Gibson’s Interview with Palin…
September 11, 2008, 10:00 pm
Posted by Eric Bugyis
Anybody watch this? I can’t believe she can give these answers with a straight face!
Two glaring issues: 1. In the first video, I think we’ve had enough “no-blinking leadership”. I would hope that the Vice President would blink before commiting to all of the potential military confrontations she is putting on the table. 2. In the second video, she was quoting Abraham Lincoln in her comments at her church?! Really?! Shameless.
Seems to me she is not so much shameless as clueless. The real shame belongs to the McCain advisors who put her in this position — and no doubt fed her that neat line about Lincoln. There are moments in this interview when she looks scared to death, as she — and now we — ought to be.
Clearly she was not properly vetted. Which means more about her will surface. In a way I feel sorry for her. The next few days will be interesting. To say the least.
Some of Obama’s detractors have sneered that the job is too big for him to grow into. He at least is capable of growing into those areas of POTUS that he might have to. Paleon appears to need more than 4 years to even begin to grown into being a competent VPOTUS.
I guess reactions to this interview must differ if you are a liberal or conservative, because I thought she did well. Admittedly she will have a lot to learn about issues that did not confront her as governor before the debates. But I see no major gaffes. It’s not like she promised an “undivided” Jerusalem or anything.
“Scared to death” is about right, I think, Matthew. That part about the Bush Doctrine? Yikes. And I can’t believe they’re still trying to sell the old “Alaska is close to Russia” meme. I hear that you can actually see New Jersey from the Commonweal offices! What insights about Jersey politics have you gleaned from this view?
On the other hand, I’ve been annoyed by the harping on that one “Let us pray…” quotation — it seems pretty clear that she’s praying, not prophesying, there. There probably are reasons to be concerned about how her faith and policy views intersect, but that particular quotation, deliberate Lincoln “repeat” or not, won’t quite get you there. I wish he’d asked a more open-ended question on that topic.
I think Adeodatus is probably right, in that reactions to Palin are based so much on whether one likes her, or identifies with her, or not. Thus those inclined not to like her will see this as support for their view, and those who see her as “one of us” will rally ’round, if she’s seen to be stumbling the way any of us would in such a situation. (Grant Gallicho excepted.)
Personally, I’m with the “be afraid, very afraid” crowd, and that likely blinds me to an extent to reactions among at least half the electorate. But I wonder if the focus (finally) on her qualifications–rather than whether she’s a good Christian or what–will begin to unsettle some.
I didn’t know what the “undivided Jerusalem” remark was from Adeodatus – it refers to something Obama said and then immediately flipped on during his trip to the Middle East this past summer:
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12903.htm
From declaring that Jerusalem should remain Israel’s undivided capital to conceding that “Israel has a legitimate claim on that city” in one day — oh, what a difference a day makes! And: oh, what a difference an audience makes!
Interesting.
I agree with those who feel some sypathies for Palin having been put in this situation by McCain. Indeed, she appears “scared to death” in the interview. I would compare it to how I would feel and act during my oral comprehansive exams, if I go into them underprepared. Needless to say, I’m redoubling my study efforts! What I thought was shameless about the Lincoln reference was not any potential attempts to backpedal on weird theology, but the fact that it was a glarring example of the desperate hustle she’s putting into showing that she is and has been a serious, learned politician who, for example, has the words of past greats on the tip of her tongue. David, “stumbling the way any of us would” is not acceptable. We’re not electing our Senior Class President.
Eric, I absolutely agree…That is at the heart of my concern–why do we always want to elect someone who is unqualified but seems so nice? Is it the populism/elitism thing? Weird.
Nothing really to add but three moments captured it for me:
a) Bush Doctrine – she did not have a clue as to what his foreign policy precedent is or how it has changed the history of American relations? Give me a break….high school student should know that;
b) she was obviously coached and prepared on the video from her church talk – God’s Plan. She immediately launched into a clarification around God’s will and then connected it to the Lincoln response……it was so obvious it just stuck out;
c) Russia/Georgia & Iran/Israel – she never answered the simple questions with a Yes or No – like God’s Plan, she believes that Russia is a threat and Georgia did not provoke this incident (does she not do her research) and it is clear that she would condone and allow Israel to strike at Iran. Continuation of the Bush Foreign Policy that has been a disaster and has fueled the islamic extremists;
d) finally, to her credit she did admit that she disagreed with McCain on ANWR. Big deal.
I’m sorry, Adeodatus, but no major gaffes? Russia’s response in Georgia may not have been justified — and it was certainly excessive — but the claim that the Russian incursion was unprovoked contradicts some established facts that any newspaper reader ought to know by now. I was impressed that Palin could pronounce the name of Georgia’s President (she has me there), but we shouldn’t be asked to settle for someone who can, now, pass a names-of-world-leaders or geography test. If someone has no foreign-policy experience, and has not been closely following world affairs, then you cannot catch her up to speed in two months.
I agree with Mollie that Palin’s wanting the country to do God’s will should not be regarded as a problem. The problem is that she seems to think we were on God’s side when we invaded Iraq.
Wired Not to Blink. Might make a good title for a book about the Bush Presidency.
“She did not have a clue as to what his foreign policy precedent is or how it has changed the History of American relations.”
Someone once said,”Sometimes History repeats itself, and sometimes it is like nothing we have ever seen.” Our foreign policy precedent has changed not because of Preident Bush but because of the threat of Terrorism. What foreign policy would you suggest for countries that harbor terrorists?
P.s., We should all be frightened. We are living in dangerous times.
This is snippy, but I am reminded of those beauty queeen contests in which the candidate is asked to explain her formula for world peace in 30 seconds. Ms. Palin is well-schooled from eyes-front -on attention to the pleading tone in her voice as she endearingly calls him “Charlie…” — ych! My response among otehrs are predictably ideological, perhaps… but I’m sufficiently scared at thoughts about attacking Russia, defending an Israeli strike against Iran, and mixing in the “will of God” ideology with or without Lincoln references.
