Palin Says “I’m Ready”. Should I Be Convinced?
|
|
Okay. I’ve tried. For two days I’ve watched excerpts of interviews, and each time told myself I’d wait until the final Charlie Gibson interview to reach a conclusion about Sarah Palin. It’s Friday night after the final installment of her exclusive interviews and my conclusion is… She’s sooooo not the one!
Perhaps, as a former communications person for Democratic candidates, I’m not expected to be open to Palin. But I was a journalist first. For 13 years I was a part of that cult of objectivity (What is that? Sarcasm?). My point is… I made a concerted effort to give the woman a chance.
I watched intently when Charlie Gibson asked about her international credentials. She dodged the question by saying “Let me tell you about a credential that I do bring.” Then she talked about energy. Clearly a talking point. As one who has written countless talking points, I was impressed with her ability to stick so doggedly to the script. As a voter, I wasn’t sold.
“Energy is a foundation of national security.” Really? And then she went further to justify her complete lack of international experience by claiming most Vice Presidential picks hadn’t met a foreign head of state before being elected. Yeah. That’s no more true than her claim that she said “Thanks. But no thanks” to earmarks for the bridge to Nowhere.
Charlie Gibson said it best when he had to go back and ask her yet another question she refused to answer the first time around. He prefaced his second (or third) inquiry by saying he got “lost in a blizzard of words.” So did I. She seems to have no real depth of knowledge about foreign policy, the economy or even the science of stem cell research. And after two days of Sarah Palin dominating the news cycle, I still have no idea she should be our next Vice President.
But, I suppose I’m not the viewer she was trying to convince.
on 
I’m sorry, but you are using only two days of interviews to make this decision? I recognize that we have a limited view of Sarah Palin so far, but saying “She’s sooooo not the one!” is throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Here is one thing I see with John McCain selecting someone who is still fairly green in the gills: he is introducing voters to the new guard. Sarah Palin, along with others such as Bobby Jindal and Eric Cantor, represent the future of the Republican Party. The reason she was selected as the VP is because she will learn a lot sitting as the head of the Senate and in Cabinet meetings. She’s shown that she is solid red and honest to a fault, and it is clear to me that she has had to undergo on the job training plenty of times in the past.
I do not imagine that Sarah Palin will motivate you to vote for Barack Obama, but if you give her more than two days, I think you can get a better view of what she brings to the table.
I look forward to seeing and reading more interviews with Gov. Palin. Like Danae, what i saw in the Gibson interviews was not exactly reassuring, or even what i expected. Now I’ll be the first to admit, the likelihood of my voting for the McCain/Palin ticket is very low, and i don’t expect that to change. However, when contemplating a possible McCain victory, i would like to know a little bit more and feel somewhat more confident in the ability of our potential VP.
I too was not reassured by the interview. I don’t like it when people stick only to talking points. That interview to me just seemed so canned. I could have written the whole thing without watching a second of it.
So I am still wondering just how McCain and Palin plan on keeping government from being the problem, as she said in one of her speeches. Nothing she said reassured me.
Yes, Danae. You are just a latent McCain voter just waiting to be convinced.
Who are you kidding? You worked for the Democratic Party, for crying out loud.
But keep it up. I love watching Democrats lose an election that they should be easily winning.
First, BK, Danae admits in her last sentence she’s not the voter this interview was meant for, so take it easy, will you?
Second, Danae, welcome to BD! We’re happy to have you onboard and I am sure your commentary will, shall we say, inspire some discussion!
Third, I will admit that I was utterly unimpressed by her response to the “Bush Doctrine.” Maybe I’m one of the few who still believes that it is the policy of the preemptive war (see Froomkin’s article in the Washington Post), but even if it isn’t, I’m surprised she didn’t give her definition of what she thought it was and then lay out the case for or against it.
Regardless, I find it to be a minor point — I, for one, am sold. But I am also not who this interview is meant for.
However, my significant other — whom these interviews ARE meant for — still isn’t.
But, I suppose I’m not the viewer she was trying to convince.
Or maybe you were.
Obama’s trip overseas wasn’t just to silence critics about his lack of foreign policy experience but an attempt to convince some people that clearly he got it, look at him on foreign soil! That means something!
Now, like you with this Palin interview, maybe I wasn’t who he was trying to convince, but I doubt it. Deep down inside that had to have been a hope that it would really “mean something”, that I would take a step back and go, “huh, that Obama guy sure does know his foreign stuff,” and find something else to pick on him for. And it has been taken off the table since he went, though a large portion of that would be thanks to the Palin announcement dominating everything these days.
The base is already fired up over Palin. Both bases, really, either for her or against her. So maybe it’s not really a matter of convincing anyone of anything other than, hey, you can’t really hammer her on these points, listen to her speak of them like an expert.
If it doesn’t work, well, she’s going to have to keep answering these questions until either it does convince, she breaks, or election day comes and goes.
She was obviously caught off guard by the “Bush doctrine” question. To be honest, so was I.
But then, Danae, some people are probably impressed by her lack of absorption in Bush’s various pronouncements. She’s obviously not a disciple of the current president and for some, that’s a good thing.
It was so obviously a “gotcha” question — designed to make her look ignorant — that I was actually embarrassed for Gibson. If she had said “yes” in an unqualified way, it would reinforce the “McSame” characterization that the Democrats like to use on their campaign. If she said “no” in an unqualified way, people would say that she doesn’t have the strength to make the tough decisions necessary to defend this nation against foreign aggressors.
One (non-activist) mom of three I talked to last night (who watched the interview in its entirety) said she thought Gibson was condescending and mean. She identified with Palin in the interview.
Now, when it comes to public policy, I’m much more a student of domestic than foreign policy but I do consider myself fairly conversant in the principles of the latter.
If I didn’t immediately know what was meant by the phrase “Bush doctrine,” I’m curious as to who outside of the White House, the White House press corp (maybe) and a few political academics would? He might have done a better job of bluffing but would Biden have known? Did Gibson before the interview prep?
If astute observers have applied to the idea that a sovereign nation possesses a right to ‘anticipatory self defense’ the appellation of “Bush doctrine,” that is all well and good, but it is hardly a new idea to Bush. Preemptive strikes, when good intelligence indicates imminent danger, have long been accepted (though not necessarily favored) in the just war tradition.
Sir Thomas More wrote, “If any foreign prince takes up arms and prepares to invade their land, they immediately attack him in full force outside their own borders.”
To me, it seemed like Gibson was trying to force her to give black and white answers to very fluid scenarios.
One sovereign nation should be very, very cautious about violating the territorial integrity of another. But to say that should never happen or that it can happen anytime that nation is suspected of harboring our enemies would both be poor answers. Palin is correct that the U.S. should not take any options off the table in defending itself (especially not on national TV) but we should also weigh the risks of exercising those options carefully.
Can I imagine a scenario in which the U.S. should go into Pakistan without its permission to eliminate a terrorist cell. Yes. But I can imagine a great many more scenarios in which we should NOT do so.
So much in these decisions depends on intelligence that is beyond the scope of a simple interview question. Palin would have been foolish to commit herself or the future McCain administration to a policy that would be picked apart for the next two months.
Oh, and talking point it may be but “energy as a foundation of national security” is also a valid point. Our dependence on oil provided by our sworn enemies is a great weakness and one Sarah has a plan to remedy. Of course, it isn’t the only foundation of national security - but she never said it was.
Welcome, Danae, and thanks for provoking a great discussion.
JR, how chivalrous!
Methinks the lady can handle herself without your sword.
DCH-
Great points. I also sensed that “holier than thou” tone in Gibson, and I was hopeful that Palin was going to shove it right back in his face. She didn’t, and was given a great opportunity to do so. Therefore, my issue with Palin, again, was not precisely that she didn’t understand the question — after all, as has been pointed out time and again, a lot of people didn’t. It was that she didn’t turn the tables on Gibson.
BK-
You continue to play your role that you are so often type-cast for. Maybe it’s time to come out of character, if you can.
Keep throwing your sops to the left, bud. You’ll be part of the liberal media any day. Gibson, and the left, are trying to take Sarah Palin and somehow, anyhow, anyway hang George W. Bush around her neck.
He might as well have said “Uhm, about the Bush Doctrine, Gov. Palin. Don’t you want to use that as your campaign slogan?” The interview was a hands-on attack. When Gibson interviewed Obama, it was about how wonderful his European trip was. Watch both.
Danae worked for the Democratic Party, and by her own words spent 13 years before that as an objective journalist (eyes rolling). Amazing how these “objective journalists” wind up being Democrats, and for that matter, vice versa.
Obama’s foreign policy experience amounts to being able to read an International House of Pancakes menu from a teleprompter.
But the left, oops, i mean the “objective jounalists” jump on Sarah Palin, trying to connect her to George W Bush. Charlie Gibson is the latest tool.
Want some “objective” Charlie Gibson quotes?
“The polls have shown that this country would accept registration of firearms, and yet we don’t do that and we’re not fighting about regulation of guns. We regulate every other consumer product out there.” Gun control Gibson.
“Bush is using this term ‘compassionate conservative’ as he campaigns, which is an interesting juxtaposition of two seemingly contradictory terms,” Yep, Gibson again.
I mean, come on. The guy was an 04 Kerry cheerleader and is now an Obamanation. And you’re coddling right along with him.
If I’m playing a role, it’s thinking for myself and not being led by the nose by Democratic communications professionals.
Oh, please. Don’t make me laugh. I’m hardly a liberal sympathizer.
As Uncle Dick in his undisclosed location has often demonstrated, a strong VP can be an asset.
Here, Palin looked off-guard and unprepared. We, as Republicans, cannot coddle her. We cannot enable weakness. It’s important to point out that, perhaps, she could have taken that snotty Gibson tone and shoved it right back at him.
“”Bush Doctrine”? Well, Charlie, do you mean a, b, c, or d? Regarding ‘a’ I think…’b’ I think…’c’ I think…’d’ I think”
This is just constructive criticism from a Republican who wants to see Palin win.
Feeling a bit sensitive, are we?
That may be the only time someone has called me sensitive
If she has shoved it right back at him, we’d have Democrats talking about how “under her lipstick, she’s just a mean negative Republican after all” with 12 references to Karl Rove.
You’re operating under the assumption that Sarah Palin can say anything to please Democratic operatives. That’s useless.
Sarah didn’t want to play on the field Gibson was setting up. I say good for her.
Keep throwing your sops to the left, bud.
I wonder what Marty Williams would say about that?
Danae –
Coming from the same field of expertise, I too saw a very well coached (but not scripted) candidate.
I will say this much: For as much scrutiny, as many questions, and as high as level of skepticism that has been leveled at Palin by outsiders, I truly have to wonder why Obama — whose experience is comparable at best to Palin — has not been scrutinized, questioned, or investigated on where *he* stands on foreign policy issues to the same degree.
…it’s probably because Obama’s not going to win, but that’s beside the point.
For one, I can say that my tolerance for BS lessens continuously as I see the drama unfold. The best prescription is to unplug and make your own mind up.
JR, it sounds like you’re asking for an Obama style answer from Palin. I thought one of Gov. Palin’s strengths was that she gave straight, simple answers. Obama’s known for answering questions like “boxers or briefs” with college dissertations. If you favor him, you call it nuance, if you oppose it’s equivocating.
DCH, i find it highly unlikely that you didn’t understand what was meant by the “Bush Doctrine.” Even on the fourth try, when Gibson spelled it out for her, she still flubbed the response, sounding more like she was thinking of the recent Pakistan operation.
Sure, most Americans may not have a solid understanding of the Bush Doctrine, political realism vs neo-conservatism, the Powell doctrine, etc. But most Americans aren’t vying for the vice presidency, one step from leading our nation. As TV shows us, most Americans aren’t “Smarter than a 5th grader.” Is that really all we should expect of our VP?
I agree with JR, while i may not have agreed with many (well almost any) of Cheney’s positions, i never doubted his capability and knowledge. So far i don’t feel the same of Gov. Palin.
Darn, Jeremy won’t vote for a Republican. Imagine…
I bet Sarah Palin wouldn’t ask a man in a wheelchair to stand up, though.
Jeremy - The “Bush Doctrine” has changed over eight years. What it was when he was elected (isolationist), then after 9/11 (war on terror), then in March 2003 (preemptive defense) and now (spreading democracy) are all different things. So when Palin responds “what aspect?” she’s asking for Gibson to clarify for her which doctrine he means. She handled it very well, IMO.
BK - Lack of understanding of the political ideology that led to the Iraq War vs lack of knowledge that Missouri state senator from Columbia Chuck Graham is a paraplegic. Which one is more dangerous in a VP?
Jason, though i’d say most folks who are aware of the term consider the Bush Doctrine to be preemptive war, i’ll grant you there is some ambiguity. However, on the fourth try when Gibson pretty much laid out exactly what he meant, I still think her answer still didn’t fit the question. A main pillar of preemptive war is War, the declaration of hostilities with a sovereign power. Her answer seemed more in the scope of the next question, a simple military strike against a non-nation entity, but in violation of another nations territory.
Jason, Bush has never run on an isolationist platform. All he ever said was that he didn’t think we should be engaging in “nation building.”
Stephen - Then I guess a more accurate description of the first phase of his Doctrine is “America First”. Which actually applies to all phases: every change has been based on an evolving world and changing specifics that determine that actions are necessary in order to go about fulfilling an “America First” doctrine. Whether it’s avoiding nation building, fighting terror where it starts, preemptively striking an enemy or spreading democracy to states that could threaten America in the future, all of these are rooted in an “America First” mentality that bucks the globalization trend of the last twenty years.
Jeremy, the only political ideology that led to the Iraq war was Saddam Hussein’s.
Oh, that’s right. Democrats wish he was still in power.
I gotta admire your gumption Brian. To sacrifice the idea of America’s self-determination on the altar of the one-liner takes real stones.
Well, first of all, is “Danae” a woman? You never know these days. If so, then SHAME ON YOU!
I couldn’t have said it better than the following….
Brian Kirwin - September 13th, 8:01 a.m.
Brian Kirwin - September 13th, 10:09 a.m.
Brian Kirwin - September 13th, 11:06 a.m.
Brian Kirwin - September 13th, 12:03 p.m.
Brian Kirwin - September 13th, 1:19 p.m. (LOVED IT!)
Brian Kirwin - September 13th, 3:11 p.m.
As I heard someone say….
Read my Lipstick….
McCain/Palin 2008!
Well, first of all, is “Danae” a woman? You never know these days. If so, then SHAME ON YOU!
I couldn’t have said it better than the following….
Brian Kirwin - September 13th, 8:01 a.m.
Brian Kirwin - September 13th, 10:09 a.m.
Brian Kirwin - September 13th, 11:06 a.m.
Brian Kirwin - September 13th, 12:03 p.m.
Brian Kirwin - September 13th, 1:19 p.m. (LOVED IT!)
Brian Kirwin - September 13th, 3:11 p.m.
As I heard someone say….
Read my Lipstick….
McCain/Palin 2008!
P.S. - I forgot to mention…..I guess C. Gibson and K. Couric must wear the same glasses! Hmmmm…..interesting!
I wonder if C. Gibson and K. Couric saw the Biden/Palin debate???
Bet those two reporters were shocked by her intelligence!
I wish Sarah Palin could have at least asked K. Couric if SHE knows what the “Bush Doctrine is? Or better yet, the “Obama Doctrine?”