administration has a conservative governing philosophy, but he certainly represents modern American political conservatism. Saying that contemporary conservatism isn't "really" about Iraq and deficit spending is like saying that 1960s liberalism wasn't "really" about Vietnam. You don't get to ignore your failures and flaws when assessing your record. You are what you do.
AKBY writes: "If she can't maintain relatively normal blood pressure (her neck was turning red) during an interview with Charlie Gibson, then maybe she should think about bailing out now."
Well, her prospective son-in-law admits to being a "fuckin' redneck."
It all reminds me of Randy Newman lyrics, which were meant ironically, but not this time:
"We're rednecks,
We're rednecks,
We don't know our ass from a hole in the ground."
Turns out Sarah Palin really doesn't.
What will be remembered with swing voters, to the dismay of policy wonks...is that Gibson came off as an arrogant, condescending elitist.
Lighten up, everyone. My understanding is that McCain made her stay up all last night studying his Czechoslovakia briefing book.
What will be remembered with swing voters, to the dismay of policy wonks...is that Gibson came off as an arrogant, condescending elitist.
My point exactly Craig. This perception is complete and total garbage, but that's how it's going to come off.
We also laughed at (for good reason) at Dan Quayle too. Come to think about it: After watching that interview, he must be feeling pretty damn good about himself right now...
"Saying that contemporary conservatism isn't "really" about Iraq and deficit spending is like saying that 1960s liberalism wasn't "really" about Vietnam. You don't get to ignore your failures and flaws when assessing your record. You are what you do."
I don't disagree. I should have clarified that I meant that Bush's governing philosophy wasn't conservative---I just assumed that was obvious based on what I wrote. I definitely agree that he represents the essence of modern American political conservatism. And this is why I tend to vote Democrat. I hope to live long enough to see a truly conservative party reconstitute itself. I'm only 25 so I figure it could yet happen and I think an Obama victory could be a catalyst for it.
Here's hoping, anyways.
Yep - to most political junkies, it was obvious that she had no idea what the Bush Doctrine was. But if there are people who are still "undecided" out there...chances are they don't know what it is either.
My belief is the media is actively trying to discredit and destroy her along with actively trying to support and advance Obama's candidacy.
Pish tosh. The media is trying to sell papers or advertising space, and will report accordingly, including exaggerating the horse race and seizing on the scandal du jour which, let's face it, drives a zillion times more blog traffic than a careful analysis of the CBO. Until the past two weeks few people could rival John McCain for adoring media--those years of unlimited access brought him forgiveness for goofs, because the press both liked him and had seen him riff on whatever the topic was at length.
But name an out-of-nowhere, seemingly-not-very-qualified veep, deny all access, then explain that she can't come out until the media is properly deferential. In addition, lie about the bridge to nowhere and earmarks and, when every media organization says you're lying, repeat the lie. Some more. At volume. Dare the media to go Tuzla on you or back off and let your fantasy narrative stand. Finally, John "the press is my base" McCain stops taking questions, leaving his press pool lonely and abandoned.
You thought McCain could do all that and maintain his rosy "well, they say she opposes earmarks, so that's the story" narrative?
If the media were engaged in a conspiracy to elect Obama they wouldn't have spent a day debating lipstick on a pig, meaning when stated by Cheney, Dick versus Obama, Barack versus McCain, John*; they would have talked solemnly about how he has serious economic plans that would help the American family in the following ways (insert nice graph from Yglesias) and sigh that the Republicans seem unaware of what's in their platform except continuing the redistribution of wealth Bush's tax cuts inaugurated.
*And what about lipsticks on lemurs, huh? Lipstick on labrador retrievers? Lipstick on armadillos? Does it matter if the armadillos are dead? Which lipsticked animals are pro-Republican and which are insulting?
Oops, dragnet, that was my mistake, I was writing off of Moe's comment. I'm not sure the three of us disagree. I still call myself a conservative but I'm no longer a Republican. Not sure where that leaves me when it comes to practical politics.
BTW, if Sarah Palin can't handle Charlie (or am I Brit Hume?) Gibson-- who will handle the next interview? Sean Hannity? Bill O'Reilly? Steve Doucy?
I mean, an interview with anyone else runs the risk of turning into a foreign policy exam--and not the multiple choice kind, but with essays.
I subscribe to sully and a few other blogs in the Alaska area. They know her.
The fact is: She is not qualified. If she were she could give a press conference just like everybody else. That's part of the the job of being a politician on the national level.
You guys can rationalize all you want by obscuring the gossip on blogs with stories about her record in order to make her a victim. But, that still does not make her qualified. At least Obama can give an open ended press conference.
Not only is she not qualified. Nor is John McCain. He spent 15 minutes in person vetting this person, and now he's doing his best to make sure we cannot properly vet her either.
Call it what it is: A charade. Point to your head and wave your finger in a circle.
The New York Times gives her a pass.
Your liberal media at work.
To the elitism versus regular American stuff: No one wants a car mechanic who talks down to you and does a lot of sighing and eye rolling. But if someone asks your potential new mechanic about the carburetor and he seems not quite sure about it, you wouldn't be relieved that he was just a regular guy, like you, who wasn't too clear on what carburetors did.
Same with a doctor: you don't want someone too busy to listen to you, but you don't want someone who doesn't seem to know more about, say, your asthma than you do. Or who just shoots from the hip with his or her gut feeling about your medical treatment and who says "Hey, if this hasty decision doesn't work out, I'm willing to live with the consequences." You want the doctor to know a lot more about this topic than you do, but not to treat you like an idiot.
This frame is possible. I swear Barack already does it but it's hard to break through the soundbites.
It wasn't the act of asking questions, it was the manner of asking questions, questions asked in such a way as to invite her to walk into a trap.
