The Atlantic - Latest Comments in Fallows on Palin

Re: Fallows on Palin

Tim — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 10:59:32 -0000

@ed 10:34 PM

Nice. That's a quality comment for the Atlantic's comment section. Way to address the issues!

Re: Fallows on Palin

Steel7 — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 07:23:44 -0000

It’s tragically clear she didn’t have a clue…and I think Gibson redeemed himself a little, after his sub-par showing at the debate. I wish she had given an answer with a little substance, so we could spend some time debating the policy instead of her (non)answer. There’s no doubt in my mind that Iraq was a mistake by any measurement you could name- and this is coming from a 22-year Army veteran. But shift the focus to Pakistan, as Gibson tried to do, and the doctrine itself is something we should be talking about- right now. My take is that if Pakistan knowingly allows a terrorist group to operate inside its borders, and we have solid intelligence that this group is planning an attack on the United States, and Pakistan declines to address the problem itself, we are justified in operating inside Pakistan to disrupt that attack. Noted, this did not apply in Iraq. Also noted, had there actually been WMD in Iraq, our saber-rattling accomplished the stated goal of getting the UN inspectors in to find out for sure, thus obviating the need for any military action whatsoever. But, why do we assume that application of the so-called “Bush Doctrine” necessarily means invasion and regime change? What do we pay Delta and SEAL teams for? What do we pay our government for? Security, among other things. One of the things that scares me about McCain is that I’ve seen no evidence that he will think unconventionally when it comes to military matters. One of the things I like about Obama, I think he will.

Re: Fallows on Palin

Darkrose — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 22:59:15 -0000

Pesto@12:53: Exactly. It's one of the cardinal rules of job interviews: if you don't know the answer, say "I don't know, but I would do X and Y in order to find out." Whatever you do, don't try to bullshit your way through. I've been on interview panels and the inability to admit that you don't know is pretty much a guarantee that you won't get a callback.

Re: Fallows on Palin

ed — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 22:34:21 -0000

Tim:

Palin is a boob. Worse than Qualye. About as bad as Bush, Jr. Show a ahred of intellectual honesty and own up to it.

Re: Fallows on Palin

Tim — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 21:55:53 -0000

I call bullshit. Fallows is wrong on two counts.

1) "The Bush Doctrine" has a time line preceding the 2002 NSS and continuing up to today. It has not meant the same thing during that time.

2) Fallows interpretation of "The Bush Doctrine" proves he stopped paying attention years ago. Instead of demonstrating a lack of interest or attention on the part of Palin, it demonstrates that Fallows is the one out of touch.

Re: Fallows on Palin

Harold Reimann — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 18:39:11 -0000

Charlie Gibson should interview Palin while she is directly connected to the Holy Spirit via talking in tongues.

Charlie: What should we do with Iran?

Palin: HardashadrakaBidaBO.

Charlie: McCain was for amnesty for illegals. Are you more conservative?

Palin: Greasawetabackahumpajumpabeana.

Charlie: Should we give civil rights to sodomites?

Palin: Buggermuggerslugger.

Charlie: Should a black be president?

.

Palin: Spadernuggarpicaniner

Re: Fallows on Palin

$9,000,000,000 Write Off — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:49:43 -0000

What is the bush doctrine?

Re: Fallows on Palin

Medium Dave — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:47:20 -0000

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned this aspect: the McCain campaign has the difficult task of distancing its candidate from the unpopular president Bush, even though John McCain has no intention of actually moving away from Bush's policies. So Charlie Gibson's question was a bit of a trap in that he was asking whether Sarah Palin wants to publically align herself with Bush. Well, of course she doesn't. But to reply, "I fully support the Bush Doctrine in principle, but I'd much prefer to call it by a different name, Charlie," would be ridiculous. What could she say? So we get the deer-in-headlights response.

Re: Fallows on Palin

asl — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:20:41 -0000

The best part of this is they hand picked Gibson expecting a soft ball piece. Seems he wanted redemption after his Democratic debate disaster. Yes, Bush doctrine could have been confusing, but isn't it an opportunity to launch into foreign policy talking points, social security privatizing, tax cutting, etc. All points McCain supports.

What's kind of ironic is Palin derives her popularity from substance-free celebrity. It has to catch up at some point.

Re: Fallows on Palin

trevor — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:04:24 -0000

Allowing for the vagueness of "the Bush doctrine," Gibson gave her the chance to spell out her interpretation of it. She answered, "His worldview... ?"

I feel like Gob in "Arrested Development: "OH, COME ON!"

Re: Fallows on Palin

Mr. F — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:24:29 -0000

Has the Bush administration ever used the phrase "Bush doctrine," or is it something created entirely by commentators and journalists?