A commentator on NPR this morning when asked for his reaction to the interview said it left him “trepidatious.” I thought the word apt.
Matt, I think you are selling yourself short. Cramming for comps, you have an extensive basis for contextualizing what you stuff in your brain. You have discussed, analyzed, and developed the basis for judgment about the material. You have been studying it for years now.
I think the problem with Palin’s cramming is that she may be acquiring knowledge, but not enough of a rich and deep basis to serve as the foundation for independent judgment.
I think it’s more analogous to cramming for a language exam for a language you won’t need. Six weeks of memorization, an exam, and six weeks to forget.
For those progressives who are “terrified” about having an inexperienced conservative VP – welcome to my world of being terrified by having an inexperienced, liberal ideologue on the top of the opposing ticket.
I thought the NPR analysis this morning was on target:
-Palin has ignited the old Bush lovers in the Republican base who are now turning out in large numbers to support MCain(Palin) and not the small numbers who turned out for McCain
-McCain’s usae of Palin is to WIN (“win ugly”) despite his promise of a civil campaign.
There is much arrant hypocrisy by My Friend in his desperation to win.
I think Chafee was right about Palin -she’s like the right wing extremists that I encounter often here, a number of whom are in the Catholic fold who are ready to tear down anyone who disgrees with their (often simpleminded) point of view(and whom, some think we should be “charitable” to)
I’m frightened too- by NcCain – the asserted Maverick- who may well deliver 4 years of Bush like policies and incompetents like the good DOI folks who handle oil and gas leases (“Drill,baby.”)
“Why do we always want to elect someone who is unqualified but seems so nice?”
“Seems so nice?” David Gibson, are you high?
Sarah Palin’s m.o. is to fire people. She fired the Wasilla police chief, she fired the librarian (then reinstated her and made her life a living hell until she left), she fired the cop who’s divorcing her sister, and she fired the cop’s boss who said he didn’t have grounds for firing the cop. She fired the chef in the governor’s mansion.
She and her NRA buddies are adamant about protecting our Second Amendment rights, but she wasn’t so squeamish about asking how to quash First Amendment at the Wasilla library.
And, Nancy Danielson, “What foreign policy would you suggest for countries that harbor terrorists?”
Palin hasn’t suggested ANY coherent policy for countries that where terrorists hide out.
First she says we have to work with those countries like Pakistan where terrorists might be hiding out.
Then, when asked if we should continue to make raids across Pakistan’s borders to get the terrorists, she says we have to do use whatever means are necessary (from Abe Lincoln to Malcolm X!) to get those who are “hell-bent on destroying America.”
Ok… I’m over the top and will ppost on this comment no more, but did anyone have a reaction to her bringing up sending up “my first born son” both for the obvious language and the insertion of family into the dialogue…
Thank you for the welcome, Sean, but honestly I’ve been living with this low-grade terror since at least late 2001. The interview has only stoked the long-burning coals.
I’m with Jean in that Palin doesn’t even seem “nice” to me — and I mean in the very superficial sense, not based on what we know about her record, but on how she comes off in interviews. She’s mastered Bush’s posture of irritation — that “I’m annoyed that I should have to answer questions at all” tone he adopts when he feels at all challenged. Love the impatient edge to her voice when she says, “In what respect, Charlie?” I think I’ll try that the next time someone catches me off-guard or underprepared. (Possibly here!)
The GOP has to deny its own dismal record in this election and they are bound to bring out again the so-called principles that they themselves have not been fulfilling these past years. And to do this they are going to create something called the Washington politician that a maverick McCain is going to defeat because of the sheer weight of his independent integrity. And they are going to roll out a Palin in order to back up the evangelical part of their so-called principles, even though they haven’t fullfilled any of their evangelical principles. This we know.
However, most disturbing to me is that they are pushing a nationalism, an American exceptionalism, that rest only the the question on who is more American; Obama on one side or McCain/Palin on the other. This is the real thing that they push every day and in every way.
Country first, indeed.
Jean,
When you are in charge, sometimes you have to fire people. That’s what being in charge means. Given that she was wildly popular and apparently very effective as mayor and governor – maybe she was firing the right people. Believe me, when you fire the most incompetent and even dishonest people, you wouldn’t know it based on their version of events – and you will always, always piss some people off – another reality of leadership. Also, and I am getting this impression from how she has responded to some questions, when you remove someone from a government position you, as an executive, are frequently prohibited by law (in the case of the federal government the Privacy Act) from providing details about the reasons.
Also, having dealt with librarians wrapping themselves in the first amendment when askied to do reasonable things – like maybe we need to take steps to keep 10 year olds from looking at pornography – I am dubious about claims she was “quashing” anyone’s rights. What evidence is there that she has done anything like that?
Don’t get me wrong, I was disappointed in the choice for exactly the reason of her lack of experience, but she isn’t Beelzebub, and she clearly isn’t stupid. The problem is that aside from his politics, Obama scares me for exactly the same reason – he’s an empty suit. A flashy suit, but an empty suit. Being a really smart Ivy Leaguer does not qualify you to be president. It is kind of hard to take seriously concerns about the experience of the person riding shotgun from people who want to give the keys to a guy who doesn’t know how to drive.
Sean, I suppose there’s no difference between a degree in journalism and communications from the University of Idaho and a degree in political science and international relations from Columbia and a J.D. from Harvard. Pretty much same diff. Right? I’m sure Obama didn’t learn any more about foreign policy and law along the way than Palin did. But, maybe she’s taking the Lincoln thing even further and self-studying law by the fire at night? I suppose we should give her the benefit of the doubt. When are we going to get over this ridiculous idea that formal education doesn’t mean anything! Studying political science, foreign relations, and law is different than studying journalism and communications. Namely, it means that you probably know something about the stuff! Oh, but now I’m an elitist, right? Well, being “elite” usually means that you are better than the other guy. As in, “I want the most elite pilot flying the plane, not the person who barely made it out of flight school – or perhaps more apt, the person who went to truck driving school but insists that she knows how to fly planes.” I’m sorry, but being “really smart” IS one of the qualifications to be president, and academic achievement IS one of the ways to tell if someone is “really smart.”
