BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: Metro: deMause: Patriotism on the baseball diamond

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, September 08, 2008

Metro: deMause: Patriotism on the baseball diamond

Damn…looks like Challenger will just stay home and tear the flesh off some unsuspecting sea otters.

This Thursday, all Major League Baseball teams will take the field wearing specially designed “Stars and Stripes” caps, part of the league’s Welcome Back Veterans initiative. (Barring rainouts, the Yankees and Mets won’t take part, as they’re off that day.) Following the games, the caps will be auctioned to raise money for veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

There’s nothing wrong with helping veterans — no matter how you feel about America’s current wars, those returning from battle are in undeniable need of help — but doing so on September 11 turns a simple charity event into a troubling political statement. In past years, New York’s teams donned NYPD and FDNY caps to remember the 2,974 people who died that day (most of them in fact ordinary citizens who happened to be at the World Trade Center, not uniformed personnel), and call attention to the ongoing needs of first responders. By choosing instead to make the day about the wars that the U.S launched in the wake of 9/11, baseball is casting its lot with those who say the proper response to tragedy is to retaliate — and delivering a slap in the face to 9/11 family groups like Peaceful Tomorrows that are working to use the shared grief of victims of war and terror to build bridges to international understanding.

Repoz Posted: September 08, 2008 at 09:39 AM | 3154 comment(s) | Login to Bookmark
Related News: General, Business, Special Topics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 6 of 30 pages < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 > Last ›

501. RayDiPerna

Posted: September 12, 2008 at 06:29 AM (#2939011)

"Compartmentize"? Looks like I can't spell.

The Times describes Charlie Gibson as coming off like an "impatient school teacher." That's about right. He also totally distorted her words on the god thing.

Jonah Goldberg appears to be wearing beer goggles:

Politically, I think she seemed a bit nervous and offered some phrasing that will cause the people who already hate her irrationally to irrationally hate her some more. Beyond that, she did herself little to no harm and came across as a real person put in an unreal situation which is pretty much the reality of things. She beat the expectations her biggest detractors set for her and at least met the expectations of everyone else. There were no huge gaffes (though her answer on the Bush Doctrine came close I thought), despite what lunacy you may read at TPM or elsewhere

She can certainly recover from this, but it was clearly a setback for her.

502. Gambling Rent Czar Posted: September 12, 2008 at 06:37 AM (#2939013)

people who already hate her irrationally

I can name a few around here. They don't even know the women, they know zip about her history, zip about her decision making process, they simply hate her because she has a little "r" next to her name. If it was a little "d", their entire view of the situation would be reversed. Its sickening actually.

hypocrites.

503. RayDiPerna

Posted: September 12, 2008 at 06:49 AM (#2939016)

The fight now will be over what "The Bush Doctrine" really means and whether Gibson characterized it properly.

Snipping from something Andy McCarthy wrote:

Peanut gallery denizens like me, who don't have states to run and who follow this stuff very closely, disagree intensely among ourselves about what the Bush Doctrine is. To take just one example, the eminent Norman Podhoretz and I have strongly disagreed about it: Norman says the promotion of democracy has always been an essential element; I think it's been at best a subordinate element and that the real Bush Doctrine simply holds that terror sponsoring states will be treated exactly as terrorists (i.e., open themselves up to attack) if they don't convincingly foreswear terrorism.

...

Gibson homed in on preemptive attacks — in the tone of "Oh, you didn't know the Bush Doctrine was all about the right to attack preemptively." I would dispute the premise that the Bush Doctrine is necessarily about preemptive attacks.

...

The Bush Doctrine, technically, is not asserting a right of preemptive attack. It is saying that if Country A facilitates terror, it is responsible for that terrorist organization's strikes, and therefore we can attack Country A. That is not preemptive; it is retributive.

That's fair enough. But McCarthy finishes with:

It was utterly reasonable for Gov. Palin to press Charlie Gibson on what Gibson meant by the Bush Doctrine.

The problem is that Palin wasn't "pressing" Gibson on anything. It's not like she set out the various interpretations of the doctrine and then asked Gibson to explain what _he_ meant by it; she had clearly never heard of it before.

This, from Lisa Schiffren, is the best defense of Palin I've seen thus far:

The Bush Doctrine is a multi-faceted policy, not clearly defined, and only intermittently adhered to in any of its particulars. David Gergen — of all people — on CNN pointed out that the phrase is, for the most part, inside DC/foreign policy establishment jargon. It is not used widely in the media, even in more serious discussions of whichever aspect is under scrutiny. So a well read state-level political leader, who followed the Bush Administration foreign policy in, say, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the WSJ, or on ABC news (God help us), would not necessarily have a deep field of references. It was the clearest "gotcha" moment of the interview.

504. Gambling Rent Czar Posted: September 12, 2008 at 07:08 AM (#2939019)

There is no "Bush Doctrine" .. its a made up phrase by journalists.

505. Guapo Posted: September 12, 2008 at 07:30 AM (#2939021)

They don't even know the women, they know zip about her history, zip about her decision making process

Leave John McCain out of this.

David Gergen — of all people — on CNN pointed out that the phrase is, for the most part, inside DC/foreign policy establishment jargon. It is not used widely in the media, even in more serious discussions of whichever aspect is under scrutiny. So a well read state-level political leader, who followed the Bush Administration foreign policy in, say, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the WSJ, or on ABC news (God help us), would not necessarily have a deep field of references.

You've GOT to be kidding.

Just did a search on Google News for "Bush Doctrine" between 2003 and 2008 and came up with 6000 different hits.

You'd have to get your news from the E network to have never heard of it.

Her best argument is the other one- people tend to refer to the Bush Doctrine as a lot of different things (preemptive war at the US' discretion, preemptive war against states that harbor terrorists) so she could have been confused. But she sure gave the impression that she had never heard the expression before. "His worldview?"

There is no "Bush Doctrine" .. its a made up phrase by journalists.

Google News is your friend.

WASHINGTON — White House officials gave a name Monday to the rules of engagement driving the U.S. war on terrorism — the "Bush Doctrine."

506. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 12, 2008 at 10:02 AM (#2939032)

I think Jonathan Chait's response to the Cornerites is basically on the money:

Of course! Palin couldn't even begin to answer the question of whether she agrees with the Bush Doctrine because she's so deep within the neoconservative debate over its true meaning that she had to narrow the parameters of the question to even begin to formulate her answer.

McCarthy's spin reminds me of a scene from "Being There":

Ron Steigler: Mr. Gardner, uh, my editors and I have been wondering if you would consider writing a book for us, something about your um, political philosophy, what do you say?
Chance the Gardener: I can't write.
Ron Steigler: Heh, heh, of course not, who can nowadays? Listen, I have trouble writing a postcard to my children. Look uhh, we can give you a six figure advance, I'll provide you with the very best ghost-writer, proof-readers...
Chance the Gardener: I can't read.
Ron Steigler: Of course you can't! No one has the time!

507. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 12, 2008 at 10:25 AM (#2939036)

On Palin, the other thing that strikes me is that, eventually, in response to Gibson, she outlined an "imminent threat" standard for American military intervention that has a long, trusted history in foreign affairs and that Bush and the neoconservatives sought to displace as military doctrine. Whatever one might have thought about Saddam's WMDs, even if they had existed, they would have constituted a possible future threat, not an imminent threat.

The answer she ends up giving is actually very reasonable, but constitutes a clear rejection of Bush's foreign policy. It sounds like Palin, coming from a very small knowledge base (though she has seen Russia with her own eyes!), has developed a basic foreign policy outlook far more sensible than that held by her President, her presidential candidate, and his advisers.

Ultimately, while the Palin stuff is fun, it's not what the election is about. There's still very little evidence in the polling data that Palin is particularly responsible for McCain's bounce, and I expect Obama to keep a focus trained on McCain over the next few weeks (with occasional surrogates talking #### about Palin).

There's vanishingly little evidence that day-to-day news cycle stuff moves elections - in 2004, John Kerry outperformed most any reasonable expectations for a candidate running against a relatively popular incumbent during a relatively popular war, in a relatively good and popular economy. He lost a lot of news cycles in 2004, but in context, Kerry did better than he should have. This day-to-day stuff doesn't matter much in the end, and I haven't seen much evidence to lead me to reject the null hypothesis that McCain is riding a traditional, ephemeral bounce in the polls, and Palin is merely a media focus, not a vote changer.

508. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 12, 2008 at 10:35 AM (#2939043)

Just one poll, kevin. The margins of error on sub-populations in single polls are huge, and when you have this many thousands of polls in the field, it's inevitable that some of them will show striking results within the sub-populations. If there were a large pile of polls showing that McCain's bounce was concentrated so heavily among white women, it would be significant evidence, but at the moment, drawing a strong conclusion from that one poll is like concluding that Robinson Cano is better than Pedroia because Cano outhit him in that one series in July.

509. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 12, 2008 at 10:44 AM (#2939049)

That's a good point, and the Cano thing was flip, incorrect.

I still think that if McCain's bounce were actually located almost entirely among white women, we'd see it in lots of other polls as well. That the only evidence for such a bounce remains the one NBC poll suggests to me they got an outlier. If there's a meta-analysis out there, or other polls showing McCain's bounce located almost entirely among white women, I'm more than willing to change my mind. But one poll isn't going to do it, not when we're seeing this many polls come out every day.

510. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 12, 2008 at 11:16 AM (#2939059)

Here's another. Gibson asks her about foreign policy experience and she starts talking about energy policy:

And then she talked about meeting foreign trade delegations. And? What was she supposed to say, that she had negotiated peace in Burma? She's a governor. Governors do not meet with foreign heads of state. What was the purpose of the question?

511. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 12, 2008 at 11:25 AM (#2939064)

On the heels of the Gibson excerpts, today she told her son and the other soldiers headed out for deployment in Iraq that they were going to be fighting the people who attacked us. Even Bush doesn't spread that falsehood anymore.

There's exactly one falsehood there, and it's yours. She doesn't say what you claim she said. Correction, two falsehoods. The first is that she doesn't say what you claim she said, and the second is that your statement is false. It's true that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, but Al Qaeda is in Iraq. (Yes, now's your chance to insert "but it wasn't there until Bush invaded," which has nothing to do with Palin or her statement.)

Oh, and a third falsehood, one of omission; you ignore that this was not a policy speech, but a ceremony for the departing troops. The liberal line that "You're about to go fight and maybe get killed in a pointless war against people who didn't even attack us and who didn't threaten us and who have nothing to do with 9/11" probably wouldn't have been appropriate at such an occasion.

512. Chris Dial Posted: September 12, 2008 at 12:00 PM (#2939081)

ABCnews.com has like 12 minutes of the interview, and not snippets. Thanks, JC and Ray for your comments.

513. Lassus: Posted: September 12, 2008 at 12:10 PM (#2939085)

There is no "Bush Doctrine" .. its a made up phrase by journalists.

Google News is your friend.

WASHINGTON — White House officials gave a name Monday to the rules of engagement driving the U.S. war on terrorism — the "Bush Doctrine."

Red Juice would never answer this, as facts probably make his brain hurt. A shame, too, you always wonder what someone with that kind of posting history will say when confronted with an actual fact as opposed to subjective political views to freak out on.

514. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: September 12, 2008 at 12:44 PM (#2939098)

I will admit that this validates in one limited respect the argument of Obama supporters that he is more experienced because "he has been thinking about these issues for three years"; Obama would never make a mistake like this, and would understand the variables at play. Of course, if Palin suddenly found herself president in February 2009 it's not like she wouldn't be briefed on the relevant factors involved in a particular situation, and at that point natural decionmaking ability is an important factor.

"In one limited respect"? Have the right's standards for our leaders fallen so far that they're content with electing people who know almost nothing about the issues and are willing assume that they'll be fine with briefing on the job? I'm not saying a candidate needs to know everything about everything -- obviously every politician needs to be briefed constantly on a variety of issues. But those running for the highest offices should at least have some substantial knowledge base from which to work. It's pretty obvious that Palin doesn't.

I can name a few around here. They don't even know the women, they know zip about her history, zip about her decision making process, they simply hate her because she has a little "r" next to her name. If it was a little "d", their entire view of the situation would be reversed. Its sickening actually.

Thank you for proving my earlier point. We know almost nothing about her, and neither do you. And if the McCain campaign refuses to let her interact with journalists on a consistent basis we won't learn much about her before election day. The fact that you're willing to put her in a position to become president while knowing almost nothing about her "history" or "decision making process" is telling.

And then she talked about meeting foreign trade delegations. And? What was she supposed to say, that she had negotiated peace in Burma? She's a governor. Governors do not meet with foreign heads of state. What was the purpose of the question?

THe right's ability to circle the wagons and defend every decision their candidates make never ceases to amaze me. If McCain had picked OJ Simpson as his running mate many here would be praising it as a bold and imaginative choice. They'd argue that he's one of the country's leading experts on the criminal justice system.

515. Gern Blanston Posted: September 12, 2008 at 12:51 PM (#2939103)

came across as a real person put in an unreal situation which is pretty much the reality of things.

Just what one wants in a VP candidate. The bolded portion makes it sound like she's trying to maintain order after a natural disaster or something, as opposed to giving a softball interview she's been prepping for for 2 weeks.

Beer goggles, indeed.

516. Gern Blanston Posted: September 12, 2008 at 12:55 PM (#2939106)

They don't even know the women, they know zip about her history, zip about her decision making process,

Other than, you know, what's been all over the press and web for the last 3 weeks. Though the McCain campaign didn't do anything to educate us about her, some of us have done our own reading up.

they simply hate her because she has a little "r" next to her name.

Or because she's a clueless, dishonest buffoon. But why let facts get in the way of your "poor little rightwinger" persecution complex?

hypocrites

Yes, I'm sure if Palin were an equally (un)qualified pro-choice Democrat, you'd be leaping to her defense right about now. But *we're* the hypocrites. Be sure to send a postcard from whatever planet you're living on.

