Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
I only saw the 2 excerpts and read the accounts by AP, NYT, Washington Post, and the Boston Globe. They say Gibson seems to have "got" her on the Bush preemption doctrine although his alleged expressions of exasperation could be reminiscent of Gore's sighs of exasperation in his debate with Bush.In one of the excerpts, Gibson asks her to look the American people in the eye and say if she is ready to lead. She responded forthrightly and confidently, but ABC's excerpt did not show her looking the viewer in the eye.She looks like a winner from these accounts. Of course the media emphasized that she was prepped for the interview by campaign handlers (are other candidates prepped for interviews?) and that Gibson was kind of soft. Overall, though, the media seemed unsure of how to play this. They are not angry; they are afraid.Washington Post speculated that McCain and Palin may continue to campaign together. Obama people should be very afraid of this.
Now that we've had the Gibson interview, I'm surprised someone hasn't used the line from Babe! "That'll do pig."
I'd say that the Gibson Doctrine isn't but one sentence long.
Whew -- that was a relief. I was afraid she might really put her foot in it on foreign policy and reveal herself as unprepared by saying something outlandishly stupid like, "Jerusalem must remain the undivided capital of Israel."
My only disappointment in the parts that I've seen was that she appeared to be unclear on the Bush Doctrine. That was an area that she should have anticipated, and prepared for.On the other hand, Charlie Gibson was not unclear on the Bush Doctrine, he was flat-out wrong, as have been many commenters here and across the web.The Bush Doctrine is not pre-emptive war. That concept long predates Bush, with the prime example being Isreal's 6 day war. The Bush Doctrine is preventative war: starting a war without waiting until an attack is eminent.Charlie Gibson may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but he is definitely a tool.
I generally thought she did well. Just as Obama did at Columbia for his backers. Some answers to their questions I disagreed with, but neither trigger the visceral dislike that John Kerry did in me.McCain is OK. But I am avoiding some of his talks - or should I say with a few friends because we made a bet to drink a beer or equivalent drink if he says "POW" or "Hanoi" or "back in my cell".But on Palin, I have some problems with two of her foreign policy answers.a. "We should never 2nd guess Israel".Well, that from a lady that keeps a flag of Israel in her office in Juneau.Now, over the years, we have 2nd-guessed plenty of countries on policies or what they call "vital interests". Notably the French, the Brits, the Russians. Plus Canada, Turkey, S Africa, Egypt, KSA, Nigeria, Japan, S Korea, the Philippines, Greece, Spain, and several others on occasion.Placing a "never criticize or 2nd guess Israel" may be good politics to get Republicans Jewish voters and donations - but bad to give Israel a "Special Friend Status - unlike any other country", including countries we are actually allied with with defense treaties.b. Her call to expand NATO to Russia's borders and pledge to go to war with Russia if they ever have military clashes with the Ukraines, Georgians.The folly of that is Russia is beginning to reciprocate in the US back yard. Russian weapons and military advisors are now in negotiations with Bolivia. TU-160 strategic nuclear bombers just paid a "friendship" visit to Venezuela bases, and Russia is opening it's weapons list that Chavez can pick from to include subs and sophisticated air defense systems. Russia is also returning to anti-Naval configuration Bear bomber and sub visits to Cuba.And of course telling Iran that they will also have a bigger shopping list of weapons Russia will consider selling.All these are responses to US provocations.Russia has also told the EU that it reamins the rightful protector of Russian minorities left in Easter European countries and Central Asia after the recent breakup of the Soviet Union - specifically Latvia (28% ethnic Russian), Ukraine (34% ethnic Russian), and Kazahkstan (28% ethnic Russian). With a right to intervene to ensure their Russian minority's safety.Do we really want to go down that road just so we give full military backing to "freedom-lovers" of the former Russian and Soviet Empires??
Misc 'Odd' Thoughts:1) CG was not wearing a suit. A blazer is usually a sign of 'informality'. And I don't recall a single interview that he has conducted with the other candidates - the men - when he was not wearing a suit (if they were dressed 'formally'). It is just a basic sign of respect.2) SP spoke without saying 'um/ 'ah/ etc. Nice (wish I could do the same).3) The presentation of the interview by ABC is not consistent. Every ABC program and ABC transcript that I have read has some 'variation'. And the editing does not appear to be in SP favor.4) GMA used a 'Fact Check' segment after the interview was shown. I can not recall them ever doing that to the other candidates - especially right-on-the-heels of the interview, and using a 'False stamp'. Also, I had the vague sense that the ABC facts were misleading ('past VP candidates meeting Foreign Leaders', Truman?). 5) That's enough for now.
The Drudge pic looks like she's interviewing for secretary.
Enough with the Bush Doctrine meme! Cedarford, should this country then abandon all of those who support us and seek freedom? Also, you state that Russian neo-imperialism and arms deployments are a response to US provocations. Which provocations exactly?And good morning to all.
You'll be provocative, America, with Super Lustrous kissably-conditioned freedoms! Now with mega-moisturizing liberty-enhancing policies in Paparazzi Pink or Cherries in the Snow. Even Toast of New York. (Nude Velvet democracy available 1/20/09....yum.) It's as essential as the little black stealth bomber. With a fabulous, fashionably elected democracy, you are sure to find softer, smoother, sexier united states. Stop waiting. Start living. Stay rich and true.
I watched BBC news last night and it was interesting from their perspective. They basically gave her a glowing review and they were particularly impressed by her "steelness" in her answers and how she handled not knowing the bush doctrine.The british like women of steel; i.e. Margaret Thatcher.
