« Palin And The Bush Doctrine | Main | More Things That Matter More Than Lipstick »

September 11, 2008

Comments

you know the answers she didn't. does the rest of the audience ?

"Who would that be?"

Who else? John Hagee. Gotta fight the Battle of Armageddon, right?

you know the answers she didn't. does the rest of the audience ?

Nope. And they don't care. They don't mind a BSer in the White House.

I just have to say:

War with Russia means Fing nukes.

Not guns, Thermonuclear Bombs Exploding.

Full Stop.

I was not able to watch it and haven't got time right now. But my younger son called me while he was catching it and his response was ,and I quote, "This woman is a fricking idiot!"

However, he takes after his father in terms of being interested in almost anything that is happening in the world that impacts this country and others.

The question is how many people understand where she went wrong? Not many. I know that back in the day there was a rather lengthy discussion here about the correct term to use for the Bush Doctrine.

But the scarier thing, to me, is something I read on Sullivan's site earlier today. McCain aides were talking about how intelligent she is and how she is picking up all this information without even having to ask any questions. The hallmark of the Bush Presidency was a lack of interest in details, refusing to ask proper questions. I don't think McCain likes to either.

I think it is rather important we have an inquisitive President for a hange.

Whenever we get talking about what "the electorate" REALLY thinks, my favorite HL Mencken and PT Barnum quotations come galumphing out of the back of my brain.

You know them.
Mencken: Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.
And Barnum: There's a sucker born every minute

My fear is, they were right then, and they are right now.

People don't know the answers and this is not a candidacy-ending lame interview.

However, this was also a softball interview. There will be more. Probably softballs too. But after a while, even dumb people will pick up on how unprepared she is. It does not matter that she is terribly TV-friendly and appealing. An idiot can see she does not the answers and it will seep through after a while.

If you haven't already, be sure to join the Facebook group "I Have More Foreign Policy Experience Than Sarah Palin."

If your passport is more than 12-months old, you probably qualify!

War with Russia means Fing nukes.

We'll meet again,
don't know where, don't know when
But I know we'll meet again .. some sunny day!

CNN's taking the gloves off a little bit in their analysis, but by centimeters... I respect Gibson a little bit for making her dance on the Bush doctrine question before plugging it in, and maybe I was reading it wrong, but I thought Gibson quickly turned to restrained disapprobation, especially when she brought up living near Russia.

Bear in mind that in 1976 a far smaller foreign-policy gaffe arguably lost the election for Gerald Ford--who if nothing else was eminently qualified for the White House.

But after a while, even dumb people will pick up on how unprepared she is.

Might be a tad optimistic, here....

OK...upon reviewing that 1976 Ford debate excerpt, I gotta admit it was pretty bad.

The funny thing is that Ford answered in this ridiculous way because he was apparently giving a prepared answer to another, related question: did we recognize a Soviet sphere of influence in Eastern Europe?

The U.S. had always formally rejected the notion of spheres of influence. Henry Kissinger, "realist" that he was, had acknowledged one in a leaked memo (to NATO foreign ministers, I think). The neocons went crazy over this. So Ford was prepared to deny that we had recognized a Soviet sphere of influence.

But that's not quite what he said.

Incidentally, Biden should study Carter's reaction: do nothing while your opponent is committing suicide!


And that’s what’s so absurd about the whole thing. The Palin selection is, above all else, a reflection on John McCain’s willingness to let the country be run by an unvetted and woefully unprepared person. And if she’s that uninformed, it means that someone else will effectively be running the country if she’s president — just like Bush and Cheney. Who would that be? No idea, but I'll go with the odds and guess "a Kagan."

Here’s a key point which has been overlooked in the Palinapalooza.

We don’t know who will actually be running the country even if nothing happens to McCain.

The man is 72. Look at him on the campaign trail now. He gives off signs of not even being in charge of his own campaign. Even if nothing serious happens to his health, he will not have the energy needed to be engaged on a daily basis with riding herd over the vast executive branch of the US Federal Govt. Quite frankly, I doubt that he has the energy left to be a fully engaged chairman of the JCS at this point, much less the POTUS.

We are headed for a Regency government.
Who will be the Regent(s)?
Who will get to play the Dick Cheney role in a McCain administration?