Since she spoke publicly about reducing earmarks as governor and she reduced them by a substantial amount as governor I would say her credentials are pretty solid in thsi regard, but of course the media isn't reporting this in screaming headlines. The same thing goes for the per diem, she reduced expenses as governor by 80%, but the media doesn't want to tell that story, they want to tell a scandalous story.
Unless NATO is to be completely scrapped then if the Russians rolled tanks into a NATO country a military response would have to be on the table or NATO isn't worth the paper its written on. Sometimes it sounds like people woke up in a new world yesterday where the Cold War decades of US First Strike scenarios never existed at all and they are shocked, shocked at the idea that the U.S. should even hint at the idea of using the military to help a NATO allie.
I don't have to agree with her on the issues to be able to admit that the media is now out to destroy her or to support John McCain to acknowledge that the media has abandoned all pretense of objectivity and are actively supporting Obama's campaign.
Christ, what's your take on the moon landing, Libertarian? Who really killed JFK?
I feel dirty dignifying your ramblings with a response, but the media has no need to "destroy" Palin, she is doing a fine job of it herself.
Austin,
You must be really sensitive,then. LOL.
I hope you enjoy the Great Society 2.0 and all the unintended consequences it will bring you with an Obama presidency.
Apparently, folks don't like long posts at The Atlantic, or perhaps you don't like the content, interestly that neither you or anyone else can refute any facts I have cited, so you resort to a straw man line about the moonlanding. Typical.
Libertarian,
If you see a trap, and not a significant problem with intellectual ability in this exchange:
PALIN: And, Charlie, you're in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They're very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.
GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, 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, from an island in Alaska.
You need to pause and take a deep breath. I want her to be smarter, because then I wouldn't be so fucking scared. We should thank people for culling the wheat from the chaff. This whole episode in presidential politics is just deeply disturbing.
The "Bush Doctrine" is a trick question because there really is no Bush Doctrine. In practice, Bush's foreign policy has been too flexible and pragmatic to be constrained by a doctrine. It started as a quasi-isolationist, "humble" foreign policy, then after 9/11 it went full tilt in the other direction assuming elements of preemption and promoting democracy abroad. Then after the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq consumed most of the administration's energy it pursued more flexible and pragmatic approaches to nonproliferation: working out a disarmament deal with Libya, establishing the Proliferation Security Initiative with allied navies to interdict WMD material shipments, etc.
The bottom line here is that those of you who are Obamatons start with the assumption that Obama is brilliant and Palin is a dolt and -- surprise! -- you find evidence to support your bias. Obama makes a gaffe a week and no one notices. Meanwhile, none of you seem to care that his foreign policy wouldn't differ from McCain's in any meaningful way. Neither would be in any hurry to leave Iraq; both want to send more troops to Afghanistan and have no exit strategy for that war; and both want to add Georgia to NATO which will likely lead to a shooting war with Russia.
Charlie:
As I understand it, true classical conservatism in its pure form is basically classic liberalism; i.e. a belief in free societies, market economies and pluralistic, open societies. It also recognizes the fallibility of man and our inherent nature and greed (you could say it’s the belief of Hobbes and Machiavelli over Kant and Descartes). For this reason, power should be limited and too much of it will inevitably lead to tyranny. It’s also extremely suspicious of anything which reeks of utopia. Those espousing utopia are usually radicals seeking to suddenly smash a system and replace it with an untried one. More often than not, these end up becoming dysfunctional nightmares (see Communism, the Nazis, Khmer Rouge, etc). Free societies evolved slowly over time. For these reasons, conservatives are typically cautious and prudent in their actions. They understand that free societies exist on the knife’s edge between tyranny and anarchy (though a bit of chaos is seen as a necessary by-product of maximal freedom and is vastly preferable to authoritarianism) and it doesn’t take too much to upset the balance.
This same type of prudent mindset also applies to foreign policy. Waging war requires citizens to subjugate themselves to the state and is the ultimate expression of the very power conservatives feel so ambivalently about. War is also bad for business. It’s a severe drain on resources which could be harnessed much more productively elsewhere and it interferes with the public’s ability to carry on with their lives and they best see fit. For these reasons, war should be the absolute last resort. This underpinned much of the reason the Founding Fathers were so staunch in their wish to see our nation avoid entangling themselves in foreign alliances except for when our vital interests (defined very narrowly) are at stake.
This is my partial understanding of true conservatism and it’s a philosophy I have deep respect for. By this (incomplete) definition, I consider myself a conservative too.
Of course, conservatism as we currently define it in the United States, resembles this in almost no way, shape, or form. It’s just as absurd as saying Liberals (as in Liberal US Democrats) and liberalism are one in the same.
Of course, all of this demonstrates the irony in “Libertarian’s” screen name, given his posts.
Lib - please cite me any shred of evidence to back your claims of an active attempt to destroy sarah palin by collective "media" before you call me out on lack of facts. my post was intentionally glib and unimportant, yours clearly is not.
Well, she's got one thing down pat - Bush's command of the language: “You have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we’re on, reform of this country and victory in the war.”
Gibson wasn't trying to trap Palin into anything.
Christ, he threw her two or three lifelines so she might eventually give a coherent answer.
I think Obama's gaffe about punishing Russia in the UN security council, where they have veto power, is at least, if not more, amateur than her answer on the Bush Doctrine.
If Obama doesn't understand that Russia has a veto on the security council...is he also not qualified to be President?
Gibson asked the VP candidate for the GOP a question about the Bush doctrine. How much softer could it get? Even McCain could have nailed this one - and Palin flubbed it ignominiously. Sorry, but that's beyond pathetic. How desperate Libertarian must be to find that sort of question part of a conspiracy! What sort of questions should Gibson have asked? Whether she baked cookies? Her favorite color? Does she find fluffy puppies cute? Seriously, you would never hire someone who didn't know the basics - and Palin simply does not - after two weeks or so of prep!