517. RJ in TO Posted: September 12, 2008 at 12:59 PM (#2939109)

Be sure to send a postcard from whatever planet you're living on.

He lives on Mars, the Red Planet.

518. Mark R. Garber Posted: September 12, 2008 at 12:59 PM (#2939110)

Palin looked terrible at the end of the interview. Maybe as bad as Obama's performance at Saddleback.

The ability of the right and left to circle the wagons and defend every decision their candidates make never ceases to amaze me.

A lot of the right would no doubt praise O.J. Simpson if he was picked as the VP. The point would hit home better, of course, if the Democrats didn't have a tribute at their convention to a guy who left a girl drowning in his car and didn't particularly care if she was alive or dead.

As Zim called them, the "Letter Warriors" on both sides are equally pathetic and sad and this site is full of them on both sides. Anyone who thinks that their Letter plays fair while those big meanies that support the other Letter don't is deluded and probably shouldn't be taken all that seriously.

519. The Good Face Posted: September 12, 2008 at 01:03 PM (#2939113)

Since Bush is a sociopathic chimphitler, you'd think lefties would be thrilled when people are ignorant of his foul doctrines, infused as they are by pure evil. No pleasing some people...

520. bunyon Posted: September 12, 2008 at 01:15 PM (#2939122)

I hate to jump back into one of these.

But.

I think the left (democrats, Obama, etc. however you want to view it) made a serious mistake jumping all over Palin as soon as she was announced. The pregnancy attacks and rumors, ranging up to incest allegations, the assumption that a governor of a small state who hadn't served a long time couldn't be qualified without any discussion of her and her views on issues came before they had made any detailed analysis of her.* There was a general tone of condesenscion which was there well before her interview flubs and detailed stand/approaches to the issues were known/made. Clearly, the left/democrats didn't take her seriously. This now makes it very difficult for folks to take seriously the left's substantive charges against her. It is now up to Obama and Biden to attack her (and McCain's judgement with regard to her) without it appearing that their attacks are just the knee-jerk anti-rural, anti-religion attacks of the first few days of her candidacy. I'm not sure they can pull that off. I should say, Obama maybe can, if he would actually attack and I'm sure Biden can't.

I don't know if it will swing the election at all, but I think if they had let her enter the stage without the sliming of the first few days and then she had performed as she has in the last few days, the last few days would have hurt her a lot more.

* This is, logically, not consistent. If you were in an academic committee meeting, you'd think her recent performance would justify the initial rush to judgement. In the real world, voters think people who populate academic committee meetings are morons.

521. Chip Posted: September 12, 2008 at 01:41 PM (#2939142)

On the heels of the Gibson excerpts, today she told her son and the other soldiers headed out for deployment in Iraq that they were going to be fighting the people who attacked us. Even Bush doesn't spread that falsehood anymore.

There's exactly one falsehood there, and it's yours. She doesn't say what you claim she said. Correction, two falsehoods. The first is that she doesn't say what you claim she said, and the second is that your statement is false. It's true that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, but Al Qaeda is in Iraq. (Yes, now's your chance to insert "but it wasn't there until Bush invaded," which has nothing to do with Palin or her statement.)

Oh, and a third falsehood, one of omission; you ignore that this was not a policy speech, but a ceremony for the departing troops. The liberal line that "You're about to go fight and maybe get killed in a pointless war against people who didn't even attack us and who didn't threaten us and who have nothing to do with 9/11" probably wouldn't have been appropriate at such an occasion.

Even desperate neoconservative tool Bill Kristol's defense of Palin's comments isn't this desperate.

First off, my paraphrase is accurate, so that's no falsehood. She said that the troops would "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans." Except that:

- No one they'll be facing in Iraq planned the attacks.

- No one they'll be facing in Iraq carried out the attacks.

Some may have rejoiced, but that's not a reason to be going to Iraq anyway. Unless you're planning to invade every single Arab country.

So yes, she uttered a falsehood. She told a fib. She lied.

As for "Al Qaeda in Iraq" - your evidence that my statement is false is this? Al Qaeda in Iraq is a bunch of copycats. No one in Bin-Laden's Al Qaeda organization sent them there. They appropriated the name, originally under Zarqawi. They didn't even try to link themselves to the original Al-Qaeda group until more than a year after the invasion. So if you're fighting them, you're not fighting the people who planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks.

And no one said it was a policy speech. Still, nice move to accuse me of a "lie of omission" by pretending I wrote something I didn't.

She could have said many encouraging things to the troops about duty, and the commitment the US has made to the Iraqis [while studiously ignoring the fact that the Iraqis haven't reciprocated on that commitment], without resorting to lies.

522. Chip Posted: September 12, 2008 at 01:56 PM (#2939158)

Then the original Al-Qaeda should've defended their trademark, instead of abandoning it.

Like Xerox or Cellophane.

523. bads85 Posted: September 12, 2008 at 02:04 PM (#2939161)

There is no "Bush Doctrine" .. its a made up phrase by journalists.

There was no Sultan of Swat; it was a name made up by journalists.

524. bads85 Posted: September 12, 2008 at 02:04 PM (#2939162)

Just watched the video of that one snippet. It's quite cringe-worthy.

It was beyond cringe worthy; it was Dan Quayle like.

525. The Good Face Posted: September 12, 2008 at 02:11 PM (#2939165)

She said that the troops would "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans."

It's my understanding that thousands of Americans have perished... in Iraq. Presumably, people in Iraq planned and carried out the actions that led to their perishing. They probably even rejoiced a little. Based on your quote, she didn't specify the 9-11 attacks, so looks like the only liar here is... well... you.

Bunyon's #530 is dead on point here.

526. Chris Dial Posted: September 12, 2008 at 02:18 PM (#2939172)

I did enjoy Bay Buchanon going "She was AWESOME in that interview!" And the Democrat comentator saying with a smirk "I agree with Bay..."

527. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: September 12, 2008 at 02:46 PM (#2939188)

528. The Good Face Posted: September 12, 2008 at 03:01 PM (#2939199)

This makes my head hurt.

Don't worry about it. Just call Palin "white trash" a lot. Work in "redneck" or "hillbilly" to keep things from getting too stale.

529. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: September 12, 2008 at 03:05 PM (#2939205)

Don't worry about it. Just call Palin "white trash" a lot. Work in "redneck" or "hillbilly" to keep things from getting too stale.

Sounds good. And I'll pretend that you called Obama "uppity" and a "secret muslim."

530. robinred

Posted: September 12, 2008 at 03:21 PM (#2939223)

Of course, if Palin suddenly found herself president in February 2009 it's not like she wouldn't be briefed on the relevant factors involved in a particular situation, and at that point natural decionmaking ability is an important factor.

Right. As Obama has been saying for a year. So if Palin's ready, Obama's ready. Experience is off the table. Let's talk issues.

531. RayDiPerna

Posted: September 12, 2008 at 03:25 PM (#2939228)

Right. As Obama has been saying for a year. So if Palin's ready, Obama's ready. Experience is off the table. Let's talk issues.

Did you miss the "decisionmaking ability" element of my answer?