I doubt it will be a single person – I don’t see anyone in McCain’s group with the drive, the energy, and the knowledge of all the nooks and crannies of the Federal bureaucracy (which comes in handy for in-fighting and knowing where the bodies are buried) which Cheney brought in.

I think it will probably be a triumvirate of sorts – perhaps Phil Gramm on economic policy, Lieberman and McCain himself keeping watch over foreign affairs, and some combination of Palin and/or one of Rove’s people on non-economic domestic policy.

There will probably be a fight at some point over how seriously to take the demands of the Religious Right. They never got much more than lip service from Rove’s people during the Bush administration (just ask David Kuo), but I think Palin’s huge popularity within the GOP changes that equation, and this time the theo-cons are not going to settle for crumbs from the policy table.

Look for an early showdown between the more cynical Rovians and the more earnest theo-cons, in a McCain administration. That will be one way to tell who is really running the country.

So which of these policies is the "bush doctrine?" From wiki.

The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush, created in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves, which was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan.[1] Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate (used to justify the invasion of Iraq), a policy of supporting democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the spread of terrorism, and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way.[2][3][4] Some of these policies were codified in a National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States published on September 20, 2002.[5]

you know the answers she didn't. does the rest of the audience ?

I wouldn't count on it.

I always hope that the rest of the world is paying attention but this seems akin to having faith that Lucy isn't going to lift that ball just before Charlie Brown tries to kick it.

I read somewhere (I think it was PoliBlog) that it seemed like she was being prepped for a forensics competition.

That performance wouldn't have been acceptable at a forensics competition. I debated in high school and college. Forensics at that level is like football for nerds.

Any reasonably competent college debater (and most high school ones) could have cross-examined her into a mushy pile of inanity.

I wish I could interview her. Better yet, one of the forensic skills is International Extemporaneous speaking, where you get three topics, you pick one and then go into a room by yourself where you have 30 minutes to prepare a seven minute speech. You get only the research material you take into the room with you.

She couldn't do it.

We'll meet again,
don't know where, don't know when
But I know we'll meet again .. some sunny day!

Because of the automated and irrevocable decision making process which rules out human meddling, the doomsday machine Sarah Palin is terrifying. It's simple to understand. And completely credible, and convincing!

OK, Palin is ignorant. Stupid even. Embarrassingly so. But, how does that translate into a SPIN, a campaign attack, a 30-second devastating and gut-wrenching ad against MCCAIN?

Kevdog,

And those speeches are rattled off so fast (but clearly) that I would estimate that they pack in at least triple the words that most politicians would fit into the same amount of time.

War with Russia means Fing nukes.

I wish the DNC and media would finally get off their asses and point this out. Bad enough to have the right talking about war with Iran like it's no big deal, but Russia?

Since the Georgia issue first came up I've felt like pulling my hair out. Major party candidates for Pesident are talking about starting World War III over a country of no strategic interest that most people couldn't find on an unlabeled map and nobody with a big media soapbox can be bothered to say peep? The world's gone crazy.

From Roger Schank:
"Republicans do not try to change voter's beliefs. They go with them. Democrats appeal to reason. Big mistake."

You might want to glance over this:

What Makes People Vote Republican?
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html

"If Democrats want to understand what makes people vote Republican, they must first understand the full spectrum of American moral concerns. They should then consider whether they can use more of that spectrum themselves. The Democrats would lose their souls if they ever abandoned their commitment to social justice, but social justice is about getting fair relationships among the parts of the nation. This often divisive struggle among the parts must be balanced by a clear and oft-repeated commitment to guarding the precious coherence of the whole. America lacks the long history, small size, ethnic homogeneity, and soccer mania that holds many other nations together, so our flag, our founding fathers, our military, and our common language take on a moral importance that many liberals find hard to fathom.

"Unity is not the great need of the hour, it is the eternal struggle of our immigrant nation. The three Durkheimian foundations of ingroup, authority, and purity are powerful tools in that struggle. Until Democrats understand this point, they will be vulnerable to the seductive but false belief that Americans vote for Republicans primarily because they have been duped into doing so."

Actually, from a diplomatic point of view this is probably the worst part of her interview based on what I've seen or read of it:

GIBSON: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?

PALIN: Well, first, we are friends with Israel and I don't think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.

GIBSON: So if we wouldn't second guess it and they decided they needed to do it because Iran was an existential threat, we would cooperative or agree with that.

PALIN: I don't think we can second guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation.