Re: Fallows on Palin

Toby Ziegler — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:21:09 -0000

I'm torn on this. She looked like she hadn't heard of it, but that's still awfully subjective. When I hear "Bush Doctrine," I don't think of preemptive war at all, but of the principle that "if you harbor a terrorist, we will treat you as a terrorist." It has evolved over time, but I don't think it's been codified. It's almost a media-created term in that respect, a sort of general shorthand for several aspects of the administration's foreign policy.

So, yeah, the question itself was quite confusing. Her response indicates that she may have been very confused, too, but I'd stop short of drawing any conclusions from this alone, particularly if those conclusions jibe with whatever you thought of her going in. I want to see more.

Re: Fallows on Palin

Tom in Ma — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:06:15 -0000

I don't work in government, am not active in party politics, am not a journalist, and have no professional connection to foreign policy, at all. Just a reasonably well-informed citizen. No one in their right mind would include me on a short list for VP.

I knew what Gibson's question meant as soon as I heard him ask it. Really, on 9/11, someone who is a political professional should be able to describe the most significent policy shift that the US Government made in response to 9/11. Especially since it has turned out so disastrously.

Re: Fallows on Palin

alex — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:05:07 -0000

She was absolutely terrible.

Didn's know a thing about a thing, only repeated, not even ideas, but lines...

"never second guess, never second guess, never second guess." "never blink, never blink, never blink."

She had no idea what the hell she was talking about aside from the paragraphs she memorized.

What a joke.

Re: Fallows on Palin

John Henry — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:00:00 -0000

Fallows is dead on. Her shallow answers gave the informed an impression that she memorized the Foreign Policy Cliff Notes. Any question that required her to elaborate on her answers was met with her repeating the same shallow response to the previous question.

When that does not work she reverts to her fallback as Andrew Halcrow, the independent candidate who ran against her for Governor, puts it: "classic glittering generalities".

In response to the foreign policy qualifications Halcrow writes:

"'GIBSON: But this is not just reforming a government. This is also running a government on the huge international stage in a very dangerous world. When I asked John McCain about your national security credentials, he cited the fact that you have commanded the Alaskan National Guard and that Alaska is close to Russia. Are those sufficient credentials?

PALIN: But it is about reform of government and it's about putting government back on the side of the people, and that has much to do with foreign policy and national security issues.'

Ironically, this is Palin's greatest strength and although these types of nebulous statements drive policy wonks crazy, the average voters eats them up. Lets face it, who's not for reforming government and bringing power back to the people?

However Palin's response to Gibson about putting government back on the side of the people seems to mean adopting a populist approach to foreign policy. What does that mean given that a recent CNN poll showed 64% of Americans opposed the war in Iraq?"

Re: Fallows on Palin

jay — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 13:57:47 -0000

what makes sullivan's blog one of the best is his passion. passion is exactly what this race needs from the obama side right now. it could decide the outcome. people should be enraged by palin and follow that up with action.

Re: Fallows on Palin

John Henry — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 13:42:07 -0000

"But I still don't think they can pull off 7 more weeks of "Help Help Sarah's being oppressed again, some more!" - Deborah

Its not seven more weeks though. Early voting begins at the end of this month in some states. I've seen a story where the McCain is sending out millions of ballots in Ohio for early voting.

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20080911/NEWS0108/309110032/

Re: Fallows on Palin

AKBY — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 13:39:42 -0000

I'm watching the news coverage on TV. The focus seems to be on Palin's answer to the question about "Are you Ready?"

“I answered [McCain] yes because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can’t blink, you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we’re on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you can’t blink.”

I'm sure Palin can get on board with a commitment to that mission. I'm sure she thinks she's ready; I'm sure she wants to be ready. But that's entirely different than actually being ready.

Not sure this interview will get vetted by the press in a way that highlights the FACT that she's not ready. If she says she's ready, well then, she must be ready!

Re: Fallows on Palin

AJ — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 13:26:19 -0000

James you hit the nail on the head, but this is a manifestation of a larger problem. A substantial number of Americans have bought into the notion that intelligence and intellectual curiosity disqualify you for the presidency. How else to take the reaction to Kerry's fluency in French, for example. Unless this changes, we are headed for a future much like the movie "Idiocracy". Palin is very Bush like, she shows no evidence of having paid any attention to the world beyond what appears before her eyes. And millions of Americans not only accept this, they enthusiastically embrace it. AJ

Re: Fallows on Palin

ed — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 13:10:26 -0000

Teacher: Did you read the book?

Palin: Sure I did!

Teacher: What was it about?

Palin: What was what about?

Teacher: The book. What was it about?

Palin, like Bush, Jr. is a very ignorant, incurious figurehead. Indeed, more people (cough, McMegan) need to call bullshit on her and McCain's incessant outright lying. Please. It's important.