532. bunyon Posted: September 12, 2008 at 03:27 PM (#2939230)

As happens in every election cycle, after a very little time following the conventions, I want my money back. Is it too late to go back and vote for Hillary?

I'm still not voting for Barr, David. :)

533. robinred

Posted: September 12, 2008 at 03:29 PM (#2939235)

Work in "redneck" or "hillbilly" to keep things from getting too stale.

I prefer "Caribou Barbie."

I watched it; Palin made some mistakes. I don't think it will affect things much if at all and as said, she had some other good moments.

I agree with bunyon to an extent. But only to an extent--news cycles move fast, and the hard right types were going to vote for McCain and her anyway.

534. robinred

Posted: September 12, 2008 at 03:30 PM (#2939237)

Did you miss the "decisionmaking ability" element of my answer?

No, but all that does is prove what I said: this stuff works if you are in the tank for Palin and think Obama is a clown, as you seem to, although you keep denying it.

535. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 12, 2008 at 03:32 PM (#2939239)

What was the purpose of the question?

To get an understanding of how well she grasped foreign policy issues that confront America. She flunked the test.

No, it wasn't. If it were that, he would have asked her about foreign policy issues that confront America. As he did, for instance, with regard to Georgia and NATO. That was a reasonable question. As were questions about Israel and Iran.

But the question about whether she had ever met with world leaders was designed to embarrass her, nothing more. Kind of like the question about accepting the vice president slot on the ticket. ("Well, that sounds like hubris.")

But instead she jumped over to a completely different subject she felt comfortable with, trying to tie the two together so she could answer the question without answering it.

Uh, yes, that's called being an experienced politician. That's what good ones do: answer the question they want to answer rather than the one they were asked.

536. The Good Face Posted: September 12, 2008 at 03:36 PM (#2939246)

I prefer "Caribou Barbie."

Har, I like that!

537. zenbitz Posted: September 12, 2008 at 03:37 PM (#2939249)

Then the original Al-Qaeda should've defended their trademark, instead of abandoning it.

There are no atheists in foxholes, and there are no trademark lawyers in spider holes.

538. Moneyball can't buy you love (Joey B.) Posted: September 12, 2008 at 03:37 PM (#2939250)

But the question about whether she had ever met with world leaders was designed to embarrass her, nothing more. Kind of like the question about accepting the vice president slot on the ticket. ("Well, that sounds like hubris.")

Don't forget the question about whether or not her son was on a "mission from God" (I didn't know she was actually Elwood Blues).

Real deep, serious, and insightful questioning from Gibson there on that one.

539. robinred

Posted: September 12, 2008 at 03:38 PM (#2939253)

GF--

Got that from a hardcore Obamaflack at 538.com. Thought it was pretty funny. (Don't know if you do or are being sarcastic). Like I said, I largely agree with bunyon--giving Palin too much personal crap is a losing strategy.

540. bunyon Posted: September 12, 2008 at 03:41 PM (#2939258)

Robin (and others),
I've been really surprised at how docile Obama has been. I sort of expected him to a bit more fiery on the stump and he just comes off weak and apathetic. Do you detect a recent change in him in this regard? He seems different to me since he got the nomination.

541. Lassus: Posted: September 12, 2008 at 03:45 PM (#2939264)

Uh, yes, that's called being an experienced politician. That's what good ones do: answer the question they want to answer rather than the one they were asked.

I don't call this "experienced", I call it pathetic. On both sides of the aisle. There's nothing I hate more, and I really think that many politicians and FOLLOWERS of politics are blind and stupid not to realize how it looks. But they trot it out, every election. And people wonder why the voting turnout is so horrific.

542. RJ in TO Posted: September 12, 2008 at 03:48 PM (#2939268)

He seems different to me since he got the nomination.

It's been two weeks, one of which was the RNC. Keep in mind as well that, with the selection of Palin as the VP, just as the Republicans have been doing their vetting on the fly, the Democrats have also had to do their digging on the fly - it's hard to be aggressive in a targeted manner when you don't know a damn thing about your opponent.

If the Republicans had selected Romney, Huckaby, Lieberman, or any of the other usual suspects, I would expect that the attack ads would have been lined up and ready to go.

Also, isn't McCain now bound by public financing, whereas Obama playing with deeper pockets? We'll see that come into play shortly with his aggressiveness.

543. RJ in TO Posted: September 12, 2008 at 03:51 PM (#2939273)

And people wonder why the voting turnout is so horrific.

Politicians want it that way - the more voter turnout is suppressed, the smaller the number of people they need to side with them.

544. bads85 Posted: September 12, 2008 at 03:58 PM (#2939286)

Presumably, people in Iraq planned and carried out the actions that led to their perishing.

Yeah, like defend their country from invasion and occupation. Silly bastards, what were they thinking? Didn't they know they were defeated before the war even started? They should have been good little subjects and rolled over.

545. Mark R. Garber Posted: September 12, 2008 at 03:58 PM (#2939287)

Also, isn't McCain now bound by public financing, whereas Obama playing with deeper pockets? We'll see that come into play shortly with his aggressiveness.

I'm in Ohio and I already see a McCain and an Obama ad like every single commercial break on pretty much every channel. I think there's a point of diminishing returns. Obama has to be very careful tactically here for a couple of reasons. There's the inclination to try to raise more and more money and use the advantage turning down public financing gives you but the Obama campaign has to keep in mind that even though he'll have less money, that free money ($80? $90 million? I forget) that McCain's getting gives him extra time shaking hands and kissing babies rather than speaking at $3000 a plate fundraisers.

546. Mark R. Garber Posted: September 12, 2008 at 04:02 PM (#2939291)

Yeah, like defend their country from invasion and occupation. Silly bastards, what were they thinking? Didn't they know they were defeated before the war even started? They should have been good little subjects and rolled over.

So, then, how do you feel about American deaths in World War I and the Persian Gulf War? Do you feel that the American deaths were justified? The Balkan War? How about the Civil War? World War II once the Americans crossed the Rhine? At what point does defending your home country become unjustified?

547. Answer Guy Posted: September 12, 2008 at 04:04 PM (#2939295)

I can name a few around here. They don't even know the women, they know zip about her history, zip about her decision making process, they simply hate her because she has a little "r" next to her name. If it was a little "d", their entire view of the situation would be reversed. Its sickening actually.

You don't really know any more than I do about her - other than the Us Weekly-level stuff the press feeds us and the canned talking points that she's been parroting - and are eager to put her in the Vice Presidency, one John McCain heartbeat from the White House. (I do not claim to be some sort of expert on Sarah Palin but I know enough about her to know I don't want her within a country mile of there.)

If Obama or some other Democrat had picked someone like this as his/her running mate and shielded her from the press in this fashion, no, I wouldn't be happy about it.

548. zenbitz Posted: September 12, 2008 at 04:08 PM (#2939299)

There's exactly one falsehood there, and it's yours. She doesn't say what you claim she said. Correction, two falsehoods. The first is that she doesn't say what you claim she said, and the second is that your statement is false. It's true that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, but Al Qaeda is in Iraq. (Yes, now's your chance to insert "but it wasn't there until Bush invaded," which has nothing to do with Palin or her statement.)