GIBSON: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right.

PALIN: We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.

She says three times within hesitation that Israel should have carte blanche and full American backing in whatever military action it deems necessary to its defense. Everybody in the Middle East who's not in Likud just slapped their forehead in unison. Apparently in her pre-interview training, her handlers didn't even train to throw out a single pleasantry about moderation and peace in the Middle East when the subject of Israel came up. That absence speaks wonders about the McCain camp's worldview: the Bush years without Condi and Powell.

This is why countries like Georgia get out of control: they hear public statements like this from important people in Washington and get tempted to gamble. It's clear that a McCain-Palin administration would p*ss American credibility away in short order by making open-ended commitments to far-flung allies that it couldn't then live up to.

How did that "You know, you can actually see part of Russia from Alaska" comment not result in some form of "WTF are you talking about?" I would have liked to have seen a pat on the head and a "That's nice, Sarah." Or maybe "Well, that's enough to convince me that you're a foreign policy expert...NOT!" Gee whiz. What else is there to say? THIS IS INSANE! (Sorry, I've been drinking.)

Wasilla Assembly of God
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wasilla Assembly of God
Information
Denomination Assemblies of God (Pentecostal)
Founded 1951
Founder(s) Paul Riley
Senior Pastor(s) Ed Kalnins
Pastor(s) Scott Phillips (Assistant)
Todd Stafford (Assistant)
Nathan Lopez (Youth)
Contact particulars
Address 125 West Riley Ave
Wasilla, Alaska 99654
Country United States
Website http://www.wasillaag.org/

Christianity Portal

The Wasilla Assembly of God is a church in the town of Wasilla, Alaska. Founded in 1951, it is a member of the Assemblies of God, a Protestant, Pentecostal association of churches with roots in the Pentecostal revivalism of the early twentieth century.[1] According to the Wall Street Journal, congregants "speak in tongues and are part of a faith that believes humanity is in its 'end times' -- the days preceding a world-ending cataclysm bringing Christian redemption and the second coming of Jesus."[2]

Oh my GOD... she WANTS a war!

"Oh my GOD... she WANTS a war!"

Without defending Pentecostal beliefs, the idea that everyone who believes in any variant of them WANTS a war! is not exactly a deep, nuanced, analysis, itself.

I had a layover in Amsterdam one day, and I bet I was closer to Russia there than Palin ever has been then. To say nothing of the fact that I was flying back from Warsaw.

I've already admitted that I've been drinking. What's your excuse, David? (Sorry, again, I've been drinking.) Seriously, though, there are lots of reasons for going to church in general or to a particular church. I'm vehemently against Sarah Palin becoming our next VP, but I find it hard to conclude that she "WANTS a war" because of her church affiliation.

And those speeches are rattled off so fast (but clearly) that I would estimate that they pack in at least triple the words that most politicians would fit into the same amount of time.

Indeed, it's been 20 years and people are still telling me to slow down when I talk.

Debate and forensics were instrumental in making me a voracious devourer of current events, policy decisions, and ethics.

Fuck Sarah Palin, I'm better qualified than she is, though I have been known to blink every now and them. How in the name of all that is sacred did we get to the point where working hard at education was a negative?

We are too freakin' egalitarian in this country. To paraphrase The Incredibles "If everyone is qualified, then no one is."

Although Palin suggests Russia is visible from someplace in Alaska, she must not realize that makes Alaksa the front line in any future war between the U.S. and Russia. Wonder how the residents of Alaska feel about her eagerness to go to war with the Ruskies over Georgia or some other pissant Eastern European country? I predict a run on fallout shelters.

"..a world-ending cataclysm bringing Christian redemption and the second coming of Jesus."

What part of that are you people having trouble understanding?

That's from the WSJ, not some librul rag.

They preach the Book of Revelation, and she's a believer.

Please ask yourself...is that someone you trust to have access to nuclear launch codes?

Come on.

I've said it before: since We Are All Georgians, and Russia is Next To Alaska, it's a good thing that Sarah Palin Is Ready. No doubt this looming threat is why she gave her National Guard Commander that ludicrous in-state-only third star right after he changed his story to applaud her Bold Leadership - it's not corrupt, is simple recognition of his weighty responsibility to defend Us Georgians from the Russian Bear.