MarkW said... Whew -- that was a relief. I was afraid she might really put her foot in it on foreign policy and reveal herself as unprepared by saying something outlandishly stupid like, "Jerusalem must remain the undivided capital of Israel."Do you have a problem with that? Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel. The only reason Jerusalem is not of Israel is the Eurotrashweenies caved in to the Arabs and their oil. They would not support the new state if that happened. If Palin would have said that she would have wrapped up a good deal of the Jewish vote, especially the expats living in Israel.
The british like women of steel; i.e. Margaret Thatcher.And now we've got our own Pig Iron Lady.
Palin will be just fine. Look, Obama, Clinotn, McCain, and Biden all stick to scripts. Why is she the only one criticized for it?The Bush doctrine is irrelevant. It is over in January. Who cares?She has more experience than Clinton and Obama put together in public service and in life. She has worked hard, earned her achievements, while raising a family. Something the opposition frowns upon.She has executive experience. Something the opposition frowns upon.Her husband is a blue collar worker. The opposition prefers policy wonks for political mates.She represents every American working family. The opposition really hates that. It is they, and only they, who are allowed to be symbolic.Now, look at Obama. All he has is a family. He has no experience, no qualifications, and no major accomplishments.Look at Biden. All he has is a big mouth. He keeps putting both feet in it.What did Clinton bring to the table? Oh, yeah, Bill.The Clinton Doctrine was that government should look like America. Well, most of America works hard, plays by the rules, and succeeds on their own merits. She is the epitome of that doctrine and that is what pisses the opposition off. McCain stole their thunder and is using it against them.
"Bush Doctrine" is a loaded phrase. Who on earth would know what "Bush Doctrine" means to Gibson? She should have said, "You'll have to define what you mean by that." But that may have been the sort of thing those who prepped her cautioned her against doing.As for Gibson, the over-the-glasses down-his-nose condecension was palpable. About makes it unwatchable. Total disrespect.
Did anyone catch the interview on Nightline? They re-edited it, and Sarah Palin comes across much better. A lot more head on shots instead of over the shoulder shots. It seemed clear in the Nightline interview that Sarah had an idea of what the Bush Doctrine was, but wasn't sure what Charlie was specifically asking about. I don't think anyone was sure. I bet if Charlie had asked Bush himself this same question, bush would respond, "What? I have a doctrine named after me now?" The same people who heap hatred upon Bush now seem to be eager to equate his policies with other well known doctrines - like Monroe Doctrine - which usually doesn't happen until history deems those policies worthy of codification. That usually happens AFTER the president is long gone.
I think that all high-stakes media interviews should be granted on the proviso that the subject records the conversation on camcorder and reserves the right to release the original on youtube in the event of material distortion by the network in the editing room.
One note of concern that I'll sound: I respectfully disagree with her answer on NATO. For my part, I think the United States should leave NATO; after that, I don't care who they add, but if we're in, membership ought to be closed.
Hews headline following the interview:"Democrats Recoil at Notion of Government 'by the People', Prefer Government by Self-Anointed Ruling Class"
Zeb, you're on the money. Gibson asked if she agreed with the Bush Doctrine. Palin responded "In what respect." This allowed Gibson to ask her to define it: "What do you interpret it to be?"Personally, I'm unsure how much play the phrase "Bush Doctrine" actually gets. I don't hear people using it, even in arguments about Bush. It seems more like media shorthand than common currency. Gibson might as well asked: "Do you speak our lingo?" ("You're not from here, are you")Unlike, say, the "Monroe Doctrine" I don't think the "Bush Docrine" is going to have mean much beyond the moment.* * *Was the interview only about foreign policy or is there a domestic policy portion to come out later? I'd like to see how Palin frames the bride to nowhere issue (where I think she has some explaining to do). I'd also like to hear her talk about religion and public policy (where I think she has a good record).
The Bush Doctrine question was pure GOTCHA. It was a pathetic attempt to elicit from Palin a thorough knowledge of whatever the Bush Doctrine is. The next question/talking point would then have been excoriating her and McCain for "More of the same!"That was one patronizing, condescending, staged insulting interview that flys in the face of what most of us believe "IN GOD WE TRUST!"
I didn't know what exactly the Bush Doctrine was either, and I am a total political news junkie.And besides, I thought what Gibson described as the Bush Doctrine was actually the Blair Doctrine.
The Bush Doctrine is not pre-emptive war. That concept long predates Bush, with the prime example being Isreal's 6 day war. The Bush Doctrine is preventative war: starting a war without waiting until an attack is eminent.Exactly right. Pre-emptive war was actually the doctrine under the Roman Empire used by the Roman state to justify their expansion from about 200 BC to 44 BC.Saying that pre-emptive war is the Bush doctrine strikes me as historically moronic. But, Palin was smart to try and answer Gibson's question anyway.I always thought the Bush doctrine was if you harbor a terrorist you are a terrorist. Or installing democracy will lead to peace because democracies don't attack each other. Those are more novel views worthy of being called the Bush Doctrine.
One note of concern that I'll sound: I respectfully disagree with her answer on NATO. For my part, I think the United States should leave NATO; after that, I don't care who they add, but if we're in, membership ought to be closed.I agree with you, but the motion to admit Georgia and Ukraine to NATO passed the Senate unanimously, so Palin's position is no different that McCain, Biden or Obama. Her position is just the bipartisan conventional wisdom, though few regognize it as such.
The Bush Doctrine question was pure GOTCHA. It was a pathetic attempt to elicit from Palin a thorough knowledge of whatever the Bush Doctrine is.This is really the truth. The only good way to answer the question was the way Palin did, which was to ask Gibson what he meant by the question. If she answered it with clarification, she would have been skewered for answering it wrong, because there are so many answers to what the bush doctrine is.Palin really is first rate. Her mind is so rapid that she can process these false questions questions. That is the kind of leader we need in the White House.