Correct, David, but only on a technicality. actual quote:
"defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans."

is followed by:
"America can never go back to that false sense of security that came before September 11, 2001,"

Now, perhaps the Washington Post reporter is misleading me - but the _implication_ is certainly that the boys are off to fight the perpetrators of 9/11. Even if the wording is not unequivocal.

As for "well now they are fighting them" - this is still misleading even if it is hard to demonstrate it's actual falsehood.

Furthermore, this would not be relevant if the Bush administration had not been pushing this exact line pre-invasion.

Oh, and a third falsehood, one of omission; you ignore that this was not a policy speech, but a ceremony for the departing troops. The liberal line that "You're about to go fight and maybe get killed in a pointless war against people who didn't even attack us and who didn't threaten us and who have nothing to do with 9/11" probably wouldn't have been appropriate at such an occasion.

You have a point - it's sort of a white lie.

549. The Good Face Posted: September 12, 2008 at 04:09 PM (#2939300)

Got that from a hardcore Obamaflack at 538.com. Thought it was pretty funny. (Don't know if you do or are being sarcastic).

It definitely made me chuckle... good stuff.

Like I said, I largely agree with bunyon--giving Palin too much personal crap is a losing strategy.

Yep.

550. bads85 Posted: September 12, 2008 at 04:28 PM (#2939322)

So, then, how do you feel about American deaths in World War I and the Persian Gulf War?

I feel peachy keen about them. In fact twice a year, I have large barbeques to celebrate their memories - -one in May, the other in November.

>>>Do you feel that the American deaths were justified?<<<

Justified by whom? Country? God? When one goes to war, the possibility of death is very real, even if the war is just. The other side gets to fight back.

>>>At what point does defending your home country become unjustified?<<<

The Iraqis had the right to defend their home country, which is why many, if not most, Americans have died fighting in Iraq. Those dead Americans don't need vengeance.

551. Chris Dial Posted: September 12, 2008 at 04:31 PM (#2939327)

No, it wasn't. If it were that, he would have asked her about foreign policy issues that confront America. As he did, for instance, with regard to Georgia and NATO. That was a reasonable question. As were questions about Israel and Iran.

Did you find her answers to be "good" or informed? What about the Bush Doctrine question? Don't you think she should have had some familiarity?

I mean, "You mean his worldview?" Really?

Do you really think she handled that interview like "a good politician"?

552. Guapo Posted: September 12, 2008 at 04:36 PM (#2939337)

Serious question for the conservatives:

Do you think Palin's views as expressed in the Gibson interview reflect her own personal views, or do you think she's just signing on to whatever McCain believes?

Not trying to be snarky, just trying to get a read on her. It sounded like she was reciting talking points, but I couldn't tell if they were hers or McCain's.

553. Chris Dial Posted: September 12, 2008 at 04:38 PM (#2939339)

Gibson asked about how being Alaska gave her insight into Russia’s foreign policy. She didn’t say “It doesn’t.” She said “They are our next-door neighbors.” Does she borrow sugar from them? She continues, “You can actually see their country from Alaska.”

554. bads85 Posted: September 12, 2008 at 04:40 PM (#2939341)

That's what good ones do: answer the question they want to answer rather than the one they were asked. 

No, it is what the ones who do not have answers do. The good ones have an answer; the others are bullsh1t artists.

555. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: September 12, 2008 at 04:43 PM (#2939345)

“You can actually see their country from Alaska.”

Someone else said this, but I'll just steal it: I can see the moon from my house. That doesn't make me a f***ing astronaut.

556. bads85 Posted: September 12, 2008 at 04:46 PM (#2939352)

Do you think Palin's views as expressed in the Gibson interview reflect her own personal views, or do you think she's just signing on to whatever McCain believes?

They probably reflect her personal views, although I think much of what she said utter horsesh1t ad libbed because she didn't know how to answer the question. She tried to pull off smart, but failed miserably. I was surprised she wasn't coached better, but she could very well be to dull to effectively coach in a short time.

557. bads85 Posted: September 12, 2008 at 04:50 PM (#2939358)

She continues, “You can actually see their country from Alaska.”

That was unintentionally hysterical. At that point, I was surprised she didn't say that as a kid, she used to watch the Red Army on the Bering Straits.

558. Backlasher

Posted: September 12, 2008 at 04:51 PM (#2939362)

No, it is what the ones who do not have answers do. The good ones have an answer; the others are bullsh1t artists.

Good and bad are often after-the-fact terms. In the first Nixon debate, JFK did a much worse job than Palin in ignoring the question. He started on his Russia speel when it had no relation to the question whatsoever. There seem to be a lot of people that believe he was a good statesmen, speaker, etc.

However, I do agree that the non-responsive stuff is annoying. Everytime I see it, its a play of power. The "I"m more important than you so you damn well will listen to the response I grace you with."

What bothers me about Palin is that tone. I don't think it makes a rats ass if someone knows what the Bush Doctrine is. That can be saved for the history test. What matters is the substantive knowledge of our existing relations and what we will do with those relations moving forward.

Moreover, I did think Gibson tried a "Gotcha!" If he just wanted an opinion, he would have explained what he meant rather than "How do you interpret it..." He didn't rise to the level of Chris Matthews on HIlary Clinton, but he was trying to alphadog her the same way journalists tried to alphadog Bush back in his original campaign.

I would have appreciated if she would recognize that she is interviewing for a job, where the people are the boss, instead of coming off like we should feel priviledged that she is willing to grant us part of her important time.

Apparently some of the constituency is getting a woody on that scolding side of her personality. I'd prefer that our politicians stay away from the lectures and focus more on the service.

559. Chris Dial Posted: September 12, 2008 at 04:53 PM (#2939363)

I was surprised she wasn't coached better, but she could very well be to dull to effectively coach in a short time.

It's starting to look like a re-make of "Born Yesterday".

Look, Rove is holding up three fingers - "When you are the only superpower, you have to be the tough cop on the block."

560. Moneyball can't buy you love (Joey B.) Posted: September 12, 2008 at 04:55 PM (#2939364)

She basically said she's willing to allow Israel to initiate a global nuclear war without prior consultation with the United States.

She basically said no such thing. She said that she feels Israel has the right to take the steps it feels necessary to defend itself (including a possible strike on Iran), and you're extrapolating this into Israel "initiating a global nuclear war".

561. Chris Dial Posted: September 12, 2008 at 04:56 PM (#2939365)

Moreover, I did think Gibson tried a "Gotcha!" If he just wanted an opinion, he would have explained what he meant rather than "How do you interpret it..." He didn't rise to the level of Chris Matthews on HIlary Clinton, but he was trying to alphadog her the same way journalists tried to alphadog Bush back in his original campaign.

Agree. It was like he was a teacher and was quizzing her, rather than asking for her opinion. She tried to parry with "What part?" but crashed with her "worldview" comment.

I would have appreciated if she would recognize that she is interviewing for a job, where the people are the boss, instead of coming off like we should feel priviledged that she is willing to grant us part of her important time.

