Posted on 09/13/2008 7:42:52 AM PDT by ajwharton
My take (and I didn't see the bits that aired on 20/20 or Nightline last night, although I read the transcript) was that she survived. That's all she had to do. Politically, everyone was grading her on a pass/fail, and she passed. No gaffes, not that much to fuel damaging follow-on conversation. She's likable even when she's at her least authoritative. Most people, I believe, are rooting for her, and she was helped in the post-game by the incredible scorn directed at her by Charlie Gibson. But this was a merely adequate performance. The foreign-policy session was a white-knuckle affair. She barely got through it and showed no knowledge more than an inch deep. What she did demonstrate was amazing self-possession. She somehow bluffed her way through the Bush doctrine question. Gibson apparently didn't want to go into full "gotcha" territory by asking flat-out if she knew what it is. And then he muddled things further with his dubious definition of it, so she was never truly nailed and there was enough ambiguity there for conservatives to defend her. 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. Palin seemed weak on economic and budgetary policy too, talking in the vaguest generalities. She was much better, and positively good, on the social issues—which are dear to her and she's thought about—and anything having to do with her personally or with her record in Alaska. She was magnificent on the Iraq-prayer question. This tends to suggest she'll be as strong on the national issues, once she's truly conversant with them. I hope she got up from the foreign policy session and said to her aides, "Dammit. That wasn't good enough and I'm not letting it happen again. I'm not going to allow myself to be so under-prepared for another high-profile interview again." Of course, she has a tremendous amount of material to master in a short period of time. What she has to do is the equivalent of Charlie Gibson or any of the rest of us having to answer questions about pipeline policy in Alaska on a moment's notice. I understand how we all want to be protective of her—I feel the same impulse—but let's not be patronizing. I believe the truly pro-Palin position is to think she can, should, and will do better than this.
I really don’t care about “how she did” under the punk Gibson’s loaded and hostile, pop quiz inquisition. I care less about the continuing media judgment of her performance. I do care a BIT more about her BASIC knowledge of foreign affairs.
I am much more concerned with her basic character (exemplary) and her fundamental life outlook (conservative). These are supremely more important as an indication of how she will handle diplomatic issues and relations with other countries, as opposed to defining what the media-created “Bush-doctrine” is, or the names of the Georgian diplomatic corps.
I find that Bush Doctrine issues a trick thing.......there are several fundamental beliefs that Bush has stated, I would want a clear definition of what he meant before answering.......as many pundits have pointed out there is controversy surrounding the definition and a lot of them think Gibson got it wrong himself.
Sorry, still learning. Of course, this is the second time that I have been told that, so at some point real soon I expect this to seep through my thick skull.
speak for yourself...........I like Sarah’s prolife position, not because of a moral compass she has, but that she is LIVING it out in real life. I know she really believes what she says. I trust her more when she states her other positions.
I don’t know enough about her position on immigration. That is my only concern. I trust her on everything she has stated about her positions and they match mine.
I disagree. Not everyone knows everything about everything. She and McCain complement each other perfectly, he knows Washington DC (gag me) and will be very good at foreign policy. She knows how to govern, how to budget, how to go after corruption. A perfect team. Also, she’s a quick study I’m sure. They’ve probably been bringing her up to date on foreign policy issues. Good grief, she’s only had a short period of time and look at all the other Governor’s who’ve become President. No, they don’t have alot of foreign policy experience.
My boss is a people person (wants to talk all the time), I’m a paper person (I want to get things done). We make a great team because we complement one another. We each do pretty well in the other’s area but have come to rely on our strengths. I feel the same with a McCain/Palin ticket. Gibson went after her on foreign policy because he knows that would be her weak point. She is strong and capable and will learn. I do not believe she didn’t make a strong showing. The only problem would be if he died suddenly after getting elected. And again, she’s a smart cookie, she would rely on advisors until she was totally up to speed. Oh, and that’s another thing about women. According to studies, they tend to rule by listening to others, men tend to rule by doing what they think is right. Sorry guys, you’re not always right, it pays to listen to others.
All in all, a perfect team. Young vs. Old. Female vs. Male. DC savvy vs. unjaded. The complement to each other is perfect. And good grief, maybe she can convince him to take on some conservative ideals.
If an interviewer had asked Harry Truman, in September of 1944, “Senator Truman, what are your views on the Manhattan Project and how would you use the new weapon that it’s rumored to be creating if you have to step in for President Roosevelt”, he would have had no clue what the reporter was talking about. There are always issues, important issues, that any candidate does not have complete grasp of beforehand.
“OK, now let’s have Charlie grill Obama the say way he did Palin.”
We are:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2081560/posts
And similar points are made there about how harsher treatment by the press is to Palin’s advantage and Obama’s disadvantage.
He already did. Here is a comparison of questions.
I guess this is possible, in the sense of linking the description with the actual policy. But how many times have any of us read the words "Bush Doctrine" in print? I read voraciously on topics of national security and politics, and I suspect it's been three or four years since I've seen that. It is not part of the historical consciousness of the country the way the Monroe and Truman doctrines are, and quite likely it never will be.
She of course knows the essence of the policy full well. If someone asked me what the Bush Doctrine was, I'd say "Smashing terrorists wherever we can find them," which is basically what Sarah said. But I guess that would not be nuanced enough for the Beltway chin-tuggers who want their candidates to engage in mental masturbation about the seven different competing versions of the doctrine.
It is not realistic to expect her, or any Governor, to have the same grasp of foreign policy minutiae as a Washington insider, just as it is not realistic to expect a lifelong Washington legislator to have any real grasp of the executive talents necessary to live within a budget and get stuff accomplished domestically.
John McCain did not want or need someone who was a foreign-policy wonk. He can hire all of those he needs. He needed someone with folksy common sense, demonstrated executive accomplishments, and a taste for rooting out corruption. Sarah has all that in spades.
We can be confident that she has enough native intelligence, and more than sufficient drive and horse sense, to learn everything necessary for stepping into the Presidency within a few months after taking office. I agree with those who say this ambush has probably caused her to redouble her efforts to catch up on the foreign policy front, and have no doubt that this will continue all through her Vice-Presidency.
So-- by all means, we can hope and expect that Sarah will sharpen up a little on this topic, but we should certainly not feel discouraged or embarrassed. This race is not in the bag but it is clearly breaking our way, and the heavy artillery like Bill Ayers, the Annenberg Challenge, and Rev. Wright has not yet been deployed.
-ccm
It is dangerous to write a column without acessing all the interview that was edited out by ABC. If the whole interview is read (see Mark Levin’s website), Palin sounds even more reasonable, intelligent, and foreign policy literate.
Here is an excellent comparison between the questions asks by Gibson to Obama and Palin.
“It does not matter if Sarah Palin is unsure about the Bush Doctrine-so is most of America-that is not the dimension which bonds her to the people. They want to know that her heart is right and that her mind is clear. They know that no one can foresee the challenges the country will face. They are not putting a fact checker one heartbeat away from the presidency. They are putting a human being with a soul in office. They want someone whose character they can trust, because they know that it is character alone that counts when the phone rings at 3 a.m.”
You have a way with words, sir.
I don’t know that there is in fact a “Bush Doctrine”. Can anyone point to an official document, or a complete recorded statement of the Bush doctrine that the Bush administration would approve of?
If not, then it is open to interpretation, and it would be wise not to give a direct answer to something that is undefined or has different meanings to different observers.
More telling than you may think:
Check out this thread:
“...a lot of them think Gibson got it wrong himself.”
Including Charles Krauthammer who coined the term.
Still, it is MUCH more about character and the fundamental framework through which she views the work.
“Correct” answers to pre-prepared, parsing media interrogatories, and judging her “performance” through the self-important pundit filter are parlor trivia at best.
Rich Lowry's note is a valuable caution, but I wouldn't go so far as to say this. There are many aspects to the amorphous "Bush Doctrine" besides preemption, including treating terrorist sponsor states as terrorists, so I don't think we can conclude automatically that she didn't know anything about it.
work=world
Sarah already told them she wasn’t looking for their “good opinon”..... ;^)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.