As long as we’re relying on general impressions and emotional reactions… If it were somehow verifiable that Obama and Palin were equivalent in their lack of substantial experience and knowledge, I would still be much less frightened by Obama/the Democratic party taking charge at this point. Because if I must have an inexperienced driver behind the wheel, I’d rather have one who would be diligent about adjusting the mirrors, checking his blind spot and having a solid adviser in the passenger seat, as opposed to one who insists that living near a highway counts as driving experience, who tries to distract me when I point out we’ve left the designated route, and who figures he can simply ignore or change the rules of the road rather than go to the trouble of studying the manual.
That metaphor is more than a little silly. Comparing Palin and Obama is silly. But the point is, if it has to come down to attitude, I’ve had enough of the never second-guess your decisions, never admit you’re wrong, never blink, education-is-irrelevant attitude.
I experienced a pleasant surprise this morning when watching channel 1 NY a few minutes after 11am, when they mentioned Sen. McCain would be appearing on the View. Given the political leanings of the hosts and the vision of McCain being bombarded on all sides, I figured it might be worth watching.
On the positive side, the hosts grilled McCain and his choice of VP on controversial issues, such as Roe v. Wade, separation of church and state, and many of the half-truths (kind language) being advanced concerning the background/qualifications of Sarah Palin. It’s kind of sad that–up to this point anyway–the greatest degree of difficulty concerning questions from the media, has come from the View! On the negative side, there was the consistent breakdown of order as the hosts would interrupt McCain while he was making a point, which overall weakened their positions against him. There is also the awareness that if Obama were to appear alone on the View, he would probably be subject to a love-fest.
One of my greatest hopes is to see the media hold all of the presidential/vice-presidential candidates to a high standard, with challenging questions. If they do not, we will be subject to the platform regurgitations we have been forcefed to this point. Perhaps the next installment of the Gov. Palin interview will feature more pointed and difficult questions.
My question is—who is Obama’s competitior in the elections? It is McCain. So why is Obama and the Democrats all over Palin? Let Biden debate with her. Frankly, I am very tired of the name calling, the “pig with lipstick” insinuations, and the superficial nonsense that we are fed over TV, newspapers and mags, and the internet. I actually read one commentator who said that this stupidity will end on September 26—when actual, serious commentary and debates will actually begin. Can’t begin soon enough for me.
Actually Mr. Bugyis—to comment upon your remark about studying political science as opposed to studying journalism and communications—-In today’s world—where foreign crises come up almost overnight—it doesn’t hurt to burn the midnight oil studying up–to acquire the latest information. But if one doesn’t have the public speaking skills to communicate situations and solutions—and to do so clearly—another’s knowledge of foreign situations studied in school—becomes lame. Right now having a personal committment to the Iraq war is absolutely crucial. McCain had a son who did his tour of duty (2) in Iraq. Palin is having a son go to the front lines. And on the other side????
A minor point, but I can bring that Lincoln quote about being on God’s side to the tip of my tongue at will myself. Not because I’m a serious, learned politician, but because it’s very well known (I suppose because it’s something of an iconic expression of a thought that occurs to many, many people during every war).
More generally, to me the scraps of the transcript I’ve read read a lot like a politician being interviewed by an unfriendly TV journalist.
And on the other side????
Joe Biden’s son Beau goes to Iraq with the Delaware National Guard in a few weeks.
“What foreign policy would you suggest for countries that harbor terrorists?”
I would suggest, to the people of that Country, that they get a new leader.
A couple of comments. I thought she did surprisingly well, and her self-possession was mpressive. As to Gibson, take a moment and read “Don’t tell me words don’t matter (updated)” at http//:www.getreligion.org. You’ll need to scroll down to find it.
The tone toward Palin in some of this site’s posts is revealing. She really threw a wrench in a lot of people’s expectations. I can name a dozen women in my own acquaintance — intelligent and college educated, some working, some not — who’ve gone over to McCain precisely because of Palin. The more the media make light of her, the more it blows back in their faces.
It is not about partisanship anymore but about getting rid of people who have made politics a way of profit. The Republican party has been taken over since the early eighties by a bunch of college students (now former) who got money from businesses who would profit from their destruction of groups seeking to improve government. As Thomas Frank writes in his new book The Wrecking Crew: “For most of the past three decades these insurgents
have controlled at least one branch of government; they were underwritten in their rule by the
biggest of businesses; they were backed by a robust social movement with chapters across the radio dial. Still they remain the victims, the outsiders; they fight the power, the establishment, the snobs, the corrupt. John McCain rails against Washington
as the “city of Satan”-which in any sober theology would make him Lucifer’s lieutenant.”
One of the Founders of this movement, if not the Founder, Jack Abramoff is in jail. But he has left legions who are profiting from government and who do not care about the country. Greed is their motive. It is still happening. Even some Republicans are amazed at the corruption.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/opinion/12fri1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
Palin and McCain are again fostering the disillusionment that they are outsiders.
“”she’s like the right wing extremists that I encounter often, here, a number of whom are in the Catholic fold who are ready to tear down anyone who disagrees with their (often simpleminded) point of view (and whom, some think we should be “charitable” to)
Bob, are you suggesting that some views be censored?
Eric, what is now going on with Russia, IS a very serious thing.
Sean, you’re not paying attention to what I said.
I realize people need to get fired sometimes. When I worked at the newspaper people, I covered firings of public appointees and officials for everything from graft to embezzlement to drunkenness on the job to having wives on the payroll. It was sad, but those people had to go.
Sarah Palin doesn’t fire people for that stuff. She fires people who have crossed her personally and politically.