Also agree. She used some weak language, like "ya think?" (Not that, but something like that) so she would sound "regular". Not what one should do in a Vice-Presidential interview (or a job interview).

562. Backlasher

Posted: September 12, 2008 at 04:58 PM (#2939367)

She didn’t say “It doesn’t.” She said “They are our next-door neighbors.” Does she borrow sugar from them? She continues, “You can actually see their country from Alaska.”

I think the implication is more along the lines of "I know those commie-bastrards and how to deal with them. I grew up with their sh1t. I'm not going to treat them like an abstract case study. I know when to throw the snow back on their side of the bering strait and I know when to let them just get pissed on their Vodka."

563. Backlasher

Posted: September 12, 2008 at 05:07 PM (#2939377)

The other thing I found kind of false was her answer of "Yes, I'm qualified". She knew she was getting vetted and had time to think about all the implications if she got selected. Why didn't she just say that?

I'll tell you why. She's insecure about her qualifications and is trying to project an image of certainty as a cover.

I think most people, including Biden, are going to take a huge gulp when they are being asked to be second in charge of the free world. Those that don't probably have too much confidence and are going to lead us into a sh1tstorm.

Nevertheless, they are going to have to project that confidence because if they don't, they are going to lose even some of their strong constituency.

I fault her for being a little arrogant. I fault her for not realizing the complexity of some of the foreign policy decisions she should make. I don't think either of those are not obstacles that cannot be overcome by the VP, but she does need to overcome them.

I'll vote for Barry, because I'm politically aligned with him. I will not pretend its because of some character issue with Palin. I did not vote for Hilary because there are character issues with the Clintons, and the Hillaristas can claim its sexism all they want; it doesn't change the fact that their candidate is a lying, power-hungry, arrogant person that I wouldn't vote to be dogcatcher.

564. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 12, 2008 at 05:10 PM (#2939380)

First off, my paraphrase is accurate, so that's no falsehood. She said that the troops would "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans." Except that:

- No one they'll be facing in Iraq planned the attacks.

- No one they'll be facing in Iraq carried out the attacks.

No one they'll be facing anywhere literally carried out the attacks, since those people are in little pieces in the Staten Island landfill. I think the phrase would reasonably be construed as referring to all members of Al Qaeda, not merely the people on the plane. (And, of course, since thousands of Americans have died in Iraq, your statement is false on its own merits.)

Some may have rejoiced, but that's not a reason to be going to Iraq anyway. Unless you're planning to invade every single Arab country.

What kind of non-sequitur is that? No, it's not a reason to be going to Iraq, but Sarah Palin isn't making the decision to send them to Iraq, let alone to invade Iraq in the first place, so whether it's a "reason" is irrelevant to whether it's true.

As for "Al Qaeda in Iraq" - your evidence that my statement is false is this? Al Qaeda in Iraq is a bunch of copycats. No one in Bin-Laden's Al Qaeda organization sent them there. They appropriated the name, originally under Zarqawi. They didn't even try to link themselves to the original Al-Qaeda group until more than a year after the invasion. So if you're fighting them, you're not fighting the people who planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks.

Bin-Laden's Al Qaeda organization is more of a franchise model than a single top-down hierarchy. I don't see how that makes it accurate to call Palin a liar.

And no one said it was a policy speech. Still, nice move to accuse me of a "lie of omission" by pretending I wrote something I didn't.

Uh, I hate to point this out to you, but that's what a lie of omission is. I didn't say you said it was a policy speech; if you had, it would have been a straight lie, not a lie of omission.

565. Jolly Old St. Neck Wound, Moral Idiot

Posted: September 12, 2008 at 05:16 PM (#2939384)

However, I do agree that the non-responsive stuff is annoying. Everytime I see it, its a play of power. The "I"m more important than you so you damn well will listen to the response I grace you with."

Don't forget the corollary: If the questioner persists in trying to get you to answer the question, have your handlers howl "sexism." It's as if they have some sort of a higher moral right not to be questioned about any substantive issue, and that we're somehow obliged by "fairness" to take their non-answers at face value.

She didn’t say “It doesn’t.” She said “They are our next-door neighbors.” Does she borrow sugar from them? She continues, “You can actually see their country from Alaska.”

I think the implication is more along the lines of "I know those commie-bastrards and how to deal with them. I grew up with their sh1t. I'm not going to treat them like an abstract case study. I know when to throw the snow back on their side of the bering strait and I know when to let them just get pissed on their Vodka."

Yes, another sterling example of the sort of "change" we can expect from a McCain administration. Sound bites for the chumps, followed by innuendo about your opponents' patriotism if they have the gall to ask you what the hell you're talking about.

566. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 12, 2008 at 05:17 PM (#2939387)

I don't call this "experienced", I call it pathetic. On both sides of the aisle. There's nothing I hate more, and I really think that many politicians and FOLLOWERS of politics are blind and stupid not to realize how it looks. But they trot it out, every election. And people wonder why the voting turnout is so horrific.

It may be pathetic, but it is what politicians do. That's part of the art of handling the press. You may wish that a press conference were a substantive policy discussion, but it isn't.

567. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: September 12, 2008 at 05:22 PM (#2939390)

I think the implication is more along the lines of "I know those commie-bastrards and how to deal with them. I grew up with their sh1t. I'm not going to treat them like an abstract case study. I know when to throw the snow back on their side of the bering strait and I know when to let them just get pissed on their Vodka."

I don't think there's any question about what she was trying to imply with that comment. The problem is that it's indefensible nonsense.

568. Chris Dial Posted: September 12, 2008 at 05:22 PM (#2939391)

I think most people, including Biden, are going to take a huge gulp when they are being asked to be second in charge of the free world. Those that don't probably have too much confidence and are going to lead us into a sh1tstorm.

Nevertheless, they are going to have to project that confidence because if they don't, they are going to lose even some of their strong constituency.

I agree with both of these paragraphs.

569. bads85 Posted: September 12, 2008 at 05:24 PM (#2939395)

Good and bad are often after-the-fact terms. In the first Nixon debate, JFK did a much worse job than Palin in ignoring the question. He started on his Russia speel when it had no relation to the question whatsoever. There seem to be a lot of people that believe he was a good statesmen, speaker, etc.

Point taken, but I don't think JFK qualified as a "good politician", especially in the first Nixon debate.

>>>Moreover, I did think Gibson tried a "Gotcha!" <<<<

Yeah, but an adept politican handles that type of "Gotcha!". It wasn't as if the topic of the question was from left field; she and her coaches had to know that her inexperience would be breached. If she were quick on her feet, that question could have easily been turned into a humorous response in her favor.

Edit: I thought you were talking about the meeting the heads of state. Forget the humorous answer; dropping the ball on the Bush Doctrine question was completely unacceptable, whether it was a gotcha or not.

She failed.

570. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: September 12, 2008 at 05:27 PM (#2939398)

I think Dan Drezner, hardly a flaming liberal, sums it up pretty well:

"Question to other GOP policy wonks: is it possible to support a candidate that campaigns on the notion that expertise is simply irrelevant?"