Quayle,But neither you or I are running for vice-president of the United States. Perhaps we should hold our leaders to a higher standard
Quayle,But neither you or I are running for vice-president of the United States. Perhaps we should hold our leaders to a higher standardWhat does that mean exactly? That Palin should have gone into an 8 point power presentation about how the "Bush Doctrine" has been applied to different meanings and situations?
Henry said... "Personally, I'm unsure how much play the phrase 'Bush Doctrine' actually gets. I don't hear people using it, even in arguments about Bush. It seems more like media shorthand than common currency."Bingo. Google it and see how many hits you get. Check Lexis and see how many articles it finds.
The final fact about the interview is that Palin did an outstanding job and that those on the fence will feel comfortable with her defending this nation. If the major media is quibbling over her statement about the Bush Doctrine that is a good sign. Moreover, the attempt by Gibson to catch her in a trap with his misstatement from the AP about holy war only further mobilizes the Republican base.
She could've said, "on 9/11/08 the Bush doctrine means 7 straight years of no more terrorist attacks on US soil, and yes, I support it."
As I recall, "Bush Doctrine" was a term that the press invented, not the Bush Administration, so its kind of understandable that she wasn't familiar with exactly what they meant by it. I don't think its a big deal. However, in the interest of fairness, I do think she was unclear with it and asked a few questions to buy time on the pop quiz. Having said that, the entire interview seemed like a huge 'gotcha' minefield, not a legitimate interview. I found myself wanting to punch that smug bastard Charlie in the face after it.
Well, if Palin really wanted to know what the Bush Doctrine is, she could just ask President Bush himself, right?Except he probably doesn't know what it is, either:Mr. Bush's overt use of diplomatic pressure against Syria and Iran, two countries that Mr. Bush has identified as sponsors of terrorism, is in stark contrast to the use of preemptive force against Iraq.Yet at one point in his interview, Mr. Bush acknowledged that he had yet to fully form the ''Bush doctrine,'' or to think through how the American victory in Iraq would affect his vow to deal with weapons of mass destruction on a global basis.
Oops, I forgot my hat tip to Media Blog which is also a very good read on the subject.
Do you have a problem with that? Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel. Whether Jerusalem should or shouldn't be the capital is really not the point. Obama said that Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital. Not "be recognized as", not "become", but "remain". As if it already enjoyed that recognition (which it does not). A clear case of demonstrated foreign policy ignorance on a matter of importance.
That wasn't my understanding of the undivided Jerusalem gaffe at all, markw. I like Joel Mowbray's take on it.
I can’t stand her. She can suck it!A slam and a compliment from that 3-armed 48EEE tit, Althouse's favorite advertiser.Oops, she's gone now. Pam, where are you?
MarkW,I must have missed Obama saying that. He never ususally says anything worth remembering.
Tony said... Quayle,But neither you or I are running for vice-president of the United States. Perhaps we should hold our leaders to a higher standard8:41 AMSure, and let's have coronations after they get elected.
As I recall, "Bush Doctrine" was a term that the press invented, not the Bush Administration, so its kind of understandable that she wasn't familiar with exactly what they meant by it.As that Media Blog link I posted suggests, the White House was using the term "Bush Doctrine" starting not long after 9/11/01. However I do think it is clear that the press and Bush's political enemies took the term and expand it considerably beyond its original intent. It also seems that perhaps the Bush administration itself tired of the term, perhaps for that very reason. I don't think its a big deal. However, in the interest of fairness, I do think she was unclear with it and asked a few questions to buy time on the pop quiz.Yes. That's exactly what I would do if I were faced with a gotcha I couldn't slam dunk.The problem with pop quizzes is that they don't represent real life. I have a doctorate in my field, and I still rely on reference materials for basic concepts to make sure I get them right. Useful intelligence is not so much knowing all the facts but knowing where to get them.
I can’t stand her. She can suck it!Well, I'd pay money to watch a video of that...but what woman would be dumb enough to let her mate videotape that, then lose the videotape?Oh, yeah....
Sloanasaurus,Your response is quite over the top. Of course she didn’t need to give a "power point presentation." But, there is a middle ground and that would be answering the question in a way that shows she has basic understanding of a non-obscure foreign policy concept. Do you think Biden would have given a similar response? How about McCain? I take no solace in the fact that some internet posters are unfamiliar with the the nuances of foreign policy. I want my leaders to have a much deeper understanding of foreign affairs than myslef and the rest of the Althouse fans.
A Reuters analysis piece: "Is Palin foe of big oil or a new Cheney?"To which I respond:Oh, please don't tease me like that. It hurts so good.
Cedarford said: b. Her call to expand NATO to Russia's borders and pledge to go to war with Russia if they ever have military clashes with the Ukraines, Georgians. --------------This is either gross carelessness on your part, or rank intellectual dishonesty.Palin didn't "pledge" to do anything of the kind. She said "perhaps" we would have to go to war.
Note to headline writers: if you're going to drop the article once in a parallel construction, drop all of them. So that headline should be either"Is Palin a foe of big oil or a new Cheney?"or "Is Palin foe of big oil or new Cheney?"or even better"Palin: foe of big oil or new Cheney?"But I'll forgive you this time because it you still... touched me.
If Cedarford has a problem with including Ukraine and Georgia in NATO---and the mutual defense implications that brings---then he's got problems with Biden as well, who has strongly advocated doing so.
The liberals & Obama should stop running against Palin and start concentrating on McCain.SP's just a VP.
Battle for Congress Suddenly Looks CompetitiveIf you thought lefties were panicked before, at least they could comfort themselves that they were sure to keep both houses. They're not gonna like this trend.
"The liberals & Obama should stop running against Palin and start concentrating on McCain.SP's just a VP"So is Dick Cheney. VPs can have real and meaningful influence.
They can, yes. But despite my teasing above I really would prefer that VPs have a more subordinate and reduced role than Cheney has.