My guess is that tonight the blush of first love may have faded for intellectually honest conservatives (and allies) who got caught up in the glory of a potential victory. But the sheer absurdity of supporting this person for this position could be a problem. Will they be able to swallow their pride to recognize the obvious silliness of their crush? Or will pride make them cleave more fiercely to their folly?

My guess is that tonight the blush of first love may have faded for intellectually honest conservatives (and allies) who got caught up in the glory of a potential victory.

You mean for both of them?

"What part of that are you people having trouble understanding?"

That you can deduce all you need to know about someone from their church.

"Come on."

An entirely convincing argument.

When criticizing someone for a simple-minded worldview, it's bad form to make simple-minded assertions.

I don't think that, for many people, her answers matter at all. For amy viewers the words are white noise; their assessment of performance is based on body language. Did she seem comfortable, comfident, positive? Then she did great. Many viewers won't have any idea what she said.

As for wanting a war: why not? Endtimes doctrine says that the elect will go straight to heaven. It is similar to the belief of Islamic extremist suicide bombers, their conviction that self-destruction is the way to endless happines s in the afterlife.

ABC had a clip about the training film used to indoctrinate her church's youth group. The snip they showed was about the glory of fighting for God.

911 was religiously motivated.

just because these particluar religious wackos are Americans doesn't mean they aren't potentially as lacking in a self of porportion or perspective as many religious wackos have been in the past. It is entirely possible that Sarah Palin thinks that God is making her Veep so that she can bring us closer to the end.

If I was McCain I woule be watching my back. One of those wackos might decide to make her President so we can get to the End Times quicker.

I didn't watch the interview but I just saw a clip on You Tube.

I think she did well in the same sense that her speech was to the convention was good.

The content was pure crap, but that isn't the measure of quality in politics. The presentation is what matters./ She needs to improve her posture--her hunched over body language made her look like a grad student at orals--just she spoke smoothly, clearly, condidently, and blarney is what passess for "good" these days.

Third, she was way too specific on the Russia-Georgia stuff — good politicians and diplomats never say so specifically that we would go to war with . . . RUSSIA!

Nice to see you finding your form, pube.

I can't believe people even contemplate a war with a nuclear armed nation, especially one with a modicum of self-respect.

I read about our Seals conducting operations in Pakistan, and the first thing I thought was do we know where their nukes are?

In the past, I'd have assumed our Chiefs would have given that some thought before dispatching our assassins.

but with these incompetent fools, I'm not so sure they even asked themselves the question.

When criticizing someone for a simple-minded worldview, it's bad form to make simple-minded assertions.

Yeah, but Gary: how far would you carry this admonition? Surely there are some simple-minded worldviews that even you would dismiss out of hand. Where shall we draw the line? Flat earth? Young earth? Astrology? Reincarnation? Faith-based contraception? Is there any belief kooky enough that calling its adherents kooks would not be bad form?

--TP

Her answer about meeting heads of state: While I think it was a fairly stupid question, her answer was even worse. She tries to equate her lack of foreign policy with that of past vice presidents, but that just doesn't work because her situation is quite uncommon. For as much as the right talks about the Democratic ticket being upside down, with the VP being the more experienced of the two, from a historical standpoint it's actually the Republican ticket that's backwards. Many governors have ran for president and won, but very few have been made a VP choice. Generally the top of the ticket is the fresh faced idealist looking to make big changes, and the VP is the old hand with experience. The VP pick is largely a safety net, the presidential candidate basically saying "Don't worry, I may seem a bit risky but you guys trust this guy and he'll be right by my side and would be a supremely competent replacement if something were to happen to me." That's whats so reckless about McCain's pick: he's basically decided to go at this without a safety net when, at 72 years old and a cancer survivor, there is a very good chance that the VP may assume his office during his term.

This was posted about at Washington Monthly a few days ago. Just to give you a good idea of how uncommon this sort of decision is, there have only been two other governors tapped as running mates in the last 60 years: Earl Warren for the Republicans in 1948 (didn't get elected), and Spiro Agnew in 1968. And Warren was at least somewhat tested by being part of the Republican Primary, whereas Palin was essentially chosen at a time when she was a virtual unknown outside of Alaska. Governors work at the top of the ticket because they get put through the ringer of the primary and general election process for several months, and likely had presidential ambitions and were familiarizing themselves with national issues for years before that. Palin, on the other hand, seems to have had no such interest or preparation before as early as just a few short weeks ago, and has virtually no public stances on many important national issues.