When first asked the question, her response is a condescending "In what respect, Charlie?" She uses Gibson's first name and sort of mockingly leans back in her chair and folds her hands like she's an expert, when in fact she has no clue. She's trying to charm Gibson into giving her the answer. That sort of cockyness coupled with complete ignorance doesn't exactly help reinforce the McCain/Palin platform of change. Give Gibson credit for making her flail around in the issue of terrorism before throwing her the lifeline.
Bush is not a conservative, he's a radical, as I said before. I'never supported Bush because he is an anathma to everything I believe in, but, so in large part is Obama. Hence, the use of "libertarian"...
Again, typically, criticism of Obama is mistaken as support for Mccain or Bush; refusing to buy into media half truths about Palin is viewed as supporting her on issues. Most are so partisan they can't separate the process from the personalities and will under no circumstances admit anything negative about whomever they support.
Anyone who doesn't see the media bias in this election now will never see it.
i dont agree with the assessment that her (over)use of "Charlie" was in anyway condescending. It was just used as a crutch to lean on. She couldn't allow for any more deafening silence, and trained public speakers know not to use "um" or "erh," so "Charlie," or the like take the place of the filler that is found in normal speech
If anyone thought that this was a particularly *difficult* interview, filled with "traps" or whatnot...I'd like to know why? That seems like an absurd statement.
Asking why Alaska's proximity to Russia (an official talking point) gives her any foreign policy cred is a "trap"? If it is, she's the one who laid it. Have people really come to the point where they expect that kind of argument NOT to be questioned? Maybe they have.
also, i'd think that Palin critics would be more hesitant to throw out a "condescension" complaint. The inanity of that argument should be well known as TNC documented earlier
She's a Republican. She did a perfectly fine job of conveying the Republican take on things and did not appear any more or less of a fool than any other.
Really, would any Obama supporter be less critical, and more reassured by the candidate's competence, if it was Romney or Huckabee who was being questioned? Of course not.
Democrats who are convinced she will sink the ticket are indulging in pure wishful thinking.
The American people are not going to rise up in outrage and chase McCain out of the country because of his "poor judgement" in picking Palin. A lot of them even kind of like her.
Obama still has to win this election the same way as he always has -- by making the better argument for change and out-campaigning McCain.
Hey, at least she doesn't think that 10,000 people died in the floods in Iowa...
His repeated questions about her view of god and her quote, which by the way he had wrong, what he stated is not an exact quote, was an attempt to trap her into saying something stupid that could be used to beat her over the head and turn her into a religious zealot.
His quesions about Georgia were the same thing, trying to trap her into saying something that would paint her as either stupid or a warmonger...if you will note ABC and many pieces led with some version of Palin wants to add Georgia to NATO, says attack on Russia may be necessary...never mentioning Obama's agreement on Georgia.
He hit pay dirt with his question on the Bush Doctrine, he was hoping it would throw her and it did. If someone had asked me, I wouldn't have known what he was talking about either, which doctrine? pre-emptive war, spreading Democracy?
If the NYTimes is writing that he showed obvious signs of exasperation...which is totally unprofessional...I don't know how it can be argued that this was a softball or friendly interview.
-She lied about her son's parentage, the public wants a DNA test.
What media pushed this one? Andrew Sullivan, a conservative, and ... who else?
-She's a bad parent because her daughter is pregnant
Is that true or not? If it was Michelle Obama with an unmarried, 17-year-old pregnant daughter, she sure as hell would be vilified as a bad parent.
-She can't be VP because she has 5 children.
What media has pushed this one?
-She can't be a family values candidate because her daughter is pregnant.
See above: Abstinence-only fanatics can't use their pregnant, unmarried daughters as campaign geegaws without being viewed by right-thinking people as hypocrites.
-OMG she's exploiting her family, how dare she let her pregnant daughter and special needs son be seen in public!!!
No one has ever said these children shouldn't be seen in public. It is a little cynical to use a months-old special needs son as a campaign prop, but she was playing to the GOP base. So be it.
-OMG she wanted to get her dirtbag 10 year old tasering ex brother in law fired.
She abused her office to have a public employee fired. And has lied about it. And is stonewalling a perfectly valid investigation of the situation.
-OMG Heart doesn't like her.
The GOP has been using songs without permission from the creators for decades. Has anyone made a big deal of this? No, of course not.
-She wasn't vetted!!!
That's 100 percent true, and a very telling fact about whether McCain is fit to be president.
-She was having an affair with her son's business partner, or not.
You're talking about the National Enquirer now.
-Breaking, motion to seal divorce papers that don't mention her.
You're talking about the Enquirer. But, now that you mention it, why the motion to seal? Interesting.
-She sold the aiplane at a loss!!! and everyone knows that airplanes don't depreciate. A liar!!!
Her lie of omission about the plane is two-fold: it didn't sell on eBay, and when it did sell to a Palin contributor, the state took a loss.
-She takes earmarks!!!!! like every other governor. Liar, liar pants on fire.
But McCain hates earmarks. I wonder why he'd give her a pass on this. Maybe he should have vetted her.
-OMG she flip flopped!!!!
Doesn't every politician get criticized for this?
-She only just got her passport. Woo hoo.
Well, she's somewhat of a provincial naif. Bush had never left the continent before he took office, and just look: terrible, terrible president, particularly when it comes to foreign affairs.
-She bans books!!!
She didn't ban them, she just tried to. And that is an awful thing. I can't believe a libertarian is arguing in favor of banning books.
-She makes rape victims pay for their own rape kits [like a lot of other states in 2000]!!
That is a horrible thing. And who cares if other states did it. If those other states jumped off a bridge, should Sarah Palin jump off a bridge too?
-She wants to attack the Russians!!!
That is a dangerous thing. A terribly stupid, naive, dangerous thing.
What was your point again? She's being treated unfairly by the media? If that's what you're going for, you should really try again.
