For anybody who may have doubted that Palin really buys the McCain campaign's garbage about the proximity of Russia to Alaska giving her foreign policy experience, there's this:
COURIC: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?
PALIN: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and on our other side, the land-- boundary that we have with-- Canada. It-- it's funny that a comment like that was-- kind of made to-- cari-- I don't know, you know? Reporters--
COURIC: Mock?
PALIN: Yeah, mocked, I guess that's the word, yeah.
COURIC: Explain to me why that enhances your foreign policy credentials.
PALIN: Well, it certainly does because our-- our next door neighbors are foreign countries. They're in the state that I am the executive of. And there in Russia--
COURIC: Have you ever been involved with any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?
PALIN: We have trade missions back and forth. We-- we do-- it's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-- where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is-- from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to-- to our state.
By those qualifications, the governer of Missouri has foreign policy experience because the B2's used to bomb Iraq in 2003 flew out of an air base there. Again, she's claiming experience from what the military is doing in Alaska; it has nothing to do with her.
Read that carefully a couple times. It's disturbing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I have read and heard this interview several times. Her comments were nothing more than rambling in an attempt to confuse Couric(or perhaps Palin was confused). It is understandable why the McCain party doesn't let her on speaking engagements alone.
Is Palin really that stupid or does she think she can fool the US citizens. Here are some facts:
1.That part of Russia (Siberia) has little if any inhabitants.
2. Putin is no longer the President and currently holds the Prime Minister position (I believe an equivalent our US Secretary of the State held by Condolezza Rice).
3."Our ~ neighbors are foreign countries." Thank you Sarah for the definition of 'foreign'.
Palin has no foreign policy experience, is inarticulate, and lacks the education to hold the second highest position in this country.If she were a man McCain would have been laughed out of the country. Why have we lowered the bar for this woman?
Thanks for your blog and your attempt to educate those who do not understand how inept Palin really is.
So, Trogon, just to get around to responding to our last thread of posts about Deceit and Outrage. I guess fundamentally, I don't get the hullabaloo about Palin's silly comments (which certainly don't sound like lies, but an unwillingness to give a sound-bite that humiliates her or McCain--showing that she said something dumb). You mentioned that McCain is a liar and Obama isn't. I just see them all as saying whatever they want and putting spin on everything--the same politics I've been seeing since I was a little squirt.
And as for the assertion that Obama doesn't lie, I admit that baffles me--he spent the debate Friday night putting unbelievable spin on McCain's voting record (and vice versa--I'm not defending McCain, just saying that your moral outrage seems half-blind).
And both websites you mention have plenty of Obama lies, half-truths, etc, listed.
This New York Times article addresses some of Obama's dishonest statements: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/us/politics/26ads.html?em
So that's my basic response--Obama's no saint. McCain's no saint. Palin and Biden are no saints (and I'll love to see their debate--the latter is experienced, aggressive and bombastic, the other inexperienced, aggressive and brazen--should be a blast).
Bottom line, I don't see the big deal about Palin's dumb remarks. (Incidentally, both McCain and Obama deftly dodged direct questions and if I had to say, McCain was more direct and responsive by a noticeable margin than Obama--Obama employed the same evasive tactics you can take Palin to task for, granted without defending such a funny assertion.)
C.
As you might expect by now, I vociferously disagree. Although Obama has made some clearly misleading statements--most of the serious ones after I wrote this post--I still maintain that there is a fundamental difference between his type of distortions [for better or for worse, the political standard] and McCain's.
Until recently I find nothing in Obama's record hinting at the ability to lie with comfort that McCain has--nothing to compare with "comprehensive sex education for kindergarteners," "will raise taxes on the middle class," "lipstick on a pig" etc., etc. Just look at the examples from the article you cited--an article I read almost with glee a week ago, hoping to find something to temper my enthusiasm for the ticket--all these examples are just dishonest picking and choosing of McCain's record, a couple out-of-context quotes, etc. They're embarrassing, I disagree with the tactic, but it just doesn't come close to beating McCain's lies.
As far as the debate goes, I watched it very carefully and studied the transcript and came out with the same conclusion. Obama spun, spun, spun and McCain lied, lied, lied. Perhaps the easiest one to notice is McCain's insistence that Obama wants to raise taxes on the middle class. Pure lie, there's nothing else to it. People have pointed this out to McCain but he chooses to keep on saying it, hoping people will believe him. Obama's tax policy is very thorough, complex, and it's on his website so there's no debating what it says.