By the way, am I the only one who thinks that its pretty awesome that all they really wanted was for her to go out there and not say anything stupid, then within the first few minutes of the interview she basically says "Yeah, maybe we will have to go to war with Russia over Georgia."

Barring a completely unrealistically possible event or comment, such as her slapping Gibson and calling Obama the n-word, what could possibly be worse than this?

Is there any belief kooky enough that calling its adherents kooks would not be bad form?

You're missing Gary's point completely. The problem isn't with calling somebody a kook because they accept kooky ideas. It's the guilt by association idea that she must agree completely with the kookiest ideas that anyone in her church accepts.

Consider the situation with Obama and Trinity. Obama supporters were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt about why he might continue going to a church where the pastor made statements he didn't personally agree with. And when he finally gave a speech about it, they were happy to accept what he said.

Sarah Palin deserves the same benefit of the doubt. You can't assume that she holds a particular wacky belief just because it's common among members of her denomination. She might have some of the same reasons for attending her church that Obama did. She even had a better excuse given that she was living in a much smaller community with a presumably smaller selection of churches to attend.

I'm not saying that she deserves a free pass on her religious views. People should be asking her exactly the same kinds of pointed questions about her church that they asked about Obama and his church. I just think that you shouldn't draw definitive conclusions until she's had a chance to give (or withhold) an answer.

Sarah Palin deserves the same benefit of the doubt. You can't assume that she holds a particular wacky belief just because it's common among members of her denomination. She might have some of the same reasons for attending her church that Obama did.

Well, I was actually asking Gary about his views on "bad form", not questioning Sarah Palin's "worldview". But to address your point:

There's a difference between a belief which is "common among members" and a belief which is foundational. That Jesus was born of a virgin is a foundational belief of all Christian sects. That we are living in the "End Times" is foundational to some Christian sects and not others. I agree that it's possible for somebody to choose a sect whose foundational beliefs she does not share. But to give Palin the "benefit of the doubt" on that score is to raise a different question about her character.

--TP

Tony: That Jesus was born of a virgin is a foundational belief of all Christian sects.

Nevertheless, many Christians do not believe it. Which I think is the point, no?

publius, i've loved you since Legal Fiction, but you have been wrong about Sarah Palin from day one. She was a genius pick and you just don't seem to get it.

The early commenters who noted that her fans are just as ignorant as she and won't realize any of the mistakes that she made last night are right. This interview won't damage the McCain campaign at all.

bwaage, For the "religious wingnuts" Palin is the safety net. They don't trust the Son of Cain to do the right (as opposed to left/left behind) thing. A number of leaders of the religious right openly stated that they could never vote for the Son of Cain but with the selection of the Plain One they have done a 180° turn and now suppport the ticket because they think that Palin will call the shots (or that the Son of Cain has seen the light at last). I wonder what's worse, them being right or wrong?

I did close those italics!!!!

And I closed them twice again!!!

Caribou Barbie is simply (pardon the vulgarity) - George W. Bush with a vagina.

Self-absorbed, uncurious and intellectually and morally bankrupt.

Let me be the first to say that speaking in tongues is just fine with me: similar strategies can be found in psychotherapy, automatic writing and Friday night pissups. Generally no harm is done and it might even have a cleansing effect on the mind of the individual doing it. As long as you keep this stuff private, I could care less, whatever floats your boat.

That said, I do not share hairshirt's and Gary's tolerant attitude towards Palin's membership in a church, whose pastor thinks that Bush has been put in office by god, regards the war in Iraq as a holy war, any criticism of it as coming from hell. Add to that the widely held beliefs about "end times" in this congregation and you have political dynamite, that makes any member of it unfit for a political office which is in any way related to defense and foreign policy. I don't care why Palin is a member, she needs to dissociate herself from such a group.

You wouldn't be so tolerant if a politician belonged to a group that promotes, say, racism, would you?

"That said, I do not share hairshirt's and Gary's tolerant attitude towards Palin's membership in a church"

I didn't say a word above about my attitude towards Palin's membership in a church, as it happens.

Not a word.

I did, however, write something here some time ago about Palin's church.

"I don't care why Palin is a member, she needs to dissociate herself from such a group."

I don't recall you making the same claim about Obama and Wright.

Obama did, why can't Palin? I hope it is not sexist to suggest that what's good for the goose is good for the gander?

Caribou Barbie is simply (pardon the vulgarity) - George W. Bush with a vagina.

"This is going to be so much fun - racism from the right, sexism from the left. America rocks!" - BDBlue, Sideshow

I didn't say a word above about my attitude towards Palin's membership in a church, as it happens.

Oh please. A commenter was criticizing Palin on the basis of her membership in the church arguing, as do I, that it disqualifies her from running for VP. You retort that "someone" shouldn't necessarily be judged by their membership in a church. The commenter and myself are less tolerant in this regard and you are more tolerant. Are you trying to argue that your comment doesn't have anything to do with Palin?

I don't recall you making the same claim about Obama and Wright.

Honestly, I didn't even remember if I said anything or if I did, what I said about Obama/Wright - that was half a year ago, a lot has happened since and I don't necessarily claim to be a 100% consistent on everything over such periods of time.

But since you seem to be so concerned about consistency that you feel the need to dig up some old comment of mine, let's play that game. I said in my comment re Obama/Wright:

I don't find these statements all that outrageous

I wasn't arguing that Obama shouldn't be associated with Wright's comments, I was saying that the content of the comments themselves weren't outrageous enough to disqualify Obama from running for president, that in fact there was some truth to them. Conversely I think that the comments made by Palin's pastor and the worldview embraced by her church are outrageous and in fact dangerous.

you have been wrong about Sarah Palin from day one. She was a genius pick and you just don't seem to get it.

I actually struggle with this -- because I have wondered whether my instincts on this are just completely off-base. who knows -- maybe they are. but right now, i just really believe that it's absurd. and, I think people have been afraid to say it or to push that.

but that said, you may prove correct and i may fall flat on my face on this

Palin was a genius pick in terms of motivating the Christianist and fundamental Republicanist base. i'm not so sure she does anything to attract anyone else.

It's a genius pick if you assume that the US is composed of drooling idiots. That Publius did not is now adduced to be a fatal flaw says a lot about the state of our country.

I know I'm trolling today. Target rich environment. Yes, it was embarrassing - I thought Gibson would do better than that. At least Governor Palin came off quite respectfully.

I'm sticking a quick impression here without reading the other comments, and will do that once I settle in here at work.

I found it jarring.

By that, I thought Gov. Palin came across as too intense -- she was practically jumping right at me and out of my TV set. (I stayed up and saw it on "Nightline.")

I think leaders can show power and strength, command and readiness, without sounding like a football coach. Obama and Biden have done that; for that matter, so has McCain.

I'm sure she felt -- and was told -- that she had to be forceful. But her tone made me uncomfortable.

On a substance level, I was shocked that she did not know what the Bush Doctrine was.

Forget about all of this prepping she's supposed to have been doing; she should have known that simply by following current events over the last eight years.

---

ABC's Charlie Gibson did a good job. I mention that because he would have been brutalized on the blogs if he hadn't. He was tough and respectful.

FWIW, the talking heads weren't overwhelmed with Palin's performance, but seemed to think it was a win for the McCain campaign simply because she didn't blatantly trip up -- I'd call not knowing the Bush Doctrine a blatant trip-up.

---

And let me get this straight: Obama's big rookie mistake was that he said he would negotiate face-to-face with rogue leaders, a position he has since refined. Palin, on the other, seems confident enough to go straight to war with Russia (a slight exaggeration).

Which makes more sense: negotiation or WWIII?

Which makes more sense: negotiation or WWIII?

to a Republicanist, the answer depends which position the alpha Republican is taking this week.

That said, I do not share hairshirt's and Gary's tolerant attitude towards Palin's membership in a church...

Novakant, are you saying she "WANTS a war" based on her church membership? That would be the stance that would put you at odds with what I wrote. It may be a completely terrible idea for her to belong to that church. As I wrote, people have lots of reasons for belonging to their congregations, some may be good, some may be bad. But that doesn't mean she "WANTS a war."

I'm sure I'm not the first to point this out, but even if you go with the premise that "we can't afford another Cold War," how does this make the implied solution of ACTUAL WAR make sense?

"I wish the DNC and media would finally get off their asses and point this out. Bad enough to have the right talking about war with Iran like it's no big deal, but Russia?"

What's scary is how casually McCain/Palin are talking about a potential war with Russia.