I would also add that true conservatism doesn’t concern itself with the politics of morality. The government shouldn’t be legislating this stuff. As a general rule, so long as someone’s actions/lifestyle is not harming others (and I’m talking actual harm here, not offended sensibilities), government should back the fuck off. That said; conservatism does recognize that man is flawed and therefore must provide enough protection for individual rights so as to avoid tyranny of the majority.
Again, we see that true conservatism in no way, shape, or form resembles modern American Conservatism.
In its pure form, I find little to disagree with in this worldview (even if it's never been close to fully realized). It's a good goal to shoot for.
A true conservative would also agree with TN-C that the War on Drugs is an absolute disaster and an anathema.
The fact that you, a presumably ordinary citizen, would not be able to answer a question about the Bush doctrine in know way justifies her response. The women is seeking the vice presidency. It simply is something you must know, or at the very least be cognizant of it. Any response she could've given asking for clarification would've indicated a level of intellect that simply isn't reflected in spouting off trite, rehashed, "evil-doer" setiment
"Exact quote"...sorry Chuck, yo got it wrong. "Exact" implies that you used the quote in its entirety...which you did not.
The question is "Why?" would he willfully not only get the quote wrong...but insist that it was "exact".
Hmmmm...Chuck is not passing the smell test.
typo: obviously meant to say "in no way" and not "in know way." WHOOPS!
To the elitism versus regular American stuff: No one wants a car mechanic who talks down to you and does a lot of sighing and eye rolling. But if someone asks your potential new mechanic about the carburetor and he seems not quite sure about it, you wouldn't be relieved that he was just a regular guy, like you, who wasn't too clear on what carburetors did.
Same with a doctor: you don't want someone too busy to listen to you, but you don't want someone who doesn't seem to know more about, say, your asthma than you do. Or who just shoots from the hip with his or her gut feeling about your medical treatment and who says "Hey, if this hasty decision doesn't work out, I'm willing to live with the consequences." You want the doctor to know a lot more about this topic than you do, but not to treat you like an idiot.
This frame is possible. I swear Barack already does it but it's hard to break through the soundbites.
Deborah:
I fully agree with your sentiments and think yours was an extremely well-reasoned response, but I've become deeply cynical and believe the public will not see it that way. They're voting based on emotion and some sort of imagined nostalgia for a small town American past (which never existed) and they won't let facts get in the way of this.
If I'm proven wrong, I'll be out on the street doing my naked happy dance.
What I'm also trying to say is: I hope to god you're right, but I'm not optimistic.
"If the NYTimes is writing that he showed obvious signs of exasperation...which is totally unprofessional...I don't know how it can be argued that this was a softball or friendly interview."
You've got to be kidding. How could he not be frustrated, considering he's interviewing someone who is supposed to be ready to step in as president of the most powerful country in the world and she can't handle basic foreign policy questions. You want unprofessional? Unprofessional is not being able to handle that interview.
It is obvious she has been in beauty contests. They usually try to fake their way thru too whether they know something or not when questioned.
Since she spoke publicly about reducing earmarks as governor and she reduced them by a substantial amount as governor I would say her credentials are pretty solid in thsi regard, but of course the media isn't reporting this in screaming headlines.
She was leading the nation in per capita earmarks, and you want me to get googoo-eyed. And incidentally I'm all for studying the DNA of seals; what sets me off is the firm statement that a queen of pork--her town is half the size of mine and they had an Abramson lobbyist all their own!--is really opposed to what she's spent years pursuing. It's the lying. (See: Nowhere, Bridge to.) She requested more earmarks per capita than Obama by an order of magnitude, and yet I'm supposed to fume at him and let her wear a Maverick Reformer Wilting Violet T-shirt?
The same thing goes for the per diem, she reduced expenses as governor by 80%, but the media doesn't want to tell that story, they want to tell a scandalous story.
Charging the state to let you stay in your own house is both silly and easy for Americans to understand and tsk at, of course it gets play. At TNR I can find you an Alaskan state employee who has a much harder time getting his meals etc reimbursed. Frankly I'd like to turn attention to her fiscal conservatism as mayor by putting in place a police chief who refused to pay for forensic tests on rape victims--they had to shell out of their own pockets to cover the cost. That finally ended in 2000 when a Dem governor signed a bill making it illegal. The fed legislation involved? Biden's signature piece, the VAWA.
For that matter, she paid out checks to everyone, than took out loans for infrastructure projects. Usually if you have extra money and an infrastructure need, you might put them together. But bread and circuses get you elected. Reformer? Ha.
Unless NATO is to be completely scrapped then if the Russians rolled tanks into a NATO country a military response would have to be on the table or NATO isn't worth the paper its written on.
Obama managed to say "maybe" while she said "yes." These are distinctions that matter in diplomacy, as much as the language in which you refer to Taiwan. For example, I think everyone is on board that Georgia can't join NATO until it works out its border disputes with Russia. Diplomatic language DOES matter in the president and vice president. Small town mayor can probably say this stuff and it doesn't matter, even if Russia is visible from an Alaskan island.
I don't have to agree with her on the issues to be able to admit that the media is now out to destroy her or to support John McCain to acknowledge that the media has abandoned all pretense of objectivity and are actively supporting Obama's campaign.
Pish tosh again. As Marc noted, John McCain went to war with the media a week ago. Palin went longer than even Eagleburger before giving an interview (because the press isn't deferential enough), and that interview did not erase doubts about her readiness to step in--as noted, she does not seem to have the breadth and depth on national issues that is needed for a president to draw on. I fully expected Palin to hit the ground running the first weekend with in-depth interviews about energy policy, western issues (e.g. resources, guns, use of federal land). Getting up to speed on those while demonstrating a real breadth and depth on domestic bread and butter issues would have played very differently than full sequestration.
It is her own people who steadfastly ignore energy and repeat that Alaska is near Russia. They don't seem confident in her abilities.