571. JC in DC Posted: September 12, 2008 at 05:29 PM (#2939401)

"Question to other GOP policy wonks: is it possible to support a candidate that campaigns on the notion that expertise is simply irrelevant?"

Ask Obama.

572. RayDiPerna

Posted: September 12, 2008 at 05:29 PM (#2939402)

Moreover, I did think Gibson tried a "Gotcha!" If he just wanted an opinion, he would have explained what he meant rather than "How do you interpret it..."

Right. He would have started with "The Bush Doctrine says X. What is your opinion on that?"

Of course, he could have simply been assuming that she knew the term. But I hardly think he deserves the benefit of the doubt, given the way he lied about the god issue -- I mean, how does one tell a lie like that in good conscience, insisting to her all the way that he was quoting her accurately?

573. bads85 Posted: September 12, 2008 at 05:29 PM (#2939403)

"I know those commie-bastrards and how to deal with them. I grew up with their sh1t. I'm not going to treat them like an abstract case study. I know when to throw the snow back on their side of the bering strait and I know when to let them just get pissed on their Vodka."

If that true, she is battier than Dana Carvey's SNL Church Lady (who she is starting to sound like anyway). I interpreted it as "You people from the lower 48 would be surprised just what goes on up here. Why, we can see Russia. Isn't that amazing? You all should come visit us."

574. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: September 12, 2008 at 05:32 PM (#2939405)

Ask Obama.

And your point is?

575. Rusty Priske Posted: September 12, 2008 at 05:34 PM (#2939406)

Earlier on this page someone said that people dislike Palin simply because she has a little 'r' by her name.

Not in my case.

I dislike her for a number of reasons such as:

1. She claims to be "as pro-life as they come", while I support a woman's right to control over her own body.

2. She supports capital punishment which I find abhorrant. I also find it quite hypocritical considering the previous statement.

3. She opposes same-sex marriage, which I do not feel can be justified in any way.

In short, she is not someone I would want in a position of power in my country.

Luckily for me, I am Canadian so she isn't part of my country. Unluckily for me, we also have a conservative in power with an election looming.

576. Langer Monk Posted: September 12, 2008 at 05:34 PM (#2939408)

Moreover, I did think Gibson tried a "Gotcha!" If he just wanted an opinion, he would have explained what he meant rather than "How do you interpret it..." He didn't rise to the level of Chris Matthews on HIlary Clinton, but he was trying to alphadog her the same way journalists tried to alphadog Bush back in his original campaign.

Is it really a "Gotcha!" if the questions refers to something the Republican nominee for Vice President ought to know? Assume for a moment malicious or devious intent on the part of Gibson; wouldn't the appropriate response be to ask for clarification? Something like "Do you mean..." Sure looked like the Governor had never heard the phrase before, and was scrambling to put together any answer at all, unable to even ask a clarification question that wouldn't reveal her ignorance of the issue.

After all, we're not talking about the obscurities of the tax code, or minutiae of some bureaucratic procedure. This is the basis for the foreign policy decisions for the Bush Administration for the last 6 or so years.

577. Exploring Leftist Conservatism since 2008 (ark..) Posted: September 12, 2008 at 05:35 PM (#2939410)

And then of course you have loathsome people claiming to be on some moral highground, like say Ark, but yet he is getting excited because Barbara Boxer brings up rape and incest, and finds remarks like "her only qualification is she never had an abortion" funny, and seems to really enjoy making butchered baby jokes.

Come to think of it .. what a disgusting excuse for a human being. You should be ashamed.

thank god idiots like that only get one vote.

Red, I do understand you're simply a babbling cretin so I won't take you seriously except to note that it was clear enough, if you had both lobes intact, that in 486 I meant "hilariously" as "stupefyingly over the top". The note that even Karl Rove might have blushed at the Dems remarks should have been the giveaway, assuming you had a functioning brain stem. I did, however, approve of the 'wall of whining' sentiment--that's a good approach for the Dems to take, since it gives them an opening through which to make a reasoned, factual attack on Palin's credentials.

I am amazed, though. Democrats are actually starting to talk like Republicans. If they can find their balls and squeeze (and steal back enough votes to keep the Ohio count honest) they may actually take this thing.

578. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: September 12, 2008 at 05:36 PM (#2939411)

Right. He would have started with "The Bush Doctrine says X. What is your opinion on that?"

Gibson's questions were about as run-of-the-mill as they come. They were basic questions that any candidate should expect to be asked.

579. JC in DC Posted: September 12, 2008 at 05:36 PM (#2939412)

And your point is?

Like you don't know? If FP "expertise" is relevant, then Obama's out. But it's not really relevant, is it? So, the quotation you provided sums up nothing pretty well, it seems to me.

580. Chris Dial Posted: September 12, 2008 at 05:39 PM (#2939416)

If FP "expertise" is relevant, than Obama's out.

Well, I've got dollars to donuts he knows what teh Bush Doctrine is. What part of FP do you think he isn't familiar with? He's met heads of state and is informed on our policies and historical policies. Has he made decisions about them? No, but he has heard the words before. Being a rookie isn't the same as not knowing the basic structure of the game.

581. RJ in TO Posted: September 12, 2008 at 05:41 PM (#2939417)

Luckily for me, I am Canadian so she isn't part of my country. Unluckily for me, we also have a conservative in power with an election looming.

Well, on the positive side, none of the major Canadian candidates have proposed anything which impacts abortion, same-sex marriage, or capital punishment. Given that the Conservatives are also fighting to get a majority, it's not likely that they'll try to raise any of those issues either, unless they really want to stay a minority government.

582. bads85 Posted: September 12, 2008 at 05:42 PM (#2939418)

If they can find their balls and squeeze (and steal back enough votes to keep the Ohio count honest) they may actually take this thing.

Palin gave them their balls back. There is a joke in there somewhere.

583. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: September 12, 2008 at 05:43 PM (#2939419)

Like you don't know? If FP "expertise" is relevant, than Obama's out. But it's not really relevant, is it? So, the quotation you provided sums up nothing pretty well, it seems to me.

Do you really see no difference between Obama and Palin on the question of foreign policy "expertise"? If so, then I think you've lost any ability to judge this situation objectively or rationally. "To see what is in front of one's nose requires a constant struggle."

584. RJ in TO Posted: September 12, 2008 at 05:43 PM (#2939421)

Well, I've got dollars to donuts he knows what teh Bush Doctrine is. What part of FP do you think he isn't familiar with? He's met heads of state and is informed on our policies and historical policies. Has he made decisions about them? No, but he has heard the words before. Being a rookie isn't the same as not knowing the basic structure of the game.

Isn't he also involved in Senate Committees on Foreign Relations and European Affairs?

585. JC in DC Posted: September 12, 2008 at 05:44 PM (#2939422)

I'm sorry Chris and Yeargh, but the word "expertise" has meaning. Obama may be superior to Palin on FP, but he's not got "expertise" by any meaning of the term. IOW, the original quotation was stupid.