McCain also resorted to extremely cynical tactics [or is it a strategy? har har har] in his rhetoric. Obama lays out a plan for Iraq and Afghanistan; a policy position, a plan, and some rationalization [no comments here on whether it's a better strategy or not]. McCain attacked it with repeating over and over variations of "Obama wants America to lose" and "we can't have a president who accepts defeat" [he used the word "defeat" 10 times in the debate] as if anybody had said anything about defeat. McCain is a smart enough man to know that Obama never said anything about accepting defeat, but he believes that the people are dumb enough that if he repeats it over and over again we'll all believe that Obama actually wants America to "lose". Maybe that tactic is as old as politics but it's shameful.
Maybe it's hard to believe but I feel that, as much as is possible, my evaluation of these issues is distinct from my political ideologies--my distain for the false god of The Market, my disgust over the war and the propaganda about "winning" and "losing" which misses the whole point, my belief in the economic and moral soundness of progressive taxing. I concede that Obama is less than honest. Hard as it may be to believe it, I do feel unbiased in my assesments of the truthfullness of the two campaigns.
And I too am very excited to see the debate. Lots of bluster will be going down there. And there's no way Palin can "lose" given expectations...
I'm not sure how much we disagree, after reading what you wrote. You acknowledge they're both dishonest, only you think McCain's more so. (I can't argue with that--McCain will say and do whatever he can, apparently, to mislead and curry ill-gained favor with the voters.)
You didn't really address it in this post, but I have no reason to suppose your opinion has changed, but where we disagree still is simply on whether Palin's silliness was outrageous (or more outrageous than all the other silliness). Worse than Huckabee? Worse than Obama? Worse than Biden? Worse than McCain? Worse than Romney? I think not. Just more of the same ol'. (Where's the refreshing frankness of Richardson? Paul? I would probably never vote for either, but I like their styles. Richardson, to me, is the most charming of the whole lot. McCain, indubitably, the least.)
So we can agree to disagree.
In the end, I enjoy reading your opinions, even if I think that you are overstating your criticisms and a bit selective in how you apply them. I will probably never see how Palin's comments were even noteworthy--I roll my eyes and move on.
I find that McCain and Obama agree on a substantial amount. Ticky-tacky distinctions are drawn here and there, but in the end, compare their policies to Vladimir Putin's, Nicolas Sarkozy's, or someone much more exotic, and I think we'll see that they're two peas from the same pod from a policy perspective.
C.
Until the events of the last 10 days or so it wasn't clear to me at all that Obama was comfortable being blatantly dishonest. But I'd agree at this point that they both are but that McCain has no restraint. It's sad, but I think politics these days requires dishonesty [many core Dems even said they wouldn't support Obama unless he got aggressive, which is code for lying].
The reason I think Palin's silliness is outrageous is because it demonstrates the exact kind of I'm The Decider mentality that has been disastrous for the last 8 years. She was given a talking point that is ludicrous to support a proposition that she knows is completely bogus: that she has foreign policy experience. The fact that she's willing to repeat it over and over, insist on it, defend it, without ever blinking or backpedaling is what is outrageous to me. When a public figure looks me in the eye, lies to me, gets corrected, then comes back and lies to me over and over it starts to feel like 1984. It's hard for me to just roll my eyes and move on based on what Palin's selection and handling says about McCain and also based on the actuarial odds that she'll have to fill in for McCain as president if he's elected.
[her obvious ignorance when it comes to national and national issues is another kind of outrage altogether]
I actually don't dislike Palin. But she's clearly extremely unfit for the job. Maybe she was a good governor, but the picture that's come out of the last few interviews is that she paid no attention at all to national issues and doesn't understand the basic workings of the government. I feel sorry for her; she didn't know what she was getting into and her personality prevents her from fessing up.
There are some major McCain/Obama policy distinctions from my perspective. Sure it's not the difference between a communist and a fascist, but I think their philosophies of the use of military force, the role of the government, taxes, and especially method of governance are very different. I definitely believe that we will all be effected by the differences between their policies. And their policies on some major issues are at complete odds [energy, Iraq, health care, taxes, education]. Inasmuch as our populous system allows diversity, they're very different. They agree on several things--a result of the fact that they're both pragmatists--but I think it would be a mistake to assume that the country would be the same with Obama at the helm as it would be with McCain.
I agree completely--the country will be very different depending on who is in office. History will be shaped by the decision. My point on similarities is simply that often it's worthwhile to stand back and re-gain perspective as Americans that we're really talking about technical distinctions in a lot of issues despite the fact that often the gulf seems super wide and that the parties are at opposite ends. They really aren't. But the distinctions that do exist are definitely important.
Another point is that I don't see cohesion in the parties' official positions. They seem somewhat arbitrary. "Conservative" and "liberal" are virtually meaningless. Big gov't vs. small gov't is false. Taxation vs. low taxation is false. Strong military vs. small military is false. Partisanship drives me nuts. You've heard my rants over the years, so I'll forebear here.