I watched the interview last night and again this morning on GMA. Two things stuck out. First, Gibson's tone and body language were extremely hostile. Second, he asked questions that have never been asked of Obama. Palin did fine, but Gibson needs to work on concealing his hostility.As for the Bush doctrine question, when she asked him what he meant he was forced to fall back on a very old dodge and ask her what she meant by the phrase. To me that meant he realized that too many different concepts had been titled the Bush Doctrine for the question to have any real meaning.
I must have missed Obama saying that. He never ususally says anything worth remembering.I guess that does work to his advantage sometimes, but here you go:Obama’s Comments on Israel Stir Criticism in U.S.
Actually, if you think about it, Biden is much more of a Cheney-style VP pick. I mean, given that McCain is the foreign-policy star of his ticket there's really no way the Cheney model would work. But both GWB and Obama lacked federal foreign policy experience when they campaigned for president, and the needed someone to bolster that credential for the ticket.
Charlie Rose, just one more MSM hack toeing the Democratic Party line.Pravda means "Truth".
Maguro says:“One note of concern that I'll sound: I respectfully disagree with her answer on NATO. For my part, I think the United States should leave NATO; after that, I don't care who they add, but if we're in, membership ought to be closed.”I agree with you, but the motion to admit Georgia and Ukraine to NATO passed the Senate unanimously, so Palin's position is no different that McCain, Biden or Obama.Her position is just the bipartisan conventional wisdom, though few regognize it as such.It's not just the conventional wisdom in this country, but Europe as well. Both German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy advocate NATO membership for not only Georgia but Ukraine as well. As Sarkozy put it earlier this year: “On Georgia and Ukraine, we don’t accept any veto by anyone. These two countries are destined to join NATO.” And as Merkel said, speaking just three weeks ago: “Georgia will become a member of NATO if it wants to — and it does want to.”
MCG,I agree. I think Obama allows Biden to have a much more substantial role in foreign policy (i.e. cheney) than McCain would for Palin. I think Biden plays the role of counselor to Obama, while Palin is there to learn from Mcain and to be groomed as the heir apparent.
I can't wade back into the 531 comment thread. Note the two key articles were published well before Palin's nomination.Call for Palin to be impeached over "Troopergate": Wall Street Journal, July 31, 2008http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121746477267499109.html?mod=googlenews_wsjIf you can't copy-paste the link, just google it with "palin impeachement french" and wsj.May 2000 Story about reaction of Palin's police chief to new Alaskan law mandating municipalities pay for rape kits, on local paper Frontiersman.http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txtSeptember 11 2000 USA Today story on rape kit story.http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-10-rape-exams_N.htmPalin's policy of demanding "loyalty" from subordinates, evidenced by her request for undated resignations from each one, and the three loyalty tests she administered to the town librarian, ensured that no subordinate would establish any policy that met with her disapproval.In the 2000 story, the police chief said the new policy would cost the town $14,000 a year, indicating that up to a dozen Wasilla women were being raped a year. (Alaska has the highest per capita rape rate in the country.) Impossible to believe Palin was not aware of ten women being raped a year in a town of 5000, and impossible to believe that the police chief could carry out such a policy if it did not meet with her approval.That's why the rape kit question is worth asking.
Tony sez:“The liberals & Obama should stop running against Palin and start concentrating on McCain. SP's just a VP”So is Dick Cheney. VPs can have real and meaningful influence.Constitutionally Vice Presidents have no authority. Whatever Cheney possessed was purely at the delegation (some argue unconstitutionally) by Bush.As then-Vice President John Adams put it: “My country has in its wisdom contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived; and as I can do neither good nor evil, I must be borne away by others and meet the common fate.” (“On the Vice-Presidency of the United States,” in a letter to Abigail Adams, 1793-12-19.)
Michael, you know that's not strictly true. VPs have the authority to break ties in the Senate.
Re: Cheney,Just because Cheney doesn't have the constitutional authority to commit an act, doesn't mean he lacks the political influence to get Bush on board with his ideas. To my fellow lawyers: VPs are like judicial law clerks. Their unofficial influence far outweighs their official authority.
FLS, I find you a reasonable chap, so you might be interested in the slight defense on the rape kit issue offered by Jim Geraghty. I know it won't completely satisfy but it does sound like this is a problem in many jurisdictions.
Former Law--Those are all good questions.Even if they are answered in Sen. Obama's favor, it won't help, because:a) they won't get her kicked off the ticket; b) discussion of Palin is gobbling up bandwidth that he needs to get his message through; and c) Lots of folks (especially Moms) are actually in favor of keeping weird stuff away from children which is why we have local, not federal, control of libraries and as for rape....I'm betting Palin is against it.Much of Sen. Obama's support came from kind-hearted well-intentioned people who felt they could exorcise American racism by electing a charming African-American man president, even though his personal background makes him impossible to identify with. (Did the guy ever have a baseball mitt?)Palin, on the other hand, she just screams minivan, sippie cups, and Tyson dino shaped-chicken microwaved dinners. I bet she also yells at her kids on Sunday morning to get them out of bed to go to Sunday School. Plus, cheap gasoline. Husband's a looker, and from this guy's point of view, he seems like a cool guy--dangerous dirty jobs. I bet he knows how to shave pigs, grind stumps, and retread truck tires and then slam back a case of Bud.Like it or not, unlike us, most folks pay zero attention to politics, and it will be game over when she hollers, "Hey, America, I understand you and you needs. Now get out of bed and get dressed and come downstairs!"
I thought "Bush Doctrine" was redneck for gynecology
George,You have hit the nail on the head and your honesty is refreshing. Who cares whether a candidate has a solid intellectual grasp of the issues? Who cares whether he graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law. You want to know if he "had a baseball glove." Most Americans can not "identify" with the smartest guy in the room. They want the candidate that eats "dino shaped" chicken nuggets. Obama is an African-American intellectual. He is the "other" Palin looks like your wife (if you're lucky) and comes of as someone who probably struggled in school (five colleges in six years). She is jut like the lady down the street and Americans can identify with that.