It was one thing to play truth-or-dare with Sadam Hussein. But with Vladimir Putin?

And notice that she invoked Putin's name, not the actual name of the new Russian president -- I believe that would be a diplomatic swipe.

(I don't think she realized how dumb she sounded by noting the value of being able to see Russia from some of the Alaskan islands until Gibson interrupted her.)

---

I'm married to a Russian woman and have enough trouble figuring her out, much less her country.

My last of three visits to St. Petersburg was 2004, and so much has changed in that time, that all those visits have done is give me a general feel for a country that historians have spent centuries trying to figure out.

---

"She says three times within hesitation that Israel should have carte blanche and full American backing in whatever military action it deems necessary to its defense."

I forgot above the whole Israel thing.

Scary.

Very scary.

Palin's problem on these foreign policy issues is clear: She is not nuanced in the least.

That, by the way, is an Obama strength, one which, ironically enough, the GOP has used to paint him as weak.

And notice that she invoked Putin's name, not the actual name of the new Russian president -- I believe that would be a diplomatic swipe.

You're assuming she remembers Medvedev's name.

You're assuming she remembers Medvedev's name.

they didn't get to that chapter.

She might want a war. Note the oft repeated full support for any military action isreal might decide to take.

The End Times theology is that the Seconding Coming will fhappen after a big war in the Middle East. I think the jews are supposed to start it and some of them will become Christians and get saved or they all die...I forget. I used to have a wignut co worker who kept me posted onthis stuff. She read the news daily for signs that the end was about to get nearer. She fully expects to ascend and leave the rest of us behind. Sarah palin may very well see herself as a player in the final moves--promoting war in the Middle East being one of those moves. She spent twenty years listening to that sort of crap from her pastor.

We will never know for sure because, if she does see herself as part of God's mechanaism for bringa out the end, she never ever say so publically.

Face it, if after 8 years of Bush/Cheney these 2 are able to take over (God knows who is really running things at that point), the experiment has failed. Best thing to do would be revoke the Declaration of Independence and give the county back to the British.

As I wrote, people have lots of reasons for belonging to their congregations, some may be good, some may be bad. But that doesn't mean she "WANTS a war."

Fine. But I refuse to treat a politician's membership in a church as some sort of private matter, especially when said church is very outspoken and radical on a whole range of issues. Maybe some members of the KuKluxKlan where only members because they liked running around in silly white outfits, but that doesn't get the off the hook really.

"But I refuse to treat a politician's membership in a church as some sort of private matter"

Who suggested otherwise?

Meh.

It's just that she views force as the clearest, best and most likely use of American influence and power.

As does a sizable segment of the American public.

She did herself no harm in this interview.

Rep. Zack Wamp (R-Tennessee) doesn't seem to have been impressed by Palin's performance.

It's a cheap shot to criticize Palin for not being sure exactly what Gibson meant by the "Bush Doctrine." A well-informed person might know perfectly well that in 2002, before invading Iraq, Bush changed American foreign policy to include preventive war, but not associate it with the title "Bush Doctrine". What's scary about her answer is that even after Gibson explained what he meant, she apparently did not have a clue that it marked a significant shift in foreign policy to a much more aggressive, go-it-alone approach.

I've always thought that it was a mistake to say that ANYBODY with her limited experence as Mayor and Governor wasn't qualified. It's possible that a 44-year-old teacher in the Wasilla high school would make a great Pres/VP =-IF and ONLY if -- she demonstrated that she'd been reading and thinking IN DEPTH about the issues confronting the country (economic, foreign policy, etc.) and had formulated a philosphy of governance.

Palin doesn't seemed to have read a history book since high school, nor a newspaper article about anything happening outside of Alaska. Bush wasn't intellectually curious, but he probably had to keep up on world and national affairs just to hold his own in dinner-table conversations in the circles in which he traveled.

Palin seems to have the same lack of intellectual curiosity, but her social circle didn't even offer the same incentives to read and keep up. She's dangerously naive, and has all the arrogance of ignorance.

To her, war can be entered lightly because it's a technicolor movie where the Good Guys (i.e. the U.S.) always win in the end. Or perhaps, as Wonkie says, she believes in the coming End Times, and thus thinks any step that brings us nearer to Armageddon is a good thing.

The idea of either the reckless gambler McCain or the true-believer Palin with their fingers on nuclear weapons scares the bloody bejesus out of me.