Here's McCain finally doing an interview, his first in a few weeks. (This from a candidate who used to exhaust reporters' questions.) The reporter asks substantive questions. McCain does not come off terribly well--he even turns a question about Palin's energy credentials and policy to yet another notation that Russia is next to Alaska. You can see all the media conspiracies you want--the left has certainly been guilty of that--but whining about media deference for a poor delicate flower of a candidate who can't answer any questions yet is not the way to garner a deferential interview. No candidate for office higher than water commissioner should expect such treatment, and none who wanted to be taken seriously would fuss about how tough questions weren't deferential to their stature.
I'm quite amazed at how Schmidt and Davis have chosen to play Palin, to whom I don't think the fainting couch comes naturally. But this is their choice, and the ticket will be judged on it.
Palin did fine.
a "Right" to invade Pakistan?
It sounds like a set up question, so she said we'd do what we have to. Substantively it's the same answer Obama would give and McCain too. There is nothing to the question except that Charlie kept asking it ("blizzard of words" etc. Watch to see if he or any other interviewer ever accuses Obama of using a "blizzard of words")
McCain/Palin have flipped the dynamics of the election around, come off the ropes and are poised to win this thing.
Their post convention bounce was strong. The swing states bounce will be commanding.
Sometimes, the old guy can pull out a win when it counts, (cue video clip of Ali/Foreman from the Rumble in the Jungle).
Deborah:
Do you have your own blog? If not, you should consider starting one; your analysis's are always enjoyable to read.
If you have nothing to say, say it with as many words as possible.
Notwithstanding her ignorance of the term "Bush Doctrine," what I saw in the interview was a woman who has introjected the personality and politics of George W. Bush, and confounds that with identifying herself as a Republican. I have met people who are as passionately certain in their beliefs, yet do not know the etiology of them, having obtained them almost entirely from listening to talk-radio. I would truly feel sorry if Gibson had the temerity to ask her if Freedonia should be allowed to join NATO.
Libertarian and Fred,
A gotcha trap question is something like "who is the president of Turkemenistan" Gibson gave her an easy softball to get the foriegn policy stuff started and she responded with Deer in the headlights. Your right the the Bush Doctrine has been a little fuzzy, it would be perfectly fine to say something like, "it hasn't always been exactly clear what that means, what I think is..." but she obviously has no clue what the phrase even applies to, Gibson bails her out with a definition.
And they have been prepping her for 2 weeks. They must have never brought up the Bush Doctrine stuff because they figured any poltician in Amwerica already knew about it. Ouch, I think they'll pull her back frm any interviews and go back to square one.
I'm smart enough to see what you elitists are getting at, but I have the good sense to stick with the will of the American People and let me tell you: the American People won't turn against Sarah Palin just because she doesn't sit well with you elitists!
Think you're so smart? Well, we'll all see what the American People do on Nov 4, won't we? They elected Bush/Cheney the first time (against "Gore-Loserman", remember?) and then elected them for a second productive term, despite your pointless loser blathering, and they'll elect the maverick Palin and maverick/war-hero McCain over BHO the same way.
Because when all is said and done, they still like her, and identify with her and think she kicks ass. And--you know what?--Gibson IS a bully. Did you see how much bigger he is? And how he purposely made her look bad? He knew she didn't know those things, and he still went ahead and asked. Those were "set up questions," designed to expose her weaknesses. All the while, he was purposely not asking questions he knew she'd ace.
Sure she's not perfect, but--you know what else?--the American People don't care, because the American People aren't perfect either, and they don't WANT leaders who make them feel bad by being too smart or educated or knowledgeable or "fair" (you gotta know how to fight dirty in this world!). That's how it is in a DEMOCRACY, so get used to it. You guys think you're so smart, but you don't make the rules, and you don't choose the government. That's how it is, and that's what makes this country GREAT, and you can't do a thing to stop it. Just remember I'm the smart guy who explained it to you and you can apologize to me later when you see how right I was.
@cport:
I think Obama's gaffe about punishing Russia in the UN security council, where they have veto power, is at least, if not more, amateur than her answer on the Bush Doctrine. If Obama doesn't understand that Russia has a veto on the security council...is he also not qualified to be President?
Let's not forget that McCain also argued for UN Security Council action.
The Emperor Has No Clothes. Wow.
Not that amorphous, in actuality.
But this is the key paragraph that people usually take issue with:
"The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction— and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.
"
"McCain/Palin have flipped the dynamics of the election around, come off the ropes and are poised to win this thing."
The dynamics? Which went from what to what? "The GOP has screwed things up royaly" to "Hey, she likes Mooseburgers"! Oh, happy days are hear again.
"Their post convention bounce was strong. The swing states bounce will be commanding."
Strong? Most polls show Obama up by one. What would commanding be? A dead heat?
"Sometimes, the old guy can pull out a win when it counts, (cue video clip of Ali/Foreman from the Rumble in the Jungle)."
Well, at least you are taking all of this seriously.
Matt in Socal:
Fine...then either none of them are qualified to be President...or they all have some brushing up to do.
Like I said before, I can no longer vote for McCain. But it will be very interesting to see how the interview's perceived in the next few days. To me it looked like a disaster, but I tend to think the MSM analysis will be a lot more kind, simply because they're afraid of being called biased.
The unexcerpted interview is even more awful in my view - the way to address ongoing cross-border raids from insurgent safe havens in Pakistan is to "win the war in Afghanistan"?
Did that make the slightest sense to anyone with a gnat's understanding of the border situation?
"I tend to think the MSM analysis will be a lot more kind, simply because they're afraid of being called biased."
For example, Malcolm Crowley of the New Republic says:
my guess is that Schmidt, Davis and company were happy with how things went overall. McCain's mate avoided any painful deer-in-the-headlights moments--and right now it appears that such are the things upon which the direction of this country will hinge.
Did he see the same interview as I did? The whole thing was a painful deer-in-the-headlights moment.