FLS, I'm afraid you're not as reasonable a chap as I thought.In the 2000 story, the police chief said the new policy would cost the town $14,000 a year, indicating that up to a dozen Wasilla women were being raped a year.No. He said they would cost the town "approximately 5000 to 14000 a year." Is it so hard to quote properly?I'll give you credit for using the $1200 figure to determine the "dozen rapes a year" number you came up with. You could have used the lower estimate of the rape kit cost, $300, and come up with 46 rapes a year.Still, both numbers are off, which makes me wonder how the heck the police chief got his numbers. According to these statistics, there were only 1 or 2 rapes per year reported between 2000-2002. (Yes, rape is underreported, but for a rape kit discussion it is the reported numbers that matter.)Who knows, maybe there was a rape spree in Wasilla in 1999 or something. I doubt there were, 12, though. So I don't know where the police chief could have come up with the $14000 figure. $300-$2400 is more like it.That's not a defense of the practice. But it does point out how, frankly, partisan interpretation of the news leads to distortion of the facts.
How many times have I told you Congressmen--and ladies!--to eat your pork at the table not all around the house I am so sick and tired of cleaning up your messes do you think President McCain and I are made of money it doesn't grow on trees, you know, you just wait until he gets home from his business trip to Hanoi...don't you give me that lip....you are so in time-out, Congress...you stay right there in session until I tell you you can move....don't you dare...you come back here this instant!!!
Palin could walk on water and the usual suspects would jump up and down, wag their fingers, and scream, "See! She Can't Swim!" The grown-ups in the room recognize this and discount the screamers.
Call for Palin to be impeached over "Troopergate": Wall Street Journal, July 31, 2008Did you think we wouldn't read the article? There's no call for her impeachment in there, just a Democrat speculating that she "could face impeachment, in a worst-case scenario.".
Joan says:Michael, you know that's not strictly true. VPs have the authority to break ties in the Senate.LOL! Correct, but that's why it's the exception that proves the rule.And it's precisely because the only responsibility the V.P. constitutionally has is in the legislature (preside over the Senate, if he/she wants to, which they hardly ever do) that leads some law professor types to argue that it's simply unconstitutional for the President to delegate executive responsibilities to the V.P.
I've seen only one mention here of Gibson's egregious misquoting of Palin on "God's side". Did that get hashed out in the monster thread last night? ABC had better include a clear apology for that one, or the McCain campaign should beat them over the head in ads.
Palin could walk on water and the usual suspects would jump up and down, wag their fingers, and scream, "See! She Can't Swim!"That's funny!
Just now realized I need to price my new Sarah Palin / Barack Obamavoter -- Halloween makeup kits
Michael M.,If the argument is that her lack of constitutional duties means it doesn't matter that she is unqualified, I'd respectfully disagree. Especially in this one. I don't know much about actuarial calculations, but I have heard unrefuted figures that John McCain has between a 15-30% of not making it through his first term. He has had a brutal life, and on top of it has survived recurring bouts with cancer. He is old, and seems even older.Whatever you think of her qualifications, they do matter. She really is next in line.
If Obama is elected there is a 99.99% chance that an unqualified person will be in office.
Palin could walk on water and the usual suspects would jump up and down, wag their fingers, and scream, "See! She Can't Swim!"By the same (cough) token, I don't want someone who is elected into office because people like her because she really gets under the skin of the opposition.
To Professor Althouse.Dear Madam,Whether Mrs. Palin were possessed or not of sufficient Experience & Gravity for the high Office she seeks is a Question each Elector need answer for himself. I may tell you as the Ghost of a Gentleman, dead these 260 Years & more, that she seems as insubstantial & airy as any disembody'd Spirit. She may yet prove herself tangible & solid, so I shall not dogmatise on the Point just yet.As a Ghost myself, bless'd or curs'd as I may be to have observed the World these past Centuries, you may imagine the Insults & Calumnies to which I have been witness. Nothing more stabs the Conscience, and arouses tender Feelings of Sympathy in a gallant Gentleman, than Slanders & Libels direct'd without Justice against a Member of the Fair Sex, especially if Comparisons be made with Beasts.Mr. Obama's late Jest upon Pigs in a Political Oration would at first appear to be such a Thing. The careful Observer will see, however, only a small Slander grown out of Proportion. The Intent was to paint a Picture of Mrs. Palin in the Mind of the Audience as a Sow. Such a crude Jape, unworthy of a Gentleman of Mr. Obama's Reputation, should not, in itself, arouse excessively chivalrous & gallant Sentiments in her male Admirers; 'twas but a passing Jest upon Mrs. Palin's own Words. Mr. Obama also made it with no little Indirection, as befits a Gentleman who would perhaps insult a Lady, altho' the Audience wanted no Hint to take his Meaning.Yet, Madam, there remains another View of such petty Barbs. Habitual vehement Jesting against Women renders the Conscience of both the Teller & Hearer insensible by Degrees to very real Wrongs, nay mortal Injuries, that may in the end be done. Such crude & unfeeling Sentiments seem to well up naturally in brutish Men of poor Breeding & little Sense. They reqire strong Correction, lest the noblest Impulses of the human Heart be utterly extinguish'd and Society corrupt'd.By way of Example, the following Account is from a London News-paper in my Day, shewing where ill-temper'd Designs of mix't Pigs & Women may lead:— The London Journal 22nd August 1730. We hear that at the late Assizes held at Bridgwater, an Indictment was preferred against a Sow-Gelder, for attempting to spay his Wife; but she refused to prosecute, and acknowledged her Forgiveness of him, and desired the Court would do the same: However, the Court remanded him back to Prison, and, for the sake of the good Women in general, ordered him to remain there 'till he could give 400l. Security for his good Behaviour during Life. The Occasion of this vile Attempt, was this: The Sow-Gelder being in Company with several other married Men over a Pot of Ale, they all join’d in Complaint of the Fruitfulness of their Wives, because of the Charges brought upon them thereby; and asking him, whether he could not do by their Wives as by other Animals, he said he could; and they all agreed their good Women should undergo the Operation, provided he would begin with his own: This, with a great Oath, he undertook; and going Home, by Violence gagg’d and bound his Wife, and laying her on a Table, made a transverse Incision on the side of her Belly; but after much Puzzling, and putting the poor Woman to great Torment, he found there was some Difference between the Situation of the Parts in the rational & irrational Animals, and so, sewing up the Wound, he was forced to give up the Experiment. The Woman in her first Agonies appear'd strenuously against him, but being Recovered by the Time of the Trial, was so generous as to forgive him, and plead for his Pardon, as above. I remember to have read one Instance (if I mistake not) of the Duke of Cleve’s Sow-Gelder, who actually perform’d this Operation on his Daughter, whom he suspect'd to be young with Child by an inveigling Courtier; but as he went through-stitch with his Work, so his Prince wen through-stitch with him, putting him to a cruel & exemplary Death for so inhuman an Action.* * * * * * * *This Account ravels several Strands that may be pull'd from the Life Story of Mrs. Palin. Nay, they are some of the Warp & Woof of the Stuff of a modern Civilized Society, where Children are count'd as an Expense, and being rid of them the Provenance of Physick. Our Sow-Gelder wanted only Knowledge of Modern Chiurgeury to compleat his Task, and so excuse himself from the Bother & Expense of Parenthood, continuing, as he would, Relations with his Wife.Mrs. Palin & her Family have woven a pretty Tapestry, after their Fashion, from these Threads. The Sow-Gelder and his poor Wife made a very different Picture; shewing that Selfishness and ill-regard for Women, indeed, clownish Disrespect for the very Act of Procreation, are not the especial Possession of this Age.Beggging your Pardon for the excessive Length of my Epistle, but praying that rational & sensible Persons will be reminded thus of the Difference between a Woman & a Pig, and so Men & Beasts, I am,Madam,Your humble & obt. Servant,Sir Archy
Love the walk on water line!former law student said... "Palin's policy of demanding 'loyalty' from subordinates ... ensured that no subordinate would establish any policy that met with her disapproval."Horror of horrors! A chief executive - the person actually responsible to voters for the policies and conduct of their administration - set out to ensure that policies she disapproved of weren't enacted by her officers. Scandalous! FLS, are you for real? This is the second most ignorant comment I've seen here in twenty four hours, behind Michael's admission yesterday that he has no understanding of limited government. I'm guessing that you became a former law student before you took administrative law, because you sure as hell didn't absorb Chevron.
If Obama is elected there is a 99.99% chance that an unqualified person will be in office.Well, you hear that quite often, don't you, that he is lacking "executive" experience. That silly "community organizing" doesn't count. Editing a law review doesn't count. It's not just delegating responsibility and making accountable decisions; there is something magic about the executive branch. I don't buy it.But fine, fine. For the sake of civil argument, lets just grant that. (Of course McCain also has no "executive experience".)We'll say both Obama & Palin are unqualified to be president. What then? Tu quoque doesn't get us very far. Which of the two will make wiser decisions? Which seems thoughtful and engaged with the material? And which was on television two nights ago nervously repeating canned phrases, demonstrating no real knowledge of current events?Being uninterested in foreign affairs doesn't make you a bad person, but it would make you a bad president.
On this topic, David Frum has a very funny blog post at NRO up right now. Go ahead, click through, he's a neoconservative, you'll like it.Relevant excerpts:"A president does not need to know everything. In fact, it's certainly impossible for him (or her) to know everything that he might possibly need to know. That's what the White House staff - and beyond them the whole vast apparatus of the US government - is for. Collectively, the US government knows a lot. And all of that knowledge is at the service and disposal of the president. All the president has to do is - is ask.But that's not as easy as it sounds.Somebody who knew President Bush well once remarked to me. "You'll notice he never asks questions.""Why not?" I said."Because he doesn't know what it's okay for him not to know."**Again and again through the ABC interview with Sarah Palin, Gibson asked questions to which an evasive answer would have been perfectly appropriate. But Palin never punted. She tried to bluff her way through, pretending to know what she obviously did not know.
I don't want someone who is elected into office because people like her because she really gets under the skin of the opposition.I don't think there's anyone here who considers that the main reason to like her. The fact that she's the only person on either ticket with proven ability as a government executive is a big plus, as are her relatively small-government views and the fact that she doesn't seem inclined to force her social-conservative views into law.
Well, you hear that quite often, don't you, that he is lacking "executive" experience. That silly "community organizing" doesn't count. Editing a law review doesn't count. It's not just delegating responsibility and making accountable decisions; there is something magic about the executive branch. I don't buy it.I didn't say anything about executive experience; you did. I took on the argument that an unqualified person (Sarah Palin) has a finite chance of reaching high office by accepting the premise. Which necessarily ignores the fact she does, in fact, have considerable executive experience.What I said was that Obama was unqualified, and since he's on the top of the ticket, then (assuming he's elected) an unqualified person will be in the White House---short of a heart attack or something. (He is a smoker, after all.)The rest of your post is gets to the crux of the matter. But again, let's just say for the sake of argument that there is exactly one lousy choice on each ticket. I'd rather have it at VP than at President, thanks.Kind of reminds me of the joke, "I may be stupid but you're ugly and I can study." Sarah Palin may be unqualified, but she's only VP and she'll have McCain's cabinet and foreign policy team at the ready. I like those odds.
rev @ 1:50, actually, after I wrote that, it occurred to me (duh!) that they are voting for McCain not Palin. (sheepish grin).I still type Plain have the time when I mean Palin. That annoys me.
Especially in this one. I don't know much about actuarial calculations, but I have heard unrefuted figures that John McCain has between a 15-30% of not making it through his first term.Actuarially speaking, there is a one in 12 chance a 72-year-old man won't make it to 80, according to Andy Levy on "Red Eye".But, of course, you can't apply actuarial tables to individuals. Insurance companies apply them to groups so they can cover losses and make a profit by playing the odds. By the same (cough) token, I don't want someone who is elected into office because people like her because she really gets under the skin of the opposition.Mmmm, but MadMan, aren't the ones who really get under the opposition's skin the effective ones? Like, Reagan, Clinton--Bush 41 didn't get under anybody's skin.
But McG, what experience does McCain have that Obama doesn't? If legislative experience is worthless, McCain is even worse than Obama!Kind of reminds me of the joke, "I may be stupid but you're ugly and I can study."I agree that joke is relevant.None of them has presidential experience. Who has the best ability to learn?
No. He said they would cost the town "approximately 5000 to 14000 a year." Is it so hard to quote properly?I'll give you credit for using the $1200 figure to determine the "dozen rapes a year" number you came up with. You could have used the lower estimate of the rape kit cost, $300, and come up with 46 rapes a year.I thought that was more reasonable than taking the lower number of each, which would suggest there were some 36 rapes in Wasilla a year.Getting the perpetrator to pay means waiting for the arrest and conviction. Was the town going to wait that long? What if the accused rapist got off? It sure sounds like the victim would pay in most cases.simon, I made the statement you complained of to infer Palin at least tacitly endorsed the payment policy. She's free to claim she had a hands-off policy towards the police.
Blake, on the actuarial stuff, I'm way over my head, so I don't want to be making claims that I'm in no position to back up.But it seems like insurance companies do apply actuarial tables to individuals all the time, when they set premiums. They figure out which groups an individual fits in and figure from there, no?I would think having had four instances of skin cancer would make your insurance more expensive. I'm certain they wouldn't charge John McCain the same thing they would charge a 72 year old man without his history of health problems. Obviously, I'm only talking about odds, and it does feel crass to speculate mathematically about a particular man's chance of dying soon.But I believe the risk is substantially more than the 8.5% you cite, because of his multiple cancers and his horrible war experience. At any rate, I think everyone agrees that it is a factor that increases the importance of vice-presidential competency.
From the Palin-Gibson interview:Q: Do we have the right to be making cross-boarder attacks into Pakistan, from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?A: As for our right to invade, we're going to work with these countries, building new relationships, working with existing allies, but forging new (relationships) also, in order to, Charlie, get to a point in this world where war is not going to be a first option. In fact, war has got to be -and military strike- a last option.____That's a generous transcription on my part, easier to understand than her spoken words. And still, it's just gibberish. As far as I can tell, We have to forge new relationships until we change the world so that war is no longer our first option. It's gibberish. She hasn't given it any thought, and she's simply blathering. She says this stuff with mawkish gusto; she's pretending that they're big important ideas. Like a beauty pageant contestant answering the "What do you wish for?" question.Not so dangerous here, but I think I glimpsed (during the Georgia/NATO bit) that she is capable of running her mouth on autopilot in more dangerous ways.I understand that ideological concerns (or identity politics) rules out an Obama/Biden ticket for many people. But GEEZ it would be nice to have someone in the White House who seemed interested in the work.
But McG, what experience does McCain have that Obama doesn't? If legislative experience is worthless, McCain is even worse than Obama!You keep putting words in my mouth. I did not say executive service is all that matters, nor did I say legislative experience is worthless.But guess what? McCain does have executive experience: during his time as a Naval officer. Yeah, I know that people talk about his 5 years in POW camp more but there was another 18 years in there people forget, too.I didn't say legislative experience is worthless, but Obama doesn't have any of it at the national level. He has been far too busy campaigning. He even admits as much.So please, let's cut the crap. Obama's resume is good enough for a first term Congressman, but it doesn't even remotely compare to McCain's.
"Bush Doctrine" is a loaded phrase. Who on earth would know what "Bush Doctrine" means to Gibson? She should have said, "You'll have to define what you mean by that." But that may have been the sort of thing those who prepped her cautioned her against doing.[...]Zeb Quinn 7:52 AMShe did exactly that ... and it almost worked. You can see Gibson get visibly flustered and he throws the question back to her somewhat lamely. I don't think he intended the gambit to pay of as well (for him) as it did. He clearly brought up the Bush Doctrine question simply to trap her into agreeing with it so that he could spring the follow-up about violating Pakistan's sovereign territory. When she didn't follow the script it knocked him off balance and it was mere luck that she didn't happen to know the meaning of the phrase.We have to be honest and admit that she bobbled the question. This is a liability for the McCain/Palin ticket but I don't think it's a very big liability. As I've said elsewhere, no one has been talking about the Bush Doctrine since we invaded Iraq (or at least since the WMDs failed to turn up there). Bush himself has failed to develop the doctrine along the lines he originally proposed: anyone who is not with us is against us. I think most voters will see that Palin's actual answer was a reasonable summary of what Bush has actually done whether or not she knew the term. And, if they are really savvy, they will perceive that Gibson's definition of it was not that accurate either and was clearly articulated in order to set up his Pakistan question. So, on the whole, I think this flub will be less important to voters than whether or not they agree with the actual content of Republican policy on the War on Terror. Final score, net minus to Palin but nothing she can't overcome with better answers next time.
Getting the perpetrator to pay means waiting for the arrest and conviction. Was the town going to wait that long? What if the accused rapist got off? It sure sounds like the victim would pay in most cases.FLS---I hope is clear that I entirely support the notion that local jurisdictions should pay for rape kits on behalf of victim. I'm all for exacting it from the convicted criminal later, and multiplying it as necessary to cover failed prosecutions. I'm also all for the law placed on the Illinois books in 2001 to that prevents victims from paying. It's also too bad it is not fully enforced 7 years later. That's not a dig on Illinois or Obama by the way, it's just an acknowledgement that it seems to be a widespread problem.Finally, I'm all for Palin being asked directly about why she didn't fight it. There are, however, quite a few answers that would satisfy me, even one as frank as, "We should have changed that, yes."
The appropriate bush doctrine - use wax.
Simon - This is the second most ignorant comment I've seen here in twenty four hours, behind Michael's admission yesterday that he has no understanding of limited government.In the last 24 hours, yes. I think neither FLS or Michael's obvivous, cocky ignorance approaches anti-American Freder's repealing all Laws of Thermodynamics then throwing a hissy fit in total denial when people told him he was a moron. Then grabbing a shovel and digging himself in even deeper over the course of days.Haven't seen too much of Freder lately. He's either debarked to Koz Kidz, or is writing on the English Al-Jazeera Website on how much he loves illegal combatants and their getting full rights any innocent American is entitled to.
Ah, this news article says it better than I. Obviously, they all have experience, the question is whether it is the right experience. Eighty percent say McCain, with nearly three decades in Congress, has the right experience to be president. Just 46 percent say Obama, now in his fourth year in the Senate, is experienced enough. Another 47 percent say Obama lacks the proper experience—an even worse reading than the 36 percent who had the same criticism about Palin, now in her second year as governor after serving as a small-town mayor in her state.link
Cedarford, I honestly wouldn't know - my new year's resolution this year was to cease reading and responding to Freder's comments entirely, and thusfar I've kept it.Jack said..."She did exactly that ... and it almost worked. You can see Gibson get visibly flustered and he throws the question back to her somewhat lamely."The funny thing about her response - something about the tone of her voice when she says "in what regard, Charlie" - is that we've all heard that tone a million times. It's the weary tone of a mom whose teenager has just given a dumb excuse that the teenager regards as self-evidently brilliant escape. It's the weary tone of a teacher dealing with a clueless know-it-all blowhard of a parent who's trying to lecture her about how to do her job. It was well played.
Roost,But it seems like insurance companies do apply actuarial tables to individuals all the time, when they set premiums. They figure out which groups an individual fits in and figure from there, no?Right, but at no time are you considered an individual. :-) At some point, we're just arguing semantics, but from the company's standpoint, it's the category you're in that matters, and how many people are in it with you. Individuality doesn't factor into it.I would think having had four instances of skin cancer would make your insurance more expensive. I'm certain they wouldn't charge John McCain the same thing they would charge a 72 year old man without his history of health problems.If skin cancer is the only one, then it's not necessarily a big deal. I'm trying to think of anyone I know in their late '60s or '70s who hasn't had some sort of skin cancer. None of them serious.Obviously, I'm only talking about odds, and it does feel crass to speculate mathematically about a particular man's chance of dying soon.Indeed. Ghoulish, even.But I believe the risk is substantially more than the 8.5% you cite, because of his multiple cancers and his horrible war experience.It depends on what you include in that 8.5%. These guys say he's got 8.4 years left, while Obama has only 22. But I don't know if they still collect information on blacks, who commonly have high-blood pressure/heart disease.But, as I said, ghoulish.At any rate, I think everyone agrees that it is a factor that increases the importance of vice-presidential competency. I don't think it increases it by much, frankly. We're not talking eight years, we're talking four. And VP competency matters for the fraction of that we assume he's not going to live. I think it was Bill Clinton who said no one was every really prepared for the job. Ford had the veep position for, what, nine months (!?) before he took over for Nixon. The Republic survived, and the voters kicked him out at the first opportunity. The Republic would survive Palin--or Biden--as well.
That silly "community organizing" doesn't count. Editing a law review doesn't count. It's not just delegating responsibility and making accountable decisions; there is something magic about the executive branch.Could you explain what the "accountability" involved in community organizing is? It can't be that you lose your job if you fail to resolve the community's problems, because, well... Obama did. They all do, pretty much.
Rev, that's not really an objection to my argument unless you want to claim that Obama has no experience making accountable decisions.Also, is demonstrable failure a necessary condition of accountability? It seems like (less than) half of a governors' term doesn't have that, either. But as many people have said from both parties, being POTUS is not like anything else. What I want in there is competent, serious person who has proven their ability to learn quickly, reasons through problems, controls their ego, and understands their responsibility to the American public.I want intelligence and awe for the office.Palin's candidacy reminds me of what bothers me about Al Franken.Why not me?
More conservative commentary:(Rich Lowry, NRO)The fact still remains that she very likely didn’t know any of the possible definitions of the Bush doctrine. I can’t imagine if Obama had picked Gov. Tim Kaine and he had had a similar moment, conservatives would have rushed to say that the Bush doctrine is just too amorphous and complicated for him to know anything about it.**And a thought experiment:All of which is a reminder of what a crassly political choice this was. The President of the United States has an enormous job. And nobody expects anyone, no matter how experienced, to somehow do it single-handedly. You’re helped by a team. Recent Presidents have used the Vice Presidency as an opportunity to add a key player to the team... Biden is the kind of guy who, had he not gotten the nod for VP, would have been in the mix to run the State Department. If McCain had gone with Joe Lieberman, I wonder which agency Palin would have been a serious choice for.(Matt Yglesias)Country first, eh McCain?
Post a Comment