Except for the chef in the governor’s mansion, who was ostensibly fired to save the people of Alaska the cost of the chef’s salary and benefits. Maybe that was a good idea to reduce. Or maybe the chef was deprived of her livelihood as eye-wash job to show that Sarah’s a get-tough-on-pork-and-frills type of gal. Or maybe she put too much Worcestershire sauce in the moose stew.
As for Palin’s intelligence, I wouldn’t say the wattage was too high in those interviews with Charles Gibson. I expected the prevarications and evasions that blight American political rhetoric. But her inability to make sense on the Pakistani border issue, her inability to see nuances in the Russia-Georgia situation, and that ridiculous claim to have been quoting Lincoln marred an otherwise very mediocre performance.
And for God’s sake would the McCain people PLEASE teach her how to say “Iraq” instead of “eye-RACK” and “nuclear” instead of “nucular.”
“Right now having a personal committment to the Iraq war is absolutely crucial.”
But sending someone else to fight and quite probably die in Iraq is not having a personal committment! As has been said more than once, in a meal of ham and eggs, the chicken participated but the pig was committed. The committment of one’s child who is going to war is of the child, not the parents.
The only personal committment to the war that the candidates for POTUS and VP should be having is determining how to get out of there with the least possible loss of lives (any lives) before withdrawal.
Little Bear writes: “But if one doesn’t have the public speaking skills to communicate situations and solutions—and to do so clearly—another’s knowledge of foreign situations studied in school—becomes lame.” I guess you’re right, Obama’s really hurting from missing out on those core communications courses. I hate it when my politicians are so stuck in books they can’t string a coherent sentence together.
Jean – they did try to coach her on “nuclear”! Or at least to get her through the convention. It was understandably lower than “Ahmadinejad” on the two-week post-convention briefing priority list.
S_Malone: She really threw a wrench in a lot of people’s expectations.
I can’t speak for everyone, but this is true for me. However disillusioned I have become with McCain, I still expected him to follow through on his argument that fighting terrorism should be our first priority, and to choose a running mate with serious foreign-policy credentials, or at least basic awareness and interest. What can I say? I expected too much. If there are women or men who like what this choice says about McCain and his priorities enough to vote for him, I don’t know what to blame that on, but it isn’t because the media has been too harsh on Palin.
“why do we always want to elect someone who is unqualified but seems so nice?”
A McCain backer could have a LOT of fun with that question! :-)
“For those progressives who are “terrified” about having an inexperienced conservative VP – welcome to my world of being terrified by having an inexperienced, liberal ideologue on the top of the opposing ticket.”
Yes.
I haven’t read every response closely in this thread, but I think only one person has responded to it, and it was along the lines of, “Yes, he’s inexperienced, but …”
Speaking as a voter, of the things that trouble me about Obama, I confess that this is #2 on the list, possibly #1A.
On qualification, or lack thereof, I think the bottom line is that Palin is clearly out of her league. Obama is clearly not. Whether he has met the “qualification threshold” for the Presidency, whatever that would be, is, I suppose, debatable. I think he has. I don’t really know what to say to those who think he hasn’t. I suppose we would have to glean some threshold from history. Is he as qualified as Ronald Reagan was? Bill Clinton? But, it is clear that Palin has not met that threshold, and she needs to if she is going to be first alternate for the Presidency, which is a big “if” given that in McCain we would have the oldest person to ever be elected to the office (I think, fact check?).
Granting that Obama has met that threshold, let’s talk policy. Unblinking belligerence toward a laundry list of nations or open-handed diplomacy and measured deliberation? I also hear that when asked about reinstating the draft, McCain has said, “I don’t disagree.” I wonder how Republicans would feel about Palin’s tough talk if they knew they would be the first ones heading across the Pakistani border? I find Palin’s and, by proxy, McCain’s hawkish foreign policy indefensible on even the most liberal, “George Weigel” understanding of Just War.
Mr. Bugyis asks:
“When are we going to get over this ridiculous idea that formal education doesn’t mean anything! Studying political science, foreign relations, and law is different than studying journalism and communications”.
Thomas Sowell commented: “Most higher education is just expensive insulation from reality”.
Nathan Glazer remarked on this failure of Higher Education to correct stupidity. “It just gives stupidity more words in which to be stupid”.
For those who study foreign relations, how many can speak and write how many languages?
Oy!
Nancy, noone’s suggesting censorship – but rather informed civil discourse.
Enough!
“The tone toward Palin in some of this site’s posts is revealing. She really threw a wrench in a lot of people’s expectations. I can name a dozen women in my own acquaintance — intelligent and college educated, some working, some not — who’ve gone over to McCain precisely because of Palin. The more the media make light of her, the more it blows back in their faces.”
She sure threw a wrench in my expectations; I thought McCain had more sense.
Which media is making light of Palin? The National Enquirer, that claims she had an affair with her husband’s business partner? Or Charlie Gibson, who asked no questions about anything other than issues of state that she should have been prepared to answer.
The Media–which is not a great big monolithic block–is not making light of Palin. She’s come out of nowhere, she is not a known entity, and responsible journalists are probing her fitness to be president in the eight weeks or so they have to try to bring useful information to light so voters can make informed decisions. They have a right and an obligation to do so.
And, to be fair to Palin, she hasn’t asked for the media to go easy on her. Whatever else I think she is, I doubt she’s a whiner or crier.
Palin plays with some women, to be sure, and seems to have pulled a lot of white women voters into her camp. While I assume the polls are accurate, I’m durned if I can see why.
Nancy said: “Our foreign policy precedent has changed not because of Preident Bush but because of the threat of Terrorism. What foreign policy would you suggest for countries that harbor terrorists?”
Maybe a Christian one would be good. Please tell me what is Christian about Bush’s?
“On qualification, or lack thereof, I think the bottom line is that Palin is clearly out of her league. Obama is clearly not.”
Clearly not? Why is that clear? It’s not clear to me. Please make the case. (Anyone).