The sad thing is that the McCain/Palin Ticket will get up, and that will be the end of the american empire. Even the british empire lasted a couple hundred years, why couldn't the american one make 60? As an australian hiding behind Uncle Sam's skirt, (at least in a geopolitical and military sense) this is extremely worrying. Ni Hau?
Did he see the same interview as I did? The whole thing was a painful deer-in-the-headlights moment.
To me she looked like a moose in the headlights. Or like a she-wolf in the sites of a hunter circling the Alaskan tundra in a light aircraft. Gibson drilled for information but Palin's reserves were tapped. Her train of thought careened off a bridge to nowhere. Etc., etc.
I agree with AKBY. The stunning thing to me isn't so much that she didn't seem to know the Bush Doctrine (though that was a great moment). It was that she didn't seem able to control the interview at all. I've seen skilled politicians in interviews in which they didn't want to answer the questions presented to them but were nevertheless somehow or able to take charge of the interview. I was surprised at how passive she was throughout most of the interview. She wasn't charming or aggressive. She looked like someone completely out of her element.
I don't see how anyone could complain about Gibson's interviewing. He didn't ask her any trick questions designed to trip her up. All of his questions should have been easily answered by anyone who's done nothing more than say read the newspaper 30 minutes a day. The one possible trick question would be the Bush Doctrine one, but then again you'd expect a VP nominee to know one of her party's primary if not primary foreign policy doctrines. Moreover, Gibson never interrupted her. He gave her all of the time she needed to answer the question.
What he didn't do was allow her to evade his questions and answer the questions she wanted to as so many journalists do. He insisted gently, forcefully that she actually answer the question, and didn't accept her evasion as an answer.
I assume the Republican faithful will ignore all of this, and continue to embrace her. Still, I can't help but wonder whether she's going to end up like Quayle. Republicans defended him in 1988, but they seemed to share the same view of him Democrats did as he's disappeared from the GOP even more thoroughly than Mondale's disappeared from the Democratic Party.
That Charlie Gibson was sure mean. Couldn't he tell our Sarah studied her butt off? But it won't matter: she's "one of us." Which got me to thinking. I could be vice-president. I've got a crappy blue-collar job and I like to watch football on the weekends. And I'm more responsible than I used to be. I try to pay my bills and stay out of the bars. Still not perfect, though. I can't quit smoking and sometimes take a peek at a porn site. But I know people can relate. Seriously, how do I get started?
She seemed really irritated to be asked a question that required some basic substantive knowledge about foreign policy. The nerve! She better take another 2 weeks.
I think it would be excellent for someone to ask her what she thinks about the Monroe Doctrine and our history of using military force responsibly when we are not directly threatened.
I know that when you are hoping upon hope that your Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates know the Doctrine that was established to justify a war we are currently fighting it seems foolish to expect them to know about US History, but really... We are the United States of America, and I for one would not be disappointed if we could take it for granted that our leaders are aware not only of the Bush Doctrine, but of the Monroe Doctrine, Empire for Liberty, New Deal, and other basic doctrines and strategies laid out by our Presidents to guide our Nation.
Perhaps this is too much to expect from the leaders who are guiding the future of a world superpower, but if so this is a very bitter pill to swallow.
... and to the extent that we might benefit by learning from our history, this is quite a dangerous pill as well.
People keep saying Ms Palin would be "a heartbeat from the presidency."
Wouldn't it be relevant detail to write, instead, that she would be "a 73-year-old heartbeat from the presidency"?
I watched that clip, and I came away convinced she'll be the next VP if things don't change. She impressed the vast majority of Americans, who haven't a clue what the Bush Doctrine is either, and if they did would probably agree with it, by promising to go after the America-haters.
Our only hope is that she truly flubs the domestic policy portion of the interview. Don't count on it; she'll simply rearrange facts to suit her needs.
Dismiss her at your own risk.
Here's what they are saying over at Townhall:
"He is obviously not nearly at the top of the list of serious interviewers. Given the two who interviewed McCain and Obama, with their chloroform questions, Gibson's efforts to cast HIS meaning on Palin's words was obvious even to a casual observer. His no win questions, his mischaracterization of her God's plan question shows intentional distortion. No wonder I havent watched ABC for years. What should be the neutral media, is again demonstrating their agenda. I notice they have picked up the rape kit myth from a liberal left site and are now promoting it as fact...Thank God for FOX, without them there wouldn't be one network without a left leaning tilt.
As for the BUSH doctrine being pre-emption...I think Gibson revealed his dependency on secondary sources. Primarily from media commentaries rather than from the speeches of Bush himself... can anyone remind the Democrats that they ARENT running against Bush...no wait..maybe THEY are..."
Obama asked the other day, 'Does he think the American people are stupid?'. I'm starting to think McCain may have a point.
That was such a sexist interview. No one with a lady brain is interested in that stuff. Booooriiing. How about dropping the sexism and seeing if Obama can tell the difference between Prada and Pucci? How can he be ready to be president if he isn't ready to shop?
Mr. JMS hasn't been keeping up QUITE as closely as I to every little detail of the election. So last night I asked him innocently "did you hear anything about what happened in the Palin interview?"
He said no.
I said "Ok, so tell me, what's the 'Bush doctrine'?"
He looked at me for a second like I was crazy, then said "you mean that thing about preemptive military force?"
I said, "wow--you're already better qualified than Sarah Palin"
Deborah:
Do you have your own blog? If not, you should consider starting one; your analysis's are always enjoyable to read.
Seconded!
To me, the worst part of this is that McCain should have seen this stuff coming a mile away. People still make Dan Quayle jokes to this day so he should have gone out of his way to get a Republican version of Biden. Palin has brought an energy to the campaign that an old, cranky, white guy wouldn't have, however, this could be a question mark for the next 50 some days.
If she sucks ass in the debates, it will be too late to correct the course.
FreshEDoug writes: "If she sucks ass in the debates, it will be too late to correct the course."
Good. The last thing this country needs is 4 more years of Repiglican folly in the White House.
Until there is a transcript of the whole interview I'd suggest cooling your jets. ABC has to make money on this. They are't fact checking themselves and aren't pursuing contradictions in her statements(yes I saw the expose piece). I say this because the interview is piecemeal and I have no faith it is being shown in order. I suspect whatever you dislike last night will be corrected by the Republican party-they are very good a manipulating the media-w/ a misdirection campaign accompanying it. The Republicans know that having goetten white women excited about Gov Palin many of them are not the evenagelic base. I suspect many of these women are remebering Reagan's Russian phrase, Trust but verify.
Well, as someone else noted, it was clear that Palin not only had no idea what the Bush doctrine was, she didn't know what "hubris" meant either.
After McCain's last interview I'm not sure he's going to do so hot in the debates. Comparing him to the man from last fall's Republican debates, I'm starting to think he's worn out. Understandable, but a serious issue.
As for R analysis of her interview: she's cool to go up with Putin, Kim, and Saakashvilli, but Keith Olbermann is too tough? Even Charlie Gibson is too tough? How are we going to get Ahmedinijad to be sufficiently deferential?
And I still don't get the McCain camp's decision to bypass "Ms Energy and Domestic/Western Issues, No Whining" as a narrative--yes, it would require a bunch of interviews, but she's done them before--for "The Candidate on Whose Behalf We Shall Be Terminally Offended."
Standard disclaimer: Perhaps it's all part of an elaborate plot and they're printing up Tough Maverick Wilting Violets T-shirts as we type.
Motion's carried.
Where will I find it, Miss Deborah?
I'm sorry, anybody saying the media is trying to trap Palin, simply refuses to admit that Barack Obama was in the same exact position she is in. He was new on the scene, nobody knew him and he was scrutinized like nobody else. Palin hasn't even begun to be put through the ringer. She has only done ONE interview. She has to earn her stripes like everybody else. Joe Biden is out there campaigning, answering questions from Americans. She hasn't even done that yet. She is not ready.
Here is a dissenting view on the Palin interview, admittedly from a Hill shill, but a lefty none the less.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/9/11/20922/5391
Also, isn't the constant repetition of someone's name a Dale Carnegie trick?
Standard disclaimer: Perhaps it's all part of an elaborate plot and they're printing up Tough Maverick Wilting Violets T-shirts as we type.
I have already placed my order for the John McCain, Easily Offended Maverick (tm) shirt, with fainting couch background.
I expect it to be a big seller.
My interest is not in how absolutely awful Palin is or in how absolutely awful McCain is, or Obama or... what's his name. The old guy running mate guy. Anyway, it's not in how awful they are but in the whole "who is most likely to be elected and why?" thing.
My interest in the Palin interview isn't how (whatever) she is but in whether she'll come across as (whatever) to undecideds. Whether she'll get the Republican base to turn out for her, whether wavering Republicans will go Democratic because of her, whether the Democratic base will turn out to oppose her, and whether wavering Democrats will go Republican because of her.
Most of the analysis I've seen covers either "THIS IS WHY YOU NEED TO VOTE FOR OBAMA!!!" or "THIS IS WHY YOU NEED TO VOTE FOR MCCAIN!!!"
I can't see anyone voting for Obama on the basis of Sarah Palin, as in, 'maybe McCain will die in office and then she'd be president and she's not qualified....' I think the Republican base will definitely turn out for her, though they may still be less motivated than the Democratic base. I cannot see Hillary voters going to the McCain ticket since on issues it simply does not match up. Independents, well there's the rub. I can see the so called Reagan Democrats going to McCain vs. Obama.
Ok, so just to put the answer she initially gave about a strike in Pakistan under a microscope:
Never mind the complete dodge of a specific question (strikes in Pakistan). How can this be anything but awful? War is presently our first option, but maybe someday it won't be?!?
It's kind of a jaw-dropper.
Hey! Questions about the government or foreign policy are sexist! You guys are sooooo mean, beating up that down-to-earth, regular PTA-meeting, hockey-playing, pitbull with lipstick, mother of 5(?). If she doesn't know much about foreign policy it's because she's been busy. Very busy. Her former brother-in-law would know.
She is McCain's decision. He's the one who should be beaten with the rhetorical hockey stick. However, he'll always get a free ride with the media.
If he can pull this one off, I'd say his team was brilliant. They have no problem thinking and treating the American public as stupid, since the current Administration does as well.
The Bush Doctrine is fairly simple and straight-forward: We reserve the right to invade countries who pose no immindent threat but who may pose a threat in the future.
Okay, enough about "Earmark Reform"!
For the most recent year, Palin reduced earmarks to $200 million for a state with a population of 670,000. That comes to $300 per person (approx.) for one year. Obama is being blamed for $1 billion in earmarks over three years for a population of 12.8 million. That comes to approximately $80 per person over three years. Some Reform!
And don't give the excuse about "well, any politician would take the money." Is she a reformer or not? If she truly believed in reform, she would have refused the money from Uncle Sam, especially since Alaska is one of the largest recipient states in the country - $1.70 per tax dollar sent to the Feds. So much for that "rugged individualism" and "picking yourself up by your own bootstraps" and "personal responsibility" that conservatives/libertarians love to talk about.
"Socialist" Illinois on the other hand, is one of the larger donor states - $0.73 per tax dollar sent to the feds.
Ornstein from AEI said Palin should scare the hell out of every thinking person, to paraphrase. That may not be an issue in the US as we seem to have a disdain for "smarts' here these days.
But she sure scared the hell out of Europe.
"They trapped her! Unfair! They asked her questions about foreign policy! Charlie was mean! "Bush Doctrine" is a trick question!"
