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 issueswhich are dear to her and she's thought aboutand 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 herI feel the same impulsebut let's not be patronizing. I believe the truly pro-Palin position is to think she can, should, and will do better than this.
Lowry and the rest of his ilk inside the Beltway are policy wonks who smugly like to trot out their knowledge of the details and the nuances of foreign affairs. It really doesn't matter a tinker's damn. A President will have access to that information at his/her fingertips. The President is the CEO who must then make the decisions after reviewing the information. HST was a complete neophyte when it came to foreign affairs [he was a history buff] and assumed the Presidency without much preparation. He did a remarkable job in fashioning our foreign policy and national security infrastructure that eventually led to the fall of the Soviet Union and communism. Thank God Henry Wallace was not kept by FDR as his VP.
There is no actual “Bush Doctrine.” Its merely a journalistic term to describe a range of Bush’s policies. No “Bush Doctrine” has ever been enacted into law.
“Sarah already told them she wasnt looking for their good opinon
####
To perhaps the biggest responsorial cheers she received that night, and later in the week. Telling, wouldn’t you say, about what much of the American public has concluded about the media elite.
Good observation.
That said...as the interview went on she caught on quick to the condescending tone trick and came out strong in the end. Of course the last part of the interview was not as widely looked at because they didn't put out the video until yesterday...
Here it is..
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video_log/2008/09/sarah_palins_2020_interview.html
“The fact still remains that she very likely didn’t know any of the possible definitions of the Bush doctrine.”
You’re making yourself look foolish there, Rich. Palin replied to that question with: “In what respect”, or something close to that. There is no precise, limited and widely understood definition of what the, or a “Bush Doctrine” is. And your acting as if there is exposes your ignorance, and puts you at odds with some very knowledgeable commentators who’ve also addressed this portion of the interview.
“Bush Doctrine” is actually a term that was used often the first year or two after 9/11, but has declined in usage significantly since.
And Lowry cannot at all say she very likely didn’t know any of the definitions for “Bush Doctrine.” Sounds like Rich wishes to denigrate Governor Palin for some reason.
I think she did beter than this writer perceived. Sure, she is not a foreign policy wonk like say, Presb Bush the elder, but she has the mental aptitude for it. She will likely ask hard questions of her advisors, should she be fortunate enough to become VP.
Before I read the Krauthammer piece, my understanding of the Bush Doctrine was that it simply meant we don’t wait to be attacked, and we take it to the enemy first. I thought a perfect response for Palin would be: “It means we don’t wait to be attacked. Like if I punched you in the teeth before you asked your next question.”
That's why the Saddleback debate format was good, IMO. Removes the majority of bias that way. Each candidate gets ask identical questions and the voters can judge from their answers.
Why are those in the MSM asking the questions in the first place? They've already "confessed" to leaning left in their personal politics.
BTTT.
Political junkies and policy wonks viewed this interview one way and normal people viewed it much differently. The junkies and wonks worried about missteps or gaffes about policy and bits of minutiae. Normal people wondered about her judgment and character. Normal people are far less concerned with her ability to recite arcane details but wanted to know if she sounds smart, can maintain her composure under pressure, hold a position and remain respectful and likable.
As it turned out she did fine on the recitation of details (and the junkies were right to worry about this because had she screwed up big the leftist media would have gone into full obsessive attack mode about it). But she did very well indeed in the image/character/likability part of this and THAT is what is really crucial in all this.
We’ve elected our fair share of likable ignoramuses in the past. Gaffes are pretty much overrated and only have a real impact if they are really serious. But unlikable wonks rarely get themselves elected - witness Adlai Stevenson, Al Gore or (the epitome of the unlikable wonk) John Kerry.
In Governor Palin we have a person who is obviously intelligent and capable as well as poised and likable. It is no accident she has such huge positives in her state and is establishing these nationally.
“Before I read the Krauthammer piece,”
From that piece:
“In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, “The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism,” I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.”
It’s fairly amazing that that piece is from 6/4/2001, BEFORE 9/11.
“Bush Doctrine” has never had a precise and limited and generally accepted meaning. It gained many new meanings after 9/11. But I just lost a lot of respect for Rich Lowry. He and Gibson both owe Governor Palin any apology. Not holding my breath.
I agree with you. I believe that foreign policy experience, or the lack thereof, is being overanalyzed. It does not matter how many foreign leaders you have met. When it comes time to make an important foreign policy decision, will the US leader fret about what foreign leaders think, or will the US leader make the correct decision - what is right or wrong, what is best for the US?
Ten years ago this may have worked. No more. Monday morning Bortz, Limbaugh, Hannity and others will all be bringing Americans up to speed with "the rest of the story".
I genuinely hope the McCain campaign demands ABC rebroadcast the entire interview or risk having access to their candidates cut off for the rest of the campaign.
Her actual answers were far better than the Pravda edited version released.
Jesse Jackson has probably met more foreign leaders than Palin and Obama combined, but so what? So has Bono. Are they qualified to be President?
What would have been great, even though it would have likely been cut, would have been if she'd asked "Do you mean the Krauthammer Bush Doctrine of XXX, 2001, or the YYY Bush Doctrine of September 20, 2001, or..."? She shouldn't finish the list, lest she appear as a show-off, but should instead let the "or" hang. If Charlie failed to answer, she could ask what his version of the Bush Doctrine said; any awkwardness would be on Charlie's end, not hers.
Still, she did fine.
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.