“Whether he has met the “qualification threshold” for the Presidency, whatever that would be, is, I suppose, debatable. I think he has. I don’t really know what to say to those who think he hasn’t. I suppose we would have to glean some threshold from history. Is he as qualified as Ronald Reagan was? Bill Clinton? ”
You think he has. Why do you think that? Reasons, please.
FWIW – Bill Clinton said some months ago, in regard to whether or not Obama is experienced enough, something along the lines of, ‘I don’t think anything can get you ready for that job.’ I suppose that’s true to some extent. I’m searching for a reason that Obama is “ready”. Honestly, I have no reason to suppose he is. I think he’s been doing exactly what Palin has been doing – boning up. But he’s had the full undergraduate course, whereas she’s been reading Cliff’s Notes and cramming for about a week.
I’m not comfortable that he’s ready. Far from it, in fact.
I find the outrage regarding Governor Palin’s response to the “Bush Doctrine” question quite puzzling. Clearly Mr. Gibson should go back to high school, since he doesn’t even know what it is himself. He should perhaps read Charles Krauthammer essay dated February 26, 2001 where he coined the term. I assume he will learn in “high school” that February 2001 occurs chronologically before 2002 and before September 11, 2001, for that matter. I believe Mr. Krauthammer also used the term in his essay which appeared in the June 4, 2001 issue of the Weekly Standard. Mr. Gibson, if he were to go back to high school, would also probably learn that June 2001 also, like February 2001, occurs before September 11, 2001 and January 1, 2002.
Speaking of the devil, Mr. Krauthammer will have a little clarification for Mr. Gibson to clear up his evident confusion on the topic on page A17 of tomorrow’s Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Again, it is smashingly spectacular that McCain is running against the establishment while he has praised it and been part of it for years. These new conservatives who ruined the Republican party, run against themselves and say it is not them. So deft. The lie is so good that it works. More from Thomas Frank’s book:
“Let us start with conservatives’ sense of their own exclusion. This idea may strike you as peculiar, but to conservatives it is fundamental; it predicates everything they do, say, and enact. The government is never theirs, they believe, no matter how much of it they happen to control. “Even when conservatives are in power they refuse to adopt the psychology of an establishment,” marveled the journalist Sidney Blumenthal during the Reagan years. George W. Bush, who has grabbed more power for the executive branch than anyone since Nixon, actually sees himself as a “dissident in Washington.” One of his more worshipful biographers calls him the nation’s Rebel-in-Chief he “operates in Washington like the head of a small occupying army of insurgents ….He’s an alien in the realm of the governing class,
given a green card by voters.”
The hallucination is dazzling, awesome.”
And Palin echoes this.
“I’m sorry, but being “really smart” IS one of the qualifications to be president, and academic achievement IS one of the ways to tell if someone is “really smart.”
There are plenty of reasons to question Sarah Palin’s readiness to be VP, but I don’t think focusing on her academic credentials is one of them, at least to the extent that she is somehow academically inferior because she didn’t go to Ivy League or other elite schools. George W. Bush and John Kerry both graduated from Yale, and both were mediocre students. Did that make them more qualified to be president than a student who does well at school that’s not listed in the U.S. News & World Report rankings. And being “really mart” doesn’t automatically translate into being adept at exercising sound judgment.
Harry Truman never attended college (though he apparently attended a local law school for a couple of years). He worked his way up through the local and state political systems. LBJ attended Southwest Texas State Teachers’ College, which I’d hazard a guess is even more off the education radar screen than the University of Idaho. And Reagan graduated from Eureka College, also absent from USN&WR I’d guess.
Sure, graduating from Columbia and Harvard Law is something, but it doesn’t automatically make someone super-smart or mean that academic achievement is the most important credential for success in the Oval Office or as VP.
MAT,
Rough Sequence of Interview:
1) Gibson asked Palin if she supports the “Bush Doctrine?”
2) Palin responds – in what respect?
3) Gibson – how do you define the “Bush Doctrine?”
4) Palin responds – you mean his world view?
5) Gibson – No, enunciated September 2002 before Iraq war.
6) Palin – at this point is clearly mystified and is struggling (I felt bad for her), but she does give Gibson a wink or maybe she was winking at me?
7) Gibson – then further clarifies how he defined it (pre-emptive strike, etc.) since she clearly didn’t have a clue.
Krauthammer’s Op-Ed does little to defend Palin in my view. He even admits the definition of the “Bush Doctrine” has evolved and involves four-time periods. Krauthammer states, “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.” But again, Gibson DID further clarify which one he was talking about (see number 5 above). Gibson stated something like, “the Bush Doctrine enunciated in September 2002 – just before the Iraq war.” Krauthammer’s Op-Ed later states, “Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine. It’s not. It’s the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine.”
All this Op-Ed does is clearly show that Palin does NOT know of the evolution of “four-time periods” of the “Bush Doctrine” (and hence doesn’t know what the “Bush Doctrine” is – because it is a complex/evolving definition – where has she been the past 7 or 8 years?) AND that Krauthammer is talking out of both sides of his mouth. Gibson clearly stated the “time period” (corresponding with the third definition of the “Bush Doctrine” according to Krauthammer) he was utilizing for his definition of the “Bush Doctrine” – September 2002. He then further clarified in #7 above what the definition of the “Bush Doctrine” in September 2002 meant to him (and again – Krauthammer agrees – mind you).
Palin goofed this one and Krauthammer’s defense is equally as weak as he resorts to ad hominem on Gibson in the last paragraph of his Op-Ed.
Jim – The qualification question is hard to quantify, and I respect the fact that you have reservations. As I say, I’m not sure how to set the threshold. Certainly you want the person to have some basic academic knowledge of the job. You want some related work experience. You want some indication of the individual’s character. I don’t know the exact calculus, but on Obama’s side you have his education, which is not the only or even most imporatant factor, but it does count. And what counts is not so much the schools he went to as the subjects he studied and how well he did studying them. I imagine he did well with the political science and foreign relations as he had a good enough GPA to get into Harvard Law, without any family connections. More than can be said for the mediocre Kerry and Bush. Also, I assume he did well at Harvard given he was on the Law Review. So, I think he probably knows some things, and that should count for something. Then you have the political experience. Granted it is slimmer then some, but not insignificant. As for character, I suppose everyone has to judge for themselves.
The factors that go into success are so multi-faceted that it is hard to quantify them. Mostly, I believe personality, inate intelligence, social skills, leadership and good judgement are at the top of the list. And when I think of Lincoln (largely self-educated) and Raegan (the actor), it’d hard to judge who is going to rise to the occasion of the Oval Office. I do think that McCain’s “out-of-the-box” pick has left the Democrats reeling. Do they regret their flagrant tossing aside of Hillary? They should! My own evolution of the Palin pick started with disgust, and then I was sucked up into the likability factor, and now I realize that the more she says, the more subject to criticism she will become; as she should be. Let’s have the debates and get some meat fleshed out on policy. We do live in dangerous times, and I want a leader worthy, for all the right reasons. Can anyone else run?
OonefromTobit: Actually, it is you who are making the ignoratio elenchi, not Mr. Krauthammer. Nowhere does Mr, Krauthammer say Mr. Gibson is incorrect *because of* some character flaw of Mr. Gibson. He says as a matter of propositional knowledge, Mr. Gibson is incorrect – he makes no argumentum ad hominem. In fact it is you who say Mr. Krauthammer’s “defense” of Governor Palin is deficient as a result of his ad hominem [sic] on Mr. Gibson. I think by “ad hominem” you mean character attack; and that is a fallacious argument.
And where do you get the notion that he is “defending” Governor Palin from? The title of the essay is “Charlie Gibson’s Gaffe”. The foremost authority on the Bush Doctrine, the person who coined the phrase, was writing an essay to correct the public record from an anachronistic interpretation of his intellectual work product from Mr. Gibson’s misrepresentation. Nowhere does Mr. Gibson say for the record that (1) the Bush Doctrine predated September 2002, (2) has went through four phases, and (3) the definition he was using is anachronistic and therefore no longer reflects the current definition of the phrase.
I understand your personal enmity towards Governor Palin, but this is about journalistic malpractice, not Governor Palin. Mr. Gibson is not entitled to have his own personal definition of the Bush Doctrine (what it “meant to him”). There are authorities on the topic, and they are governing here, not Mr. Gibson. And no, I am not committing the argumentum ad verecundiam, because, as you well know, we are talking about propositional knowledge.
Slate has three good articles on the Gibson-Palin interview. Here are some excerpts:
Jack Shafer (http://www.slate.com/id/2199999/ )
….[P]alin recited her answers as if reading from a Teleprompter inside her head. The extensive coaching she has received could not save her from embarrassment in this exchange.
Gibson: Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?
Palin: In what respect, Charlie?
Gibson (refusing to give her a hint): What do you interpret it to be?
Palin: His worldview?
Gibson: No, the Bush Doctrine, enunciated in September 2002, before the Iraq War.
Palin attempts to fake it for 25 seconds with a swirl of generalities before Gibson, showing all the gentleness of a remedial social studies teacher, interjects.
Gibson: The Bush Doctrine as I understand it is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense. That we have the right of a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us.
Fred Kaplan (http://www.slate.com/id/2199937/)
What did bother me was that, after Gibson outlined the [Bush] doctrine’s meaning (the right to attack a nation in anticipation of a threat), she didn’t answer the question. She said, “If there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend the country.” This is true to the point of banality; no one would dispute it. The question is whether it’s proper to take armed action not if a strike seems imminent but if preparations seem to be in the works for a possible strike sometime in the future.
….
Gov. Palin was obviously briefed by Sen. John McCain’s advisers, and briefed fairly well. She recited what were plainly the main points of these tutorials with an assertive confidence familiar to those who engaged in high-school debate competitions.
But it was painfully obvious—from the rote nature of her responses, the repetitions of hammered-home phrases, and the non sequiturs that leapt up when she found herself led around an unfamiliar bend—that there is not a millimeter of depth undergirding those recitations, that she had never given a moment’s thought to these matters before two weeks ago.
John Dickerson (http://www.slate.com/id/2199927/)
…[L]ike Bush, Palin does not appear to let her unfamiliarity with the material hold her back. She was at pains throughout the interview to demonstrate her decisiveness. This makes political sense: What better way to reassure people about her ability as a leader than to look decisive?
But by repeatedly asserting that she will “not blink,” Palin was eerily Bush-like. She offered a black-and-white worldview of bold decisions made quickly and changed reluctantly for fear of showing weakness. Sound familiar?
And now, Eric Bugyis, you need a new thread for Round II, in which I think Palin did considerably better (let’s all agree there should be fewer abortions and work from there) and Gibson considerably worse (asking about the nature of homosexuality and not her stand on laws regarding homosexual behavior; and failure to press on why, if Palin’s question about library book challenges was simply informational, the librarian was fired and only reinstated after a recall drive).
It appears, that Mr.Gibson does not realize that there is a battle going on, between those who wish to do Good in the World versus those who wish to do evil. I would like to assure Mr.Gibson that God is always on the side of Good. The Good News is, we know, in the end, because of Christ’s Passion, who wins. Let us Pray for the Wisdom to always do the right thing.
“It appears, that Mr.Gibson does not realize that there is a battle going on, between those who wish to do Good in the World versus those who wish to do evil.”
Nancy, is the Republican party the only ones who wish to do good. Are you talking about the criminals Jack Abramoff and Tom Delay or the present Republican appointed opportunists who are robbing the treasury to get rich? Or the unprecedented lies coming out of the McCain camp? And who is making a lot of money off the Iraq war?
And how about doing good for the victims of self abuse in our church?
You have to do better than this, Nancy!
Eric,
Even if you think an Obama-like education is necessary (I don’t) it is certainly not sufficient. Having been the beneficiary of an Ivy League education, I can tell you I never met more people who thought they knew and understood more than they really did than when I was in those hollowed halls. That’s something you really appreciate once you leave them.
I had the same reaction as Krauthammer about the Bush Doctrin question. Which one? I will admit that I was only thinking about the second and third versions, so I must be a moron too.
She will learn – especially after she has campaigned in all 57 states. There’s an Ivy League education for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws
Sean, do you think Palin is as smart as Obama? Really?
My own experience in the Ivy League is very different from yours–the smartest people I knew were the ones most willing to admit that they didn’t know a particular thing, and needed to ask advice from an expert in another area. I see that kind of humility, born of intellectual confidence in Obama.
I think the most dangerous people have what I call the ‘”smartest person in the Eighth Grade” syndrome. Their mindset is frozen in junior high school. They want to be the smartest person in the room; anyone who doesn’t seem as smart, they dismiss as dumb, anyone who seems smarter, or better educated, they dismiss as elitist. They are big fish in small ponds; they have no idea that there are bigger ponds, and dark waters in them.
Palin strikes me as someone who has spent a lifetime being a big fish in a small pond.
Sean – I never said the Obama education was sufficient or necessary. What I said was that it is one of the factors we should consider when deciding whether one is qualified for the job. If Palin had come out swinging for the fences in her interviews I would have no problem giving credit where credit is due. The simple fact is, she does not know what she is talking about, and three months is not enough time to learn it all. Even if the campaign trail was filled with nothing but experts feeding her everything she needs to know. By the way, I thought it was the candidate on the trail who was supposed to inform us, not we who are expected to teach them. I’m sorry, again, riding a bus and giving stump speeches does not equal any kind of education, be it from the local library or a state or private university. To say so is to severely devalue the importance of education. No wonder we can’t get enough funding and support for our nation’s public schools!
On the Bush Doctrine question, if she had responded to Gibson’s question by saying, “Which one?” and then quoted Krauthammer, then I would have felt she knew what she was talking about. We’re vetting Palin, here, not Gibson. He’s not running for office, she is.
Bill, Mr.Gibson was referring to Mr.Bush’s response to the War on Terror and how we go about keeping our Country safe from those who wish to do us harm. I pray, that in all that we do as a Nation, we always seek the side of God, which is to do Good.
I have seen no evidence that Obama is smarter than Palin. None. I look at the way his campaign is being run and presently reeling, important because he holds up the running of his presidential campaign as evidence of his skills and intelligence. The whole thing is in free fall right now. It may be temporary, but then it may not be. Doesn’t reflect well on the man’s intelligence. I look at the things he says when he’s doesn’t have a script – his pandering on globalization and outsourcing, evidenced in what he said about McCain’s economic policies yesterday
(Jake Tapper: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/obama-implies-m.html
“Just ask the machinists in Pennsylvania who build Harley-Davidsons,” Obama said of McCain’s record. “Because John McCain didn’t just oppose the requirement that the government buy American-made motorcycles, he called Buy American provisions ‘disgraceful.’ Just ask the workers across this country who have seen their jobs outsourced. The very companies that shipped their jobs overseas have been rewarded with billions of dollars in tax breaks that John McCain supports and plans to continue.
“So, when American workers hear John McCain talking about putting ‘Country First,’” Obama said, “it’s fair to ask –- which country?”
Um … isn’t that pretty much the dictionary definition of questioning someone’s patriotism?
(Remember – “questioning patriotism” was a self-declared no-no from Obama. As was going personal – have you seen the “Hey McCain’s old” ad they released yesterday?)
- his many other misstatements about foreign affairs…he reads well, that’s true. He seems to have some instinctual intelligence. But I’m not impressed with the guy’s purported intelligence at all.
Plus, he won’t release his college or grad school transcripts!
MAT
“Nowhere does Mr. Gibson say for the record that (1) the Bush Doctrine predated September 2002, (2) has went through four phases, and (3) the definition he was using is anachronistic and therefore no longer reflects the current definition of the phrase.”
So, MAT – how can you automatically jump to the conclusion that, “Clearly Mr. Gibson should go back to high school, since he doesn’t even know what it is himself.” Look at the transcript of the interview. Gibson specifically stated September 2002 – and gave Palin an opportunity to address this “phase” – the ONLY “phase” Gibson was targeting (the one Palin chose NOT to define – I’m guessing because she didn’t have a clue?) How can you make the leap that Gibson “should go back to high school…blah, blah” As observers of the interview we don’t know from the transcript/interview clip whether Gibson did or does not know about all four phases/the evolving definition of the “Bush Doctrine” – again he specifically honed in on the September 2002 phase – exclusively, entirely and transparently. Palin in her response (my earlier post #6), did not really address any of the four phases – she retreated to a “script,” generalities and the typical non-answer that drives many voters nuts.
If Mr. Gibson would have never mentioned September 2002 / as enunciated before the Iraq War (which he DID) – then I think I might find Mr. Krauthammer’s/your reprimand for Mr. Gibson more convincing and less of a weak defense of Palin’s shortcomings.
BTW, I am a self-proclaimed moderate Republican who is still undecided, but leaning heavily toward “Mickey Mouse.”
OonefromTobit: The find function on my computer must be broken because I did not see Mr. Gibson use the word “phase” in relation to the Bush Doctrine in the transcript. If Mr. Gibson is going to ask a question using a definition of a technical term that is no longer relevant and not note BEFORE he asks the question that the definition currently differs from that definition he intends, he is either ignorant or being deceitful. Nowhere in the transcript does he mention that there are multiple phases in the development of the doctrine and nowhere does he note that the definition he is using is anachronistic. If he is going to use an anachronistic definition, he has an obligation to the public to define it BEFORE he asks the question, not after. Are you honestly arguing that the viewers should have assumed he was asking a question regarding an anachronistic concept BEFORE he told them? Mr. Gibson might as well be asking an astronomer a question about the solar system and telling him AFTER the fact that his answer should have assumed the geocentric model, not the heliocentric model.