My God, people. And you say Democrats are whiners? Are you really that sexist that your candidate can't sit in a chair and answer a few pointed questions that weren't even hardball questions like "Why is your pastor an anti-semite?" or "Some might say that you are doing more harm than good by campaigning with a Down Syndrome child" or "there's a report that your son is an oxycotin addict?" or any of the kinds of screwball questions Obama gets asked all the time. Did any of you watch the ABC debates Gibson moderated with Obama?
Can you imagine people complaining that the questions were too hard if Hillary had said, "Charlie, what do you mean by Bush Doctrine?" Can any of you even IMAGINE Hillary Clinton having to ASK such a question?
This woman isn't ready for prime time. McCain is trying to sell America a mirage. People defending her will end up with pie on their face.
Oh, puh-leeze.
My 9th graders discussed the Bush Doctrine and the difference between preemptive and preventative actions.
I'm a big fan of electing someone who is just a little bit crazy, just to keep everyone else on their toes. But this is too much.
I'm sorry, but this is an idictment of the Bush Doctrine, not of Sarah Palin. The Bush Doctrine is not the Monroe Doctrine, it is not the Truman Doctrine, it is not anything but a rationalizating after the fact. I am a libertarian-leaning Republican who actually works in foreign policy in the basement below the basement of the Pentagon. I also drew a blank on the term "Bush Doctrine" when I watched the interview .. it all came back to me probably about the same time it came back to Sarah during the live interview. The memory had two obstacles to overcome before rising to the surface. The first being that it was not serious enough to be stored in to long-term memory in the first place. In the second place I've consciously tried to forget it.
Bob in Arlington
sorry - didn't mean to post twice - refreshed the page and somehow it posted again.
You guys that are defending her failure on the Bush Doctrine . . . . Listen. The criticism was never that she couldn't explain it. The criticism was that she didn't even have any idea what "Charlie" was talking about. I mean, I can't tell you how a motorcycle works, but if a motorcycle drove past I would at least recognize it as such.
Not understanding the Bush Doctrine in the War on Terror is just as bad as not understanding the doctrine of containment during the Cold War. A VP candidate in the Cold War would have been laughed off stage for fumbling an answer on containment. The same should be true today with answers about the Bush Doctrine.
she should be up with this stuff. i would hope our next VP would know what the bush doctrine is. here's a video illustrating palin's past and future. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjtCI8CHen8
As one here has already put it,
"I have to say that after 8 years, it's entirely unclear what the Bush Doctrine is."
It is not that it is unclear, even, it's that the Bush doctrine did in fact, as Palin's request for clarification indicated, mean several things from the start. Pre-emption, spreading democracy to the Mideast, and above all (despite the way Gibson appears to "understand it") holding terror sponsoring states as culpable as terrorists. Not one person commenting here could have answered this any better than Palin did in the sound-bite tit-for-tat of the typical "interview." Gibson's snooty pretense of authority is undercut by his own "as I understand it" (meaning "as I have it written down because someone picked this part of it out for me"), most normal people will see this as the petty nitpicking game playing it clearly is. Apparently, the over-schooled here think an election is like a graduate seminar with a professor who delights in tormenting his students so they will learn to torment theirs in the same way. That is not the criterion, folks, the mass of the voters are using to make up their minds, thank God. Pathetic.
Good grief, I'm continually stunned by my friends on the Right who ignore what this woman is. Besides being a pathological liar, she's a lightweight. Putin ate Bush for lunch, can you imagine what he would do to Palin? Compared to a Maddie Albright or a Maggie Thatcher, she's not even the same species. And yet, somehow, people are willing to overlook that because 'she's one of us'. Look, I don't want someone as dumb as me in the Presidency, I want someone a LOT smarter! I'd feel that same way about neurosurgery, or even a fricken plumber, get someone who's smart and trained for the job. Can the Presidency under the Republican party really be the job you can be too smart for?
Aside from all the noodle heads (like me) reading theatlatic.com, there aren't many people listening to this fine a point. Most voters I encounter had a gut reaction to Palin by last weekend. They say things like, "I like her, she's got faith." Or, "I like her, she's cute."
People are not comparing her to Magaret Thatcher, or Condi Rice, or even Hillary Clinton. They are attracted to her small town "sensibilties," and don't care about her intelligence. All they know is she went from the PTA to governor, so she's got god wits about her. They figure she'll learn to manage.
What are we doing here Americans?
It seems clear me that these "United States" are anything but "UNITED," and this division is very prevalent on this blog.
Now, I have a serious problem voting for people that have the power to make decisions for my life using lies and deceit, and also for a media that spins everything but the truth. Living in the United States right now is a chore, and I have come to believe, as many others do, that America is a corporation, and every individual is an entity or unit in that corporation, and we spend all of our lives paying for the right to claim citizenship to that CORPORATE STRUCTURE.
However, I am one entity/unit that has had enough. I suggest that California succeed from the Union. At least then, we can take care of Californians by doing what is best for us. Because I am sick and tired of having to shoulder the burdens of the world on my salary, based upon the whims of "MADMEN/WOMEN" in Washington.
It is my destiny to have my needs met, without having to kill myself to achieve them.
Oh, by the way, I hope that Barack does not buy into the rhetoric being spun right now by the Republican machine. It is beneath low, full of deceit, and all done in the name of POWER. He can not stoop to their level to address any of their blatant lies and statement, he has to remain true to himself. That's how he won our appointment, and that is how he will win the White House.
You've officially been Krauthammered...back to school for you.
That little wink at the 40 second mark was disturbingly cutesy.
The people who defend her for not knowing the Bush doctrine are holding her to the example of a private citizen and not the standard of an elected official charged with executing diplomatic, economic and civil planning strategies for the nation, internally and abroad.
There are a lot of things I don't know about plumbing, for example. I don't, however, imagine I could be a plumber. I want a plumber who knows how to be my plumber. And I want a president who knows how to be my president.
I guess the Bush doctrine is more familiar to people in the lower 48, or by Obama's count, 55 states.