BTW, I'd be curious to see your thoughts on last night's VP debate. I thought both candidates rehabilitated themselves in my mind. They both looked way sharper than their presidential counterparts in the last debate. I guess I was down on both so much that a decent showing improved my view. There are things that bother me, but I think they are both qualified for the office.
One thing in your post: I guess I take issue with the notion that you need foreign policy experience (or other particular policy experience) to be a good VP or candidate for any political office. I think honest, reasonably bright, hard-working people who have good judgment is more important than having experienced people running. IOW, honesty and diligence are more important than anything else in my book. What ever happened to the citizen politician?
And lest you think I'm talking about Palin, I'm not. I'm talking about the over-emphasis on experience on both sides of the field. Character is more important than policy positions per se (this sentence deserves clarification, but I don't have time to go into it right now).
C.
I can agree with that. Both parties are derived from the liberatl political tradition, in the old sense of the word. We definitely don't have the political diversity that other democracies have.
I likewise see no cohesion in the parties' planks. This is why I am and always will be an independent. There's nothing common about environmental protections and gay marriage that make me need to support one if I support the other. Likewise war and land rights. I'm probably nearly as liable to rant on this subject; it drives me nuts.
The debate was interesting. Palin did much better than I thought. She was confident and only had a couple of those head-scratchingly weird sentences. It was annoying though that she refused to participate in topics she wasn't prepared for and changed the subject to repeat memorized text on something she does know. I think I learned more about her debate instructors than I did about her. Biden was Biden; smart, windy, not particularly inspiring but definitely spot-on. I felt Biden won based on the issues, but that Palin actually won based on the fact that she didn't come across in any way idiotic.
I'm not sure I ever said that foreign policy experience is necessary for VPs. I certainly didn't mean it; I've tried to say the opposite several times here. What Palin doesn't seem to have that I do think is very important is familiarity with national and international issues; just paying attention to the news would be a start. She doesn't seem to know how the government operates at the national level. I haven't really seen any indication that she paid attention to anything beyond Alaska. I just don't think on-the-job training as VP of the United States is a very good idea.
[this was my favorite quote: "I'm not one to attribute every man -- activity of man to the changes in the climate." hmmm! As in "I'm going to go shopping for party supplies since it's always hot here in Tucson?" well I don't believe in that either...]
Character is indeed important but I think it can be very misleading. George W. Bush certainly appeared to be a man of high character but he pillaged the country. The point is that the traditional measures of character are often misleading. We look at a friendly personality and judge Genghis Kahn to be a good guy to have beer with [as the saying goes]. That said, one of my biggest attractions to Obama is his character; his family values, decency, and intelligence. John McCain is way too close to a misogynistic sailor-talking double-dealing uberpolitician for my likings. Not saying that's the deal breaker--I recognize the perils of making character judgements from afar and through the media "filter"; John Edwards certainly seemed like a family guy--but it definitely makes a difference.
Good comments.
On GWB: I never liked his character. I thought the partying, silver spoon thing was deeply troubling. But I think you're right--character is really hard to judge. I too thought Edwards smacked of family guy, but I don't think adultery really fits in that package very well . . .
Obama's previous drug use bothers me. McCain's womanizing bothers me. I can't say that past transgressions define character--I respect those who overcome bad choices.
So it's hard to gauge.
On Palin, I think I was expecting so little that she did surprise me. I yelled at the tv once or twice "answer the question" but she did a better job than McCain and Obama and a worse job than Biden at staying on point. In my office, reactions were quite mixed--one feels Palin kicked but and another thought she was really weak. I was more on the favorable end. Biden was really good, although lost me on one of his ramblings. In the end, I gained respect for both, but don't think I really learned anything about policy leanings.
C.
Maybe I was young and naive but I though W seemed like a great guy.
The thing that bothers me the most about McCain is that he always cites how his experiences as a POW changed him, so we're supposed to forget all the partying and womanizing prior to that. I'd be willing to do that--I do believe in repentence--except that one of the first things he did when he got home was cheat on his wife who waited for 5 years faithfully for him, and divorce her as she was near death in the hospital. And by all accounts he's treated his new wife horrendously.
As for Obama, I think his words indicate a changed heart. But that is very possibly a double standard. Anyway, I agree that the past is not the best barometer, but it has to mean something.
I think if Liebermann had come in as the VP and said everything Palin said, I would have pegged that debate as solidly Biden's. I think it would be hard to say Palin solidly won unless you were ignoring her words and paying attention to her demeanor and delivery. My overall impression was that Palin proved she's not so incompetent that she needs to bow out of the race ASAP [as several conservative pundits have been saying], but she is still running on the fumes of her handlers' training. There's not much in the tank there, and I don't think the debate did much to change that. But, overall, yeah, I think I'd agree that I was positively surprised and that she did well for herself.
[the issues, on the other hand...]
Post a Comment