KC and Cleek,

I must admit Medvedev's name escaped me as I was writing that -- but I'm not running for vice president.

BTW, when Gibson wondered whether the Iraq war is part of God's plan -- as she has stated on the pulpit of her church -- and if a war against Russia would be part of God's plan as well, she rambled and seemed incoherent.

Made me queasy.

The issue of the public's appetite for the Iraq war -- much less another war -- seemed to have subsided. But Palin's hawkishness should put it right back front and center.

"The idea of either the reckless gambler McCain or the true-believer Palin with their fingers on nuclear weapons scares the bloody bejesus out of me."

You most certainly aren't the only one.

That we could have this pair as a major party ticket -- and leading today's Gallup Tracking Poll, 48-44 -- is astonishing.

The early commenters who noted that her fans are just as ignorant as she and won't realize any of the mistakes that she made last night are right. This interview won't damage the McCain campaign at all.

This may be true for her suburb megachurch base, but it is not true for independents, moderate Republicans, libertarians, etc. She gave McCain a bounce bc the Christian Right immediately embraced her and the other groups didnt reject her out of hand. They like that she is a confident speaker and willing to throw some barbs at the opponents, so they're willing to listen.

But if she keeps this sort of complete nonsense up, some of them will reject her.

Sadly, and if one uses Palin's model of foreign policy expertise because "you can see Russia from Alaska", I'm obviously qualified as an expert in medicine because I live next to a hospital.

I must admit Medvedev's name escaped me as I was writing that -- but I'm not running for vice president.

i never remember his name either. but... no presidential aspirations here, either.

Well, that's better.

Well, that's better.

"Well, that's better."

Gawd, I almost hope so (nb link is to a planned interview of Palin by Hannity). If they keep her off of any serious news shows, that will only highlight the problem. Worst case for the Dems is that she takes more real interviews, learns the ropes, and is good enough by late October to not be embarrassing. Of course, best case for the Dems is to have her keep cratering on national TV, so maybe this is just McCain playing it safe.
Question is, is playing it safe enough to put McCain across the finish line at this point?

Btw, those who have bet that Palin would be out by Sept.12th should pay their debts (and no "I meant 2012" excuses) ;-)

Btw, those who have bet that Palin would be out by Sept.12th should pay their debts (and no "I meant 2012" excuses) ;-)

You're right! :-(

What were the stakes, beyond (of course) a meal of vegan crow?

"What were the stakes, beyond (of course) a meal of vegan crow?"

Actual crow.

;-)

Btw, is crow indeed inedible? I haven't tried yet.
I think once Palin got over the first 2-3 days, there was no real probability of her being dropped again from the ticket (except if the Son of Cain had suddenly bought the farm or some literal bodies had been found in Palin's closet. I think not even a Lesbian affair documented on youporn would have been sufficient). Stay the course or the results will be even worse.

Btw, is crow indeed inedible? I haven't tried yet.

First catch your crow. (I substitute tofu.)

Apparently (cite): "properly prepared, the members of the Corvid family are as tasty as most other game birds and even tastier than some".

I fear the crows around here are as infested with parasites as are the pigeons (and the rabbits). There is actually an official warning against consumption of the latter two species if bagged/poached in-town. Although the foxes around here have no rabies, the worms they do have exclude them from the menu. No easy life for the subsistence hunter in the big cities ;-)

read the full transcript of the interview; makes a lot of sense

I agree with the following comments:
"But as a selection for Vice President of the United States, she is a complete joke."

"It's a genius pick if you assume that the US is composed of drooling idiots."

"Caribou Barbie is simply (pardon the vulgarity) - George W. Bush with a vagina.
Self-absorbed, uncurious and intellectually and morally bankrupt."

Until Sarah Palin's interview, I had never seen anyone, outside of a locked psychiatric ward (and, no, I wasn't there as a patient), string so many words together in response to a specific question, and say absolutely nothing. Many of her answers were nonsensical, but her ability to dance around a simple "yes or no" question is enviable.

For me one of her more bizarre responses was in response to the question about abortion and Roe v. Wade. She said (paraphrasing and shortening) that she was against abortion because we should have a culture of life and that she wanted to promote birth, adoption and "other alternatives." Why didn't Gibson ask her "What other alternatives??"

She is "a complete joke," and I would be laughing right now if this weren't so scary.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad