I understand why people like Sarah Palin. I also think she is a rising star and a politics success story. She is perfectly qualified for most political positions. However, it is a joke to treat her like a serious option for president, as a legitimate understudy to the most powerful position in the world.
Exhibit A: A series of uncomfortable facts: (1) she never had a passport. This is an indication that in her 44 years she was never interested or engaged in foreign affairs. Her world is big, it is the biggest state in the nation, but it is nothing more. (2) She can't name a Supreme Court decision she disagrees with other than Roe v. Wade. This may be tough for many Americans, but it should be easy for any serious presidential candidate. People mock Bush for being dumb but he knows dozens of decisions he doesn't agree with. What about Griswold? It gave privacy rights and it the basis not only for Roe v. Wade but also for the Lawrence decision that overturned Bowers v. Hardwick thus making anti-Sodamy laws unconstitutional. Shouldn't a real social conservative know about Griswold? What about Korematsu, the decision that upheld the interment of Japanese Americans during World War II? It's still the law of the land. What about Plessy v. Ferguson? Shouldn't any candidate for president be able to name that one? (3) Prior to being named vice president she said that she didn't have strong opinions about Iraq because she had never thought much about it. That's fine if you are a governor but it is not ok if you may well be president. This is just a small sampling.
Exhibit B: The Bush Doctrine
I have heard all the arguments about how the Bush doctrine is fluid. Lets not split hairs here though. Any student of international relations knows that the Bush administration made a major shift in US foreign policy and away from international norms when they assumed the right to attack a nation that did not pose a direct and imminent threat. Iraq had no ability to attack the US and we invaded anyway. No definition of the Bush Doctrine will stray from this premise. "His world view" is not even close to any interpretation espoused by anyone who knows. Again, ok if you are a governor but nowhere near ok for the president.
Exhibit C: Couric Interview
Exhibit D: The Debate
Why should I type my opinion when Keith Olbermann did a nice job covering the key points for me:
And for fun
Again, I don't think she is a bad person or unqualified for the job she has. I just think she is terribly under-qualified for the job she wants. I don't agree with her politically but that isn't what this is about. I don't think she is remotely capable of running the most powerful nation in the world. If anyone can think of any argument to the contrary I'd like to hear it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I think you should read up on the Bush Doctrine. Charles Krauthammer, who originally coined the term, takes Palin side on this issue.
The Bush Doctrine does not deal only with Iraq! It predates Iraq, clearly, and it is likely that the most recent form will outlast Iraq.
Krauthammer is in the tank for McCain/Palin so that article should be discounted. I've read it and find his argument suspect and unpersuasive. It also does not get Palin off the hook for answering "his world view?"
It is pre-Iraq, you are correct. It was annunciated, as Gibson says, in 2002. Originally it was used to justify invading countries that had not themselves threatened the US but had aided/harbored terrorists. It was later used to justify invading Iraq on the basis that they may one day pose a threat. Either way the underlying premise is the same: if our strategic/security interests are in play we can invade. It is now being used by Turkey about the Aegean Sea and Cyprus and is in the rhetoric of China re: Taiwan, Pakistan re: Kashmir and even North Korea re: South Korea.
Krauthammer is correct (and so are you), it is not a clear and precise thing. However, it is a "term of art" used to signify a new logic for preventative war and it is a MAJOR shift from pre-Bush IR. Again, it's ok if a Gov. doesn't know that, but a candidate for president must be aware of these things. It's not that she missed the terminology. Even after prodding and clarification she demonstrated that she was unaware of the shift. Here is a quote from someone who has your position: "what Palin said in her response did not actually address what was so radical about Bush's contribution to American foreign policy" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/09/12/BL2008091201471.html
Look at this article from the Uber-conservative American Enterprise Institute. It recognizes all the fluidity and complexity of the Bush Doctrine but still has no trouble pinning it down to pre-emption:
Here are some more citations:
http://www.crimesofwar.org/expert/bush-intro.html
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_doctrine
Here is the original Krauthammer article to further support my case.
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/krauthammer/article/0,9565,1035052,00.html
Thanks for the input, alot of people disagree with me about the Bush Doctrine issue, but I still think I am correct and am not going to let Krauthammer get Palin off the hook simply by claiming dibs on definition rights. Thoughts?
Jason-
Even with the fact standing that their are four interpretations of what the "Bush Doctrine" is she was unable to articulate one of them and give a cogent answer. What is painfully clear in this interview is that she has little to no knowledge on the subject. If she is as smart as you say she is she would have been able to deftly maneuver the interview to discuss which ever of the four she new most about. She knew none of them and instead grasped at a straw "You mean his world view"! Look I agree with Ben she is perfectly qualified to be the Governor of Alaska. However her inability to handle Charlie Gibson or Katie Couric leads me to believe she might not be the best pick for Americas 2nd highest post. I mean really how is she going to handle any foreign leader if she cant even pass the mustered on basic tv interviews.
Sorry, here is the link to the AEI article I was talking about:
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.15845/pub_detail.asp
And everything I said in MySpace is humbly withdrawn. Your insight into Sarah Palin's qualifications is unparalleled in mainstream media.
You flatter yourself with the obsessive use of CAPTCHAS, though.
I completely agree with you on your thoughts about Palin's qualifications to hold the VP office.
I understand why people like her though. She's young (for a presidential ticket), beautiful, confident, energetic and definitely entertaining to watch. She has a lot of appeal that creates this facade that she's qualified but it's a facade nonetheless.
I'm curious what your thoughts are on Gwen Iffel (sp?) moderating the VP debate. There were a lot of Republicans crying foul over her being selected as moderator given that she is in the process of writing a book essentially about Obama.
I have to admit that I was a little dismayed with Iffel's response to those questioning her objectivity - basically that she didn't understand where it was coming from. As a journalist with her experience, I think she should have taken the question more serious.
I also think that while the fact Iffel was writing the book had been written about in other media outlets so it wasn't technically being kept a secret, Iffel still had an ethical responsibility to directly disclose the matter to the debate commission.
After watching the debate I felt that she moderated fairly; however, being a former debater I have to admit that if I were Sarah Palin, I would probably be upset about the situation and feel that the playing field was unlevel.
This really has no political bearing but I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on the subject.
I think it was an awkward moment for Ifill and for the Commission on Presidential Debates but I think it was also all smoke and no fire. Here is why:
Lehrer and Ifill are often selected as moderators (Ifill did the vp debate in 2004 as well) because they have a great reputation for being completely objective. They host News Hour and Washington Week on PBS, widely considered two of the few remaining examples of class journalism. In this article you can find McCain admitting as much at the same time Hannity and Palin cry foul play:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081002/pl_politico/14207
Many members of the press are liberal in their views, though they defend it by saying it's less an indictment of the press core than it is a compliment to liberalism. Jack Germond was on campus talking about the subject recently and he said that a lot of the press are liberals because they are around politics enough to know the truth :) He also said that it doesn't matter with good journalists because they do their job no matter their opinion.
I think Ifill is a perfect example of this. She did a great job in the debate as she always does. I also think it is unfair to say the book is "pro" Obama. It is a book about race in American politics and how Obama changes the dynamic.
This issue was specifically discussed on Meet the Press after the debate and Ifill directly addressed your question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgDPxi4bJMs
Post a Comment