MAT,
You engage in selective reading. That aside, I couldn’t agree with you more, Gibson NEVER used the word “phase.” Instead, he got specific and stated the “Bush Doctrine” he was interested in was enunciated September 2002, as opposed to the “Bush Doctrine” enunciated by Krauthammer originally in 2001 or the two other “phases” Krauthammer alludes to in his “reprimand.” Gibson even went so far as to fully explain his understanding of the “Bush Doctrine” enunciated September 2002 AFTER giving Palin an opportunity to define the “Bush Doctrine” enunciated September 2002. Had Palin given somewhat of a coherent answer (maybe even just 1 of the 4 Krauthammer poses) – who knows how Gibson would have had to “shift” his questioning?
“If Mr. Gibson is going to ask a question using a definition of a technical term that is no longer relevant” I’m guessing just a few people might find this comment a bit insensitive and arrogant. I’m willing to bet this definition, while since evolved, is still pretty relevant to the Pope, displaced Iraqis and/or families who have lost loved ones since the War began.
But hold on, let me try to use your logic here with an example. When George Weigel (or his fellow neo-con cafeteria Catholic comrades) write an article titled “Campaing 2008: The Life Issues” and fail to define “Life Issues,” opting instead to limit the discussion to abortion/physician assisted suicide – while omitting other life issues of interest to most Catholics (particularly in this election) such as: Iraq, Torture, Genocide, Poverty, Healthcare, Contraceptive, the Death Penalty and in Weigel’s case – his desire for war with Iran (http://www.eppc.org/publications/pubid.3523/pub_detail.asp) – could/should fellow journalists reprimand him? Does Weigel have an obligation to include ALL “Life Issues” that Catholics should be interested in – not just the “Life Issues” that fit into his agenda? Moreover, shouldn’t Weigel define “The Life Issues” PRIOR to posing 18 “Life Issue” questions (17 dealing with abortion and 1 on physician assisted suicide) that Catholic voters should consider for the Democratic and Republican Presidential candidates? I think a more accurate title for Weigel’s article should have been “Campaign 2008: The abortion and physician assisted suicide issues.”
OonefromTobit: Clearly your enmity towards Governor Palin will preclude us from agreeing on Mr. Gibson’s level of knowledge regarding the Bush Doctrine, because they are somehow related in your analysis, so I will not waste your time. I would just note a flaw in your example – Mr. Weigel is NOT a journalist. I would classify him as an essayist and activist. Wikipedia refers to him as “an American Catholic author, and political and social activist.”
Cathy,
I never said she was smarter – I don’t know either way, and I don’t think it matters all that much. I haven’t been all that impressed with Obama’s unscripted work in debates and interviews either, so it’s hard to tell.
On Charlie Gibson, this is just another example of the press trying to get a conservative politician. This was so clearly a gotcha knowledge question it was ridiculous. Think about it. Not one in 20 people would know or remember the Bush Doctrine. Remember, he’s supposed to be providing information to the public in the interview. In a real interview, he wouldn’t ask a question like that without putting it in context for the audience. He would have said, “In September 2002, Pres Bush said … which has become known as the Bush Doctrine.”
What if she had said, “Charlie, I like it just fine.” Where would he have been? No one would have had a clue what they were taliking about. He wouldn’t have relied on the interviewee to provide the context – in a real interview they never do.
We will never be able to fairly compare the candidates because the press would never try something like this on Obama.
“Jim – The qualification question is hard to quantify, and I respect the fact that you have reservations. As I say, I’m not sure how to set the threshold. Certainly you want the person to have some basic academic knowledge of the job. You want some related work experience. You want some indication of the individual’s character. I don’t know the exact calculus, but on Obama’s side you have his education, which is not the only or even most imporatant factor, but it does count. And what counts is not so much the schools he went to as the subjects he studied and how well he did studying them. ”
Hi, Eric,
I think we’re pretty close on this. FWIW: my own view on this is that there are many gifts that can help one be effective in the Presidency (or any leadership position). Nobody brings the “total package”. And there is more than one profile, more than one mixture of characteristics, that allows a leader to be successful.
Clearly, Barack Obama is exceptionally bright. He’s much more fluent talking about foreign policy that Sarah Palin. I’m sure he is also a quickstudy, and that seems to me to be an even more important qualification than being the already-knows-it-all wonk. That kind of intelligence is a rare gift (and he has many others) – one that would serve him well in the White House.
I think if a person were to make a list of Sarah Palin’s gifts and rank them in descending order, intelligence may not be in the top five. She’s no dummy, and seems to have done a workmanlike job of absorbing what the campaign has been feeding her. But she lacks the sparkling intelligence of Obama. That’s a gift she wouldn’t be bringing to governing.
From the little I’ve seen of her, I sense that her greatest gifts are along the lines of toughness, grit, determination. Lessons she learned on the basketball courts of Wasilla. As you say, those aren’t easy to quantify, and perhaps they are easy to sneer at (not that I think you’re sneering, but it’s happened elsewhere). But there are very successful leaders for whom these are their outstanding characteristics.
MAT,
Good point. My logic was flawed. Apologies to you and Mr. Weigel/and company. This election more than any, I am looking for an excuse to vote for a candidate who unfortuantley does not score well in the anti-abortion realm – and Catholic guilt is REALLY working on me. The “shift” in the Church is on. I was also being unfair to Palin, however, I still maintain that the 2002 definition of the “Bush Doctrine” is what the “average joe” identifies it with and is still VERY relevant – and shouldn’t be excluded from any definition/discussion of it. I also think that Gibson was not in the wrong for the sequence of his questioning, nor do I think he was misleading his viewing audience or being deceitful (but that is just my opinion). I think listening to this part of interview without watching it makes a huge difference – Gibson’s body language “spoke” more than the language.
Having said this, I do fault Palin’s advisors. I’m not sure how they could have not rehearsed this topic – or maybe they did and she just stumbled? I guess I just need to see/hear more from Palin to be sold. The upcoming CBS interview should give me a better sens