Re: Fallows on Palin

Pesto — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 12:53:32 -0000

Another balloon punctured by this interview is the following: the McCain campaign and GOP hacks have been circulating the notion that Palin can learn on the job, sort of an apprenticeship on all the issues she knows nothing about before McCain's cancer or age or excess of bilious humors does him in.

Now, if Palin had answered any of these questions from Gibson by saying, "Charlie, you know I'm not really sure what my answer is on that. I'm determined to learn about that, and I've already started, and John McCain and his team are the best people in the world to learn from, and that's just what I intend to do in months between now and the inauguration..." she'd at least be able to defend the "apprenticeship" rap rhetorically.

But what she actually did was imply that she knows the answers to questions she's clearly clueless about. If she already thinks she knows the answers, what are the chances that she's going to learn anything more?

Re: Fallows on Palin

Brad L — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 12:42:07 -0000

People are claiming that the Bush Doctrine is vague and thus Palin may have been legitimately confused.

Since I let off a rant earlier on how crazy it is to try to nail down the 'Bush Doctrine,' let me clarify just a bit.

It would, indeed, have been fine to be a bit confused as to the nature of the question. I would have been, and I think I pass the curious/conversant test that Fallows lays out.

But here's the thing: her answer was even more confused than the question was confusing.

I know, it's a picky thing, but her problem wasn't a failure to properly identify the Bush Doctrine. It was a failure to sound like she had so much as a clue about what's been happening in the campaign she is presently drawn into. The Pakistan question has been put to both McCain and Obama, and will be put to Biden as well, I'm pretty sure. She whiffed.

But hey, at least she can see Russia from the right place in Alaska. That should count for something, right?

Re: Fallows on Palin

Deborah — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 12:37:57 -0000

My take on the Bush doctrine is that the President and his minions (love the word!) can do anything to anybody or any country whenever and wherever they want.

Not precisely. You need to have a powerful feeling, somewhere in your gut--your pancreas, for example--that the other country is thinking of possibly getting up to something.

All that "you can't blink" stuff in the interview--we've got another gut feeler. Because a lot of the time you should blink, and say WTF?, and try to figure out just what Putin or whoever is trying to accomplish with both short term tactic and long term strategy rather than just shooting from the hip. (It's like debating Lost! Where Jack is good in a crisis--if a train is about to hit you you should jump off the tracks, and Jack will tackle all the ditherers right off the tracks and over the cliff--but the rest of the time his tunnel vision and failure to ask for any input or question his assumptions is a fatal flaw.)

Re: Fallows on Palin

AKBY — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 12:37:52 -0000

"HIS WORLDVIEW" ?!?

What's worse than not knowing the answer is deciding to give such a GRANDIOSE answer. I mean, if someone asked me "What do you think FDR's New Deal is?" and I didn't know the answer, I wouldn't say "His vision for the earth."

I really thought she would do better than this, which makes her performance even worse from my perspective.

I'm not sure they can spin their way out of this one.

Re: Fallows on Palin

Deborah — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 12:31:57 -0000

James gets at the reason I never comment on the football posts. Not knowing about sports is a real disadvantage for political commentary, given the rule 1) Politics is explained with sports analogies; 2) Sports are explained with battlefield analogies; 3) Battlefields are explained with meatpacking analogies; 4) Meatpacking is explained with....I have no idea. But I'm sure there is a forum out there somewhere analogizing meatpacking to opera or vegetables or something.

Hilzoy made this point: you want a pres/veep who has a wide knowledge base to draw on. Who knows a lot of relevant facts AND has thought about the patterns and relationships in those facts. Palin plainly doesn't. If she'd had the keynote and then had the next 4 years to develop some national cred--do a few WaPo editorials, bone up on the economics that affects the other 49 states, etc--she could have been fierce in 2012. You can't cram for the veephood--including the careful diplomatic language required of our top officials so you don't inadvertently piss off China over Taiwan or Tibet. (Advertently pissing them off is different.)

I thought they'd run her as the Republican Energy Gov, Brian Schweitzer in lipstick. She would be getting up to speed on foreign policy while dazzling everyone with in-depth interviews on energy policy and the western domestic issues, guns and federal land use and environmentalism. When McCain was handed a chance to talk about her energy cred he said she knew more than anyone else (not Schweitzer nor a bunch of Texans, even, who are putting MA to shame on wind--the West owns the energy debate) and then turned it to observing, again, some more, that Alaska is near Russia. You can even see Russia.

I get that she works well at turning the election to wedge issues, arguing about teen pregnancy and abstinence and working mothers rather than the economy stupid. But I still don't think they can pull off 7 more weeks of "Help Help Sarah's being oppressed again, some more!"