586. Chris Dial Posted: September 12, 2008 at 05:46 PM (#2939425)

Obama may be superior to Palin on FP, but he's not got "expertise" by any meaning of the term. IOW, the original quotation was stupid.

Ah, you were working the pure "expertise" angle. You readily acknowledge that Obama has significantly more knowledge and experience than Palin on this front?

587. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 12, 2008 at 05:47 PM (#2939428)

Do you think Palin's views as expressed in the Gibson interview reflect her own personal views, or do you think she's just signing on to whatever McCain believes?

Not trying to be snarky, just trying to get a read on her. It sounded like she was reciting talking points, but I couldn't tell if they were hers or McCain's.

Well, I would assume that they were McCain's (*); it would be a big "gotcha" story if she said something wrt foreign policy and it clashed with McCain. Either the story would be that this is more evidence McCain did a poor job vetting her, that his campaign is in disarray because the candidates disagree on fundamental points, Palin made a gaffe, or Palin misunderstood McCain's position, or Palin doesn't support McCain at all.

(*) I assume that's what the 'tutoring' of the last week or so has been: to make sure she's on the same page with him. The president and vice president are 'allowed' under the rules of the game to have minor differences, or a big difference on an unimportant point, but they're not allowed to disagree with whether to be pro- or anti- war.

588. Backlasher

Posted: September 12, 2008 at 05:48 PM (#2939430)

This is what I hate about this board, having to defend things you would rather see fail, but

s it really a "Gotcha!"

Yes.

if the questions refers to something the Republican nominee for Vice President ought to know?

According to whom? Contrary to whatever you may believe, there is no qualification test for being president other than the popular vote. Some parts of the country think the VP may need to know x; some parts may think she needs to know y.

However, what I can tell you is that it would not matter at all even if she didn't know the Monroe doctrine well enough to handle a fill in the blank test. As long as she has a cogent and realistic position on defense based on prior relationships and future considersations, its irrelevant whether she can spit back out how other people have used a term to define some past policy position. (Moreover, we moved away from the Monroe doctrine during the Falkland Islands war).

Assume for a moment malicious or devious intent on the part of Gibson;

I'd rather not. That is irrelevant and not necessasry to the conclusion.

wouldn't the appropriate response be to ask for clarification?

Which she did.

Something like "Do you mean..."

No, that would have been the stupidest thing she could have done, because:

(1) The term is subject to multiple interpretations and
(2) She could have been presumed to have "not known" based on somebody throwing another interpretation; and
(3) Its not going to change the substance of her position on foreign policy.

You just wanted to see if she could answer a test question. Most people would not care.

Sure looked like the Governor had never heard the phrase before, and was scrambling to put together any answer at all, unable to even ask a clarification

Which again shows why you are missing the whole point. Whether she heard the phrase should not matter one iota. It should be just about as important as to whether she could tell you the atomic weight of plutonium, the date of the WWII armistice agreement, or the common accepted interpretation of "The Communist Manifesto"

It may show a certain level of acquired knowledge. The discussion may uncover a certain amount of intellectual capacity, but in the end it doesn't matter unless your political position is "The Smartest should lead." because:

(1) its not probative to any minimum level of intelligence;
(2) its important what we do and have done rather than names, dates and figures.

In fact, that whole line of attack reminds me of a high school freshman saying their English teacher is an idiot because they make them write all the time instead of talking about nouns, verbs and adjectives.

589. JC in DC Posted: September 12, 2008 at 05:50 PM (#2939432)

590. bads85 Posted: September 12, 2008 at 05:50 PM (#2939433)

but he's not got "expertise" by any meaning of the term.

Maybe not, but to put it in baseball terms, he at least is a replacement level player at the major leagues in terms of foreign policy. Every time Palin opens her mouth, she makes a strong case she shouldn't have been picked in the amatuer draft.

591. JC in DC Posted: September 12, 2008 at 05:52 PM (#2939437)

Who f-ed up the margins?

592. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: September 12, 2008 at 05:53 PM (#2939438)

Significantly? I don't know; I'm guessing probably not. I'm really not at all interested in the "resume" question w/regard to either of them. They're both historically underqualified for their respective positions. But I think, except for point scoring of the type Yeargh was interested in doing, most of us have moved off that point. It's just not worthwhile, and we are where we are.

Please. I'm trying to have a substantive discussion about her qualifications, and you're playing gotcha with the dictionary definition of "expertise." I'm not the one worried about scoring points.

593. Backlasher

Posted: September 12, 2008 at 05:55 PM (#2939439)

Ah, you were working the pure "expertise" angle. You readily acknowledge that Obama has significantly more knowledge and experience than Palin on this front?

This is my biggest political fear, and its as Nieporent suggested. The Republican's have shaped this into a Palin v. Obama contest rather than an Obama v. McCain contest.

After Obama apologists have played all their cards just to knock out Palin, then McCain can come in, not show his hand and sweep up the entire rhetorical battleground.

My hat is actually off to Slick. He was the only democrat able to pull this off. His 2 for the price of 1 comment got people debating Hillary versus his opponent. Then he could come in looking all moderate and peacemarkery (a disturbing practice engaged in by many primates) and win the day. It worked so good, some people still are sold that Hilarity has experience and executive capability.

594. JC in DC Posted: September 12, 2008 at 05:55 PM (#2939440)

Please. I'm trying to have a substantive discussion about her qualifications

I think Dan Drezner, hardly a flaming liberal, sums it up pretty well:

"Question to other GOP policy wonks: is it possible to support a candidate that campaigns on the notion that expertise is simply irrelevant?"

Sure you are.

595. robinred

Posted: September 12, 2008 at 05:55 PM (#2939442)

Who f-ed up the margins?

My money is on a liberal. Percentages.

EDIT: Coming from BL, the "Barry" thing is kind of funny.

596. Backlasher

Posted: September 12, 2008 at 05:56 PM (#2939444)

Who f-ed up the margins?

Has to be the Republicans.

Queue RR: with "Your mom"

597. JC in DC Posted: September 12, 2008 at 05:56 PM (#2939445)

I was prepared to blame the libertarians.

598. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: September 12, 2008 at 05:58 PM (#2939446)

Sure you are.

Please explain how Obama is historically underqualified, and why don't care about either Obama's or Palin's foreign policy qualifications.

599. Gambling Rent Czar Posted: September 12, 2008 at 05:58 PM (#2939447)

Red Juice would never answer this, as facts probably make his brain hurt. A shame, too, you always wonder what someone with that kind of posting history will say when confronted with an actual fact as opposed to subjective political views to freak out on.

what is there to answer?
Someone from the white house used the words Bush doctrine, seven years ago, and the media has used it to mean what ever they wanted it to mean since then. Have you ever heard Junior use the word "Bush Doctrine?". Is there some sort or legal paper out there entitled, Bush Doctrine...to the best of my knowledge, no. It is a media expression.

600. robinred

Posted: September 12, 2008 at 06:00 PM (#2939454)

My best "so's your mom" line was on the deleted thread.

Page 6 of 30 pages < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 > Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Monday, September 08, 2008

Metro: deMause: Patriotism on the baseball diamond

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics