|
|
|
|
Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Monday, September 08, 2008
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.
|
Support BBTF
Thanks to
Kiko Sakata
for his generous support.
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: Sources: Cubs’ Starlin Castro Accused Of Sexual Assault (6119 - 5:39pm, Feb 10)Last: The Good FaceNewsblog: Grantland/Bill James: An Open Letter to the Hall of Fame About Dwight Evans (43 - 5:36pm, Feb 10)Last: lieiamNewsblog: Mets owners knew about Maddoff (23 - 5:36pm, Feb 10)Last: Mark S.Newsblog: ESPN: Law: Top 100 Prospects (paywalled) (9 - 5:36pm, Feb 10)Last: AROMNewsblog: Bluetales blog: JetBlue’s 605 Wears Red Sox Colors! (7 - 5:33pm, Feb 10)Last: TerpNatsNewsblog: FSKC announces on-air lineup for Royals - Rex Hudler and Steve Physioc to join (9 - 5:32pm, Feb 10)Last: TerpNatsNewsblog: OT: NBA Monthly Thread, February 2012 (409 - 5:29pm, Feb 10)Last: Athletic Supporter leads the nation in driftersNewsblog: Curt Schilling Says Manny 'Quit on the Field,' Teammates Stopped Him From Confronting Slugger (11 - 5:25pm, Feb 10)Last: tfbg9Newsblog: 'Duk: Tim Lincecum slims down with swim routine, loses appetite for McDonald’s (292 - 5:23pm, Feb 10)Last: Moe GreeneTransaction Oracle: 2012 ZiPS Projections - Oakland A's (51 - 5:19pm, Feb 10)Last: Davo the MagnificentNewsblog: MLB: Hall of Fame worthy? Furthest thing from Schilling's mind (38 - 5:04pm, Feb 10)Last: The Good FaceNewsblog: Tom Brady getting new bro-in-law: Red Sox’ Kevin Youkilis! (17 - 4:43pm, Feb 10)Last: The Yankee ClapperSox Therapy: Offseason Minor League Thread (2 - 4:39pm, Feb 10)Last: ellsbury my heart at wounded kneeNewsblog: Knobler: Stay away from steroids -- but vote how you want (23 - 4:36pm, Feb 10)Last: Something OtherNewsblog: Whatever Happened to the Spitball? (25 - 4:21pm, Feb 10)Last: Something Other
|
|
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.
I'll pass. It's been done over and over, and the point remains the same: at this point, it doesn't matter. He's a very competent politician, has been nominated and the issue is policies at this point. But, please go on pretending that by posting little quips from not-quite-flaming-libs you want a "substantive discussion." That's entertaining stuff.
Apparently me. Hit the code button instead of the quote button. Should be fixed now.
She hasn't shown she has that in the least bit, which makes her other bumblings/lack of knowledge even more sad. It doesn't look like she is going to be a quick study.
It's only a "gotcha" if we assume your standard qualified national candidate would NOT know the answer.
It could just as easily be characterized as a "gimme" if the question is something you WOULD assume your standard qualified national candidate would know. In other words, it could have been an easy opportunity for Palin to show her chops.
I've got to think for any college undergraduate who has taken International Relations 101 in the last 5 years, that question would be a "gimme."
James Fallows transcribed to his blog what was in my brain:
Each of us has areas we care about, and areas we don't. If we are interested in a topic, we follow its development over the years. And because we have followed its development, we're able to talk and think about it in a "rounded" way. We can say: Most people think X, but I really think Y. Or: most people used to think P, but now they think Q. Or: the point most people miss is Z. Or: the question I'd really like to hear answered is A.
Here's the most obvious example in daily life: Sports Talk radio.
Mention a name or theme -- Brett Favre, the Patriots under Belichick, Lance Armstrong's comeback, Venus and Serena -- and anyone who cares about sports can have a very sophisticated discussion about the ins and outs and myth and realities and arguments and rebuttals.
People who don't like sports can't do that. It's not so much that they can't identify the names -- they've heard of Armstrong -- but they've never bothered to follow the flow of debate. I like sports -- and politics and tech and other topics -- so I like joining these debates. On a wide range of other topics -- fashion, antique furniture, the world of restaurants and fine dining, or (blush) opera -- I have not been interested enough to learn anything I can add to the discussion. So I embarrass myself if I have to express a view.
What Sarah Palin revealed is that she has not been interested enough in world affairs to become minimally conversant with the issues. Many people in our great land might have difficulty defining the "Bush Doctrine" exactly. But not to recognize the name, as obviously was the case for Palin, indicates not a failure of last-minute cramming but a lack of attention to any foreign-policy discussion whatsoever in the last seven years.
I'm sorry it was deleted. I do look forward to seeing the return of Alex Perros and Rob Base. I'll try not to disagree with the Primerstocracy so you can keep this thread open.
Expertise
Expert
Experience is not necessarily a requirement to be an expert. Nor should it be. It is hard to be experienced in anything that is very new, but it is certainly possible to have expertise in these areas.
Does anyone want to substitute "experienced" for "expertise" in the discussion above?
Try the following search- "bush doctrine" site:whitehouse.gov
Here's a taste:
EDIT: I just realized that it's not clear if Bush knows what the Bush Doctrine is. My head is spinning
Other than those in the Constitution, and winning the election, of course not. But I never said she wasn't qualified by that meaning. I think it's pretty clear the question is: will she be any good.
I'm sure there are more than a few that don't care that the VP would know the philosophical reasons behind the war in Iraq. But despite any of that, her answer was still empty. She couldn't answer it straight.
I want to know her position on the philosophy, not for some abstract reason, not trick her into a gaffe, but because sections of the Republican party, and their nominee on occasion, has implied military action versus Iran might be necessary, preemptively. I think that's a little more important than whether she knows the atomic weight of plutonium.
John McCain set the standard for Vice President himself - someone ready to step in on the first day. Maybe some are able to understand her foreign policy strategy or philosophy or what-have-you better after this interview question (or series of questions), but it told me she's not ready to answer that question yet.
That having been said, a baseline of knowledge would be awfully nice to have. I don't know what knowledge Palin has, and I'm not going to judge her too harshly based on one appearance, but it wasn't impressive. I'm sure many people here could have given an answer to the Bush Doctrine question.
----
By the way, as I've acknowledged before, the whole "Russia" line is ludicrous -- but no less ludicrous than people claiming Obama has foreign policy expertise based on having lived in Indonesia from ages 6-10 (or whatever years it was), and yet people say that with a straight face.
As a question, who here has said this?
Bah, I have to go cancel a subscription to barbiedoll.com.
I don't think Gibson was playing, "gotcha," necessarily. I also don't really care if a candidate occasionally flubs a question. I care a lot about the sorts of decisions that they are likely to make when faced with challenges in office. Because she is not known nationally, I don't think that too many people yet have much of a comfort level with Palin. On the other hand, McCain, Obama, and Biden are pretty well known. McCain and Biden have held office for decades. Obama has been in the public eye very intensely for the last few years. I feel like we need to learn a bit more about how Palin thinks before we can really assess what her decision making process looks like.
This is why the Bush Doctrine question actually matters. I don't care if she knows what the term means. I care if she agrees or disagrees with various foreign policy decisions of Bush. I want to hear the reasons for her beliefs. So it wasn't really a bad question to ask. And after all of the goofiness, she started to put together an answer.
Now, I am a liberal, and am not going to vote for McCain. But, I still want to learn more about what Sarah Palin thinks, and how she would make decisions.
That is exactly how she should have answered the question if she were adept. Throw Bush under the bus, separate her ticket from the current administration, and completely deflect the question. She looks knowledgeable and quick on her feet, and that change rhetoric suddenly at least has the illusion of having some teeth. Instead, she handled it about as poorly as possible.
Fallows critique is somewhat reasoned, but it does miss the issue that many are articulating.
If you cornered the Nieporents, etc. into having to give you a responsive answer, I beleive they would say soemthing similar to:
"We admit that Palin doesn't have very much foreign policy experience. We'll even admit, she probably hasn't spent much time in the last 8 years thinking about how to deal with foreign policy issues on a granular level, but it doesn't matter because:
(1) She's not running for President; McCain is and he has that experience.
(2) Her experience is equal to or greater than Barry's experience;
(3) She has greater executive decision making experience, which is a critical skill that Barry has not had to demonstrate.
(4) She is going to be spending a lot of time acquiring these tidbits of knowledge, and it doesn't take that long to just acquire the knowledge;
(5) THE MOST IMPORTANT: her macro foreign policy position and instincts more closely align with my war-mongering instincts. "
That makes all that "how much has she thought about it" kind of moot. You can think about something all you want. If you are missing critical facts, lack the picture, or an understanding it means sh1t. Heck, there is a Primate that considers themselves an expert on matters of faith because in his mind, "He's thought about it more than anyone else" ; yet every articulation he makes butchers the philosophical systems that surround those questions, misrepresent people's positions and beliefs, and otherwise display sophomoric reasoning and thinking. I'd much rather have someone that has only thought about it a few minutes, but puts forward a cogent and complete line of thought.
The proper response to the above articulated position is not:
(1) She's clownshoes
(2) Barry has the same experience; and certainly not,
(3) Barry's thought about it more.
Its:
(1) Yes, her policies as far as we know are the same as McCain's war mongering policies and that is what we oppose;
(2) We appreciate the Senators service to this country, but we don't feel that his experience in Vietnam leads to a better conclusion on these issues and the Governor's experience would just lead to the same wrong set of outcomes.
(3) In every instance where I've had to make a decision, it has been decisive, this is what I'd do, and this is why its the best.
(4) We believe X for the following reasons (which shows the study without it being an academic contest).
(5) Come on people, you know I look better than her. If you are going to vote for irrational reasons, do it because I'm a hunk.
I don't watch him every day, (maybe once a week) so I don't know. He seems the same to me, but who knows? On a human level, the guy has been campaigning his ass off for 19 straight months, so he's gotta be a little tired.* Taking on the Clintons and the Repubs simultaneously, Jeremiah Wright, dealing with the expectations/hopes of a rabid, hungry base/media etc. He looks about ten years older than he did in 2004. That might be part of what you are seeing. I thought he did a nice job on Letterman--seeemed calm and in charge, for whatever that's worth (likely not much).
*Before anyone jumps on this, I am not asking for sympathy. He volunteered and he is an ambitious pol after the big prize. Just making an observation.
I wouldn't call it "foreign policy experience" per se. But I would say that it does give him a window into the rest of the world and a perspective that's fairly rare among Americans, American politicians, and American Presidential candidates and that I found this a (small) selling point for him*. The POTUS is not (informally) called "Leader of the Free World" for nothing.
* Yes, for every Answer Guy who thinks that there are probably several people who inherently distrust him for this reason, America being what it is, a country where it's not unheard of for politicians to proudly proclaim that they have never left the country and do not own a passport.
I've seen and heard this before, and it meshes with what I'm seeing, but it doesn't make sense. McCain is 143 years old and doesn't look that tired. Bill Clinton was a warhorse campaigner who was probably doing yeoman's work in the bedroom with any number of fleshy, big-faced women, but he never looked tired.
Huh. I think this election is actually giving me Bill Clinton nostalgia.
The first is knowledge, as demonstrated by such things as intellectual curiosity and a clear understanding of the history, politics and geography of (at least) the major countries of the world. And along with that, a temperament suited to a president more than an ideologue. This is NOT something that you can learn in a crash course. This is a "character" test that goes way beyond bromides about being a great parent or an inspiration to one's gender / race / religion / ethnic group.
Since the end of World War II, it would be interesting to know of a single national candidate of either party who is less qualified on that score than Sarah Palin. Perhaps William E. Miller or Spiro Agnew, both of whom fortunately never made it to the White House.
The other side of "expertise" is "experience." And WRT foreign policy there is no job other than that of the presidency itself that really "qualifies" one to be president. Even the most capable presidents often have to learn by the seat of their pants. The best post-WWII ones (Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Reagan) grow on the job and learn to deal with reality. The worst ones (Bush) remain stuck in their pre-existing groove, forever plugging square pegs into round holes while shouting to the rooftops that their "best intelligence" tells them that those holes were square.
And although you would certainly say that of the four candidates, McCain has had the most relevant experience WRT foreign affairs, it's rather striking that the people of almost no foreign country seem to favor his election. They know from their own bitter "experience" what the last five years of hard right wing ideology in foreign policy have brought them, and they know damn well that they don't want four more years of it.
They know that demonstrated judgement and a willingness to listen to other perspectives is the most important character trait of a presidential candidate, and that's why they don't trust a candidate who's hitched himself to the policies of George Bush.
If you want to know under what circumstances she would invade Iran, then it would seem appropriate to ask the question about "what circumstances she would consider it appropriate to invade another country" and then after you have the general answer, ask the specific questions that deal with whatever country you want to deal with.
If you are interested in information, this is how you construct questions (which is what investigators, lawyers at depositions, and good interviewers do).
if you are interested in gotchas, you construct questions so that people are forced to take a stance (e.g. Georgia in NATO). then you go after the response (if Yes hammer it means war in Russia; if No, then either: (a) probe the circumstances (b) confront on contrariness to previous opinion regarding the invasion; etc.) (which is what lawyers in cross; interragators, pundits, and people with agendas do)
If you are interested in showing your intellectual superiority, you force the other person to define/answer questions about names, dates, places and terms.
That is pretty simple, basic Rhetoric 101, and if you can't recognize it, maybe I should be questioning your qualification to comment on it.
Well, no job is comparable to actually being president, but there are jobs that prepare one. Hanging around the Oval Office, closely advising the president, and having executive experience of one's own. Say, Colin Powell. George HW Bush.
That description sounds more like Monica Lewinski.
Matter of time, I suppose, before an insult was hurled.
John Edwards
Dan Qualye
Geraldine Ferraro
Ross Perot
I think there have been a few people with zero foreign policy experience, expertise, knowledge or capacity. Its easier to list the ones that may have had some knowledge like:
LBJ
Bush the Elder
That sort of thinking is what led to the idea that J.P. Ricciardi and Paul DePodesta would be great GMs. A good bureaucrat does not a good President make.
But ... the Bush Doctrine thing as a "gaffe"? Come on. I'd have to see the proof before I'd believe there were more uses of that term than you could count on your hands by any of the presidential candidates in this cycle. The idea that it's as crisply defined in everyday nomenclature as, say, the Monroe Doctrine is high comedy. Was that not the underlying premise of Gibson's question?
Reading the commentary on the clip, I assumed there was some deer in the headlights there, but I honestly didn't see it when I looked about an hour ago. “Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?” is a question akin to “Do you agree with the Constitution?”, i.e. a question not conducive to the binary answer the questioner is attempting to elicit. She pauses, and asks “In what respect, Charlie?” as you would do with any similar question. Then he asks, “What do you interpret it to be?”(**) and she says “his world view.” He says, inexplicably, “the Bush Doctrine, enunciated in September 2002.” Even conceding (which I wouldn’t) that there is a “Bush Doctrine” it was not “enunciated” at any precise moment and is, in any fair interpretation, a multi-tentacled idea -- i.e. more of a "world view" than a pithy "Doctrine."
So ... seeking clarity of an overbroad question is confusion; clarifying the question inaccurately is wisdom. I still don't get it.
(**) This question was the modernized, 2008 version of "Who is the Prime Minister of the Seychelles?"
I've seen and heard this before, and it meshes with what I'm seeing, but it doesn't make sense. McCain is 143 years old and doesn't look that tired. Bill Clinton was a warhorse campaigner who was probably doing yeoman's work in the bedroom with any number of fleshy, big-faced women, but he never looked tired.
Huh. I think this election is actually giving me Bill Clinton nostalgia.
So, Obama needs to get some. Point taken.
The experience debate is silly. Folks who agree, ideologically, with Obama think he has experience and Palin doesn't. Those that disagree on philosopy think it is the other way around. It's just a quicker weapon to access than a detailed policy discussion.
That wasn't his question. His question was "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?," a completely different matter.
Well, I'm still not sure what your basis for assessing Palin that way is, but in any case, you have to think all the way back to... 2004. John Edwards.
I wouldn't go quite so far as to equate his lack FP knowledge with that of the three that I just named, but he was certainly in the lower tier.
The other side of "expertise" is "experience." And WRT foreign policy there is no job other than that of the presidency itself that really "qualifies" one to be president.
Well, no job is comparable to actually being president, but there are jobs that prepare one. Hanging around the Oval Office, closely advising the president, and having executive experience of one's own. Say, Colin Powell. George HW Bush.
On that level, the most obvious and best qualified running mate for McCain would've been Condoleezza Rice. Not my cup of ideological tea, but there certainly wouldn't have been any question about her resume.
But you can also take this sort of thing to absurd limits: Agnew is the most blatant post-war example (well, maybe Alben Barkley), and then if you take it back to WWII itself, you've got your hero Henry Wallace. Thank God that FDR didn't press to keep that "experienced" leader on the ticket the last time around.
Had he met any heads of state by 2004?
You certainly don't think that Dan Quayle, who gave us:
was smarter, more prepared, or more knowledgable than Sarah Palin.
Dan Qualye
Geraldine Ferraro
Ross Perot
Edwards I've mostly granted, Quayle wasn't quite as clueless as his "potatoe" remark might suggest, Perot I didn't count because he was never a serious threat to be elected, and Ferraro---OK, that shows the peril of not completing the list in my head before posting. Most definitely Ferraro. She was pretty much the Palin of 1984, chosen purely for gender reasons.
My guess is that it's because this is the first time Obama has genuinely had to work hard in his entire life. Even his previous political campaigns were basically jokes; this is the first seriously contested one he's been in.
was smarter, more prepared, or more knowledgable than Sarah Palin.
In a word: yes. I'm prepared to change my mind about Palin, but after seeing her so far I'd say she's got a long way to go even to catch up with Dan Quayle. The ability to inspire a crowd of Republican ideologues and women voting on the basis of gender victimization is proof of absolutely nothing beyond that. To put it bluntly, I'd almost rather be governed by Nieporent.**
**Note the word "almost." But I almost omitted that.
Whoever said that? The Bush Doctrine is ####### present tense -- it has been around for the last six years, attempting to shape the U.S. foreign policy. It is not some obscure thing that someone burped up in the last week. Anyone adult in this country who did not have a good idea what the Bush Doctrine before last night should be ashamed. The woman had absolutely no clue what it was, and she is running for Vice President. Even Gibson was shocked.
Of course, the Bush Doctrine isn't crisply defined -- look whose Doctrine it is. However, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or can't be readily identified. Gibson didn't ask her define it; he ask her if she agreed with it. She wasn't even in the same galaxy in terms of what the Bush Doctrine was. That sort of ignorance is appalling and excusing it is just goofy.
McCain--intelligently--supposedly ran a very light primary season schedule after he had it locked, while Obama was taking on HRC and explaining JW. Also, I have heard speculation that the Clintons enjoy campaigning more than BO does, being the pure political animals they are.
So, I think it "makes sense." Whether one judges Obama negatively for it is a personal thing.
Yes, just like all those millions of other African American editors of Havard Law Review who get nominated for president, he owes it all to a quota system. All his life he's been just like a member of the Stonecutters working the candy machine at the Springfield nuclear plant.
Every gotcha question is that way. Getting outfoxed by the media in an interview is the fault of the one being questioned. The media isn't some high intellegence entity that ensnares anyone it chooses. It snares only those who allow it to catch them.
Then why ask a question premised on the idea that it is crisply defined?
"What do you interpret it to be?" is plainly a request for a definition, so he did ask her to define it.
She wasn't outfoxed.
For Slick, its like the junior high field trip except he has all of America to choose for his hook ups.
Actually being President was boring, he only had the interns to choose from.
If it's present tense, it should take only a few seconds to find a gaggle of references to it in the rhetoric of this election cycle. It will be tough, though, since the idea that the fulcrum of debate over foreign policy in this cycle has been something called the "Bush Doctrine" -- as distinct from simply George Bush's foreign policy -- is silly.
Then what is it? I don't think I have a good idea of what the "Bush Doctrine" is, and I suspect that if you ask 50 people what it is, you'll get at least ten different answers.
"Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?" is a ######## question. It's just a shame that she couldn't come out and call it a ######## question.
It wasn't based on that premise at all.
>>>What do you interpret it to be?" is plainly a request for a definition, so he did ask her to define it.<<<
That was after she began stumbling. It wasn't the intial question, which she fumbled and clearly showed she didn't have a clue. From there, Gibson might have smelled blood, or he might have been just shocked that she was tripping so badly.
Yet, people who already HATE her simply because she is a republican, decided this was their "gotcha" moment, as many on this very thread have elaborated. Its sad actually.
Keep attacking her people.. keep it up. Its turning people against your boy by the droves.
No kidding. She just blundered completely on her own.
Psst, your bedsheets are showing.
Whirr goes the projector.
You're hopelessly biased beyond reason if you think the clip showed she was "stumbling" or "tripping ... badly." A much more plausible interepretation was that she wanted some clarity of a question asking for a binary response that wasn't susceptible to one.(**)
(**) Of course, if she'd just charged ahead and said, "Yes, I agree," her critics -- and arguably Gibson himself -- would have screamed, "Look how stupid and simplistic she is!!! Doesn't she know the Bush Doctrine isn't just one thing!!!!!"
Including this 2004 Kerry/Edwards voter and 2008 Obama proponent. Just when you think maybe things were actually changing, the zany left reverts back to their typical hysteria and condescension.(**) It's quite unfortunate -- and has damaged Obama terribly.
(**) I mean, how are normal people supposed to react when Newsweek publishes the following "thought" about Palin from a U of Chicago female professor: “Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman”?
Do you think the Bush Doctrine suddenly disappeared with this election cycle?
Have you attempted to run a Google search on the above? Just type "Obama Bush Doctrine>" There are plenty of references since your memory has failed you. Obama railed that H. Clinton would continue the Bush Doctrine in what became a maelstrom during the Primary.
well i have always voted republican, for one reason primarily, but i have never gotten involved in the political discussions around here. It just didn't interest me .. But her nomination, and the immediate left wing attacks against her character has fired me up. Prior to this, i was just content to mail in my ballot.
Not any more.
Now i am being called a racist. good times .. good times...
Maybe there is something that we don't know about Sarah Palin...
If we were to make a list of dumb things that had been written:
1) It would be very long.
2) This would be part of the list.
Why would I want to see her stumble? I am not a Democrat. I voted Republican before George W. Bush. I want the Republicans to have the best ticket possible. Unfortunatley, they aren't.
You shouldn't be so quick to label people, especially those who disagree with you. It makes you look extremely juvenile.
Now i am being called a racist. good times .. good times...
You should have been here earlier and you could have gotten called sexist for not support Hilarity Clinton.
OK, challenge accepted. The first page has exactly one reference -- to a conference call in which Obama says HRC will continue the Bush Doctrine -- by which he means speaking to the leaders of rogue nations only if they accept conditions.
To the extent the Bush Doctrine has a meaning, that's barely part of it (actually it isn't part of it at all, but I'll be charitable), and pales in comparison to the core principles of (1) the justifiability of preemptive action; and (2) states harboring terrorist facilities are susceptible to military action.
So either Obama doesn't know what it is either or its meaning is, as I said above, coextensive with "George Bush's foreign policy," or in Sarah Palin's words, his "world view."
Nice try, though.
It might not have even been the stupidest thing she said in the interview. The fact that people had to choose is telling enough.
Everybody stand up for Chuck!!!
Why don't you knock it off? It is people like you that caused the last thread to be frozen.
---
Let's say you were interviewing me on whether I'm fit to be Sabermetric Vice President. (I'm not). You assume that because I'm running for this position, I at the very least have an opinion, one way or the other, on most of the most hotly-debated topics in Sabermetrics.
You might ask me: "Do you agree with Voros' McCracken's DIPS doctrine?" Now, I might respond: "In what respect?" because I wonder if you refer to the initial idea he proposed (that pitchers have no control over what happens to balls put in play) or the more general concept that while certain pitchers (knuckleballers, groundballers) have some outcome on balls in play, in general that control is limited and seems to vary widely from season to season. If I did have such a nuanced view (if what I just described is actually a nuanced view - don't let BL or Gaelan see this example ;), I would take off running when asked "What do you define it to be?" It wouldn't make an ounce of sense for me to say "His view on baseball" - that's completely nonresponsive.
I actually don't think the Bush Doctrine thing is as big a deal as the other parts of the interview - the parroting of the "don't second-guess Israel" talking point scared me more - but I struggle to understand how anyone could come away from watching that performance believing that woman to be ready to be next in line for president. She's like a hot prospect in the Dominican Summer League - a bright future, sure, but not someone you want warming up in the bullpen in game 7 of the World Series when your ace is showing visible signs of wearing down.
No doubt being the editor of the Harvard Law Review is one of the most taxing jobs in all of America. It's kind of amazing to me how little actual writing he himself seems to have done for it while he was there though.
Clearly the man is smart; he couldn't possibly have gotten as far as he has if he wasn't. And there's no denying he's gotten remarkably far on his intellect and charisma.
But I know a lazy drifter when I see one. The man has made no strong, indelible impressions on anyone he's worked with throughout his life. A hard worker, he ain't.
It's not just that he asked her to define it -- it's that he corrected her by defining it wrongly. It was not "enunciated in September 2002." Her definition was actually closer to the right one than his, though it really isn't susceptible to definition ... which was why it was an odd question to begin with.
And Chris Truby!
Sure thing. Why don't you tell me my biases, Mr. Omniscient?
I don't like women? Nope. I don't like Republicans? Nope. I want to see the Republicans fail? Nope. I am a Democrat? Nope. I don't like McCain? Nope. I didn't like Palin before the interview? Nope. I think Palin is a bad person? Nope. I am a liberal? Nope. I am a libertarian? Nope.
If anything I wanted her to succeed so badly that when she crashed and burned, I was disillusioned.
That's a very fair point. But if they win and McCain croaks on January 25, 2009, I need to hear what's going to go so terribly wrong. And, remember, those of us who lived through Jimmy Carter's presidency have already seen what happens when you are woeful at almost every aspect of the job. It's going to be real hard to top 1979-80 -- an awful economy as measured by every relevant variable, an almost unimaginable inability to connect rhetorically with the country, Iran going fundie, Afghanistan going commie, and a comically inept effort to rescue the hostages.
There's no reason you should care, but I don't believe you.(**) Nothing you've written would lead anyone to. I've watched the clip, too.
(**) In the sense that you're bordering on, "I've never voted Republican in my life, Rush, but this libruls have really got to me now" territory.
But Palin is running for VP in the political party of the current administration who has shaped its foreign policy based on the "Bush Doctrine". so the fact that she looked like she was being asked a question about brain surgery would lead one to believe that she had no clue what he was asking for which is a little disconcerting.
For the record I'm sure you could ask 50 different people what the Monroe Doctrine is and maybe you would get a correct answer 50% of the time.
Also, as for the fact that some people say crazy things about SP, isn't that the case for all the national pols? Why does some Chicago prof saying that about Palin strike you any differently than someone calling Obama a communist or a Muslim?
I don't know what you are putting in Google, but "Bush Obama Doctrine" comes up with a complete page full of hits about the Clintons dickering with Obama over the Bush Doctrine. Some people today are countering the "Palin Didn't Know,,," calling Obama to task today for things he said in the Primaries about the Bush Doctrine. Look, the Bush Doctrine was a hot topic between the Clinton and Obama. The Bush Doctrine wasn't begat six years ago and then hibernated until last night.
My favorite example from where my parents now live: Obama might just be a "gay Muslim racist who refuses to recite the Pledge of Allegiance." It sort of ties together all of the various elements into a totally ridiculous mess.
I put "Obama Bush Doctrine" and I get one hit on the first page that has a candidate using the words -- the story I mentioned. Two others are newspaper stories using the term; the rest are something else, or the Palin/Gibson interview.
I'm not going to be stubborn about the matter, but my impression is that the term isn't really used much. The Wikipedia reference is pretty strong evidence that (1) it's more a grouping of ideas; and (2) it wasn't "enunciated in September 2002."(**)
(**) Point 2 I am going to be stubborn about, because it's absurd.
Let's say, for sake of argument, that I accept your conclusion (that Jimmy Carter effed up the country because he was such a bad President from 1976 to 1980). Do you mean that by the fact that we're still standing here today means I have nothing to worry about from a potential Palin presidency? I suppose I would agree with you if Sarah Palin was like Jimmy Carter. Unfortunately, she's essentially his polar opposite. So why shouldn't I worry about a person who, when faced with an explosive foreign policy situation, gives every indication of not exercising too much caution (as Carter arguably did) but too little?
Because I have higher standards for the prof. And a member of the professoriat is generally invited into the fold into which they're invited, with pride.
Oh, yeah, and someone who calls someone a name doesn't do so with the pretense of wisdom. The nutty professor actually believes she's hit upon a transcendent piece of insight.
He didn't eff up the country ... that's the whole point. It's a resiliant entity that bounced back pretty quickly.
She seemed generally uncomfortable -- it could have been because of Gibson's condescending demeanor -- and seemed to clutch to the skeleton of a script that isn't fully developed yet. Some of this is revealed by her robotic repeating of portions of her speeches, which (A) she's clearly memorized, and (B) she seems to be going back to every time she speaks (catch phrases like "put the government back on the side of the people").
I don't want to sound overly pessimistic, but to me her first major unscripted tv interview on the issues left a bit to be desired and didn't do anything to settle whether she can play this game. Part of it is not being skilled enough in interviews (for example, just knowing to say "that depends on the circumstances" can go a long way). Part of it may reflect a lack of understanding of the issues. It's too early to tell, and I am keeping an open mind because we really haven't seen enough of her yet, but if I had to make a prediction I'd guess we haven't seen the last subject area she doesn't have a particularly deep understanding of.
Basically, the jury is still out on her, as far as I'm concerned. That means the cheerleaders at National Review who claim she passed last night's test are wrong -- but it also means that the people on the left who already decided that she can't hang are wrong too. We need to see more of her than teaser segments from a long interview.
where did i label you? I said you wanted to see her stumble, so she did. thats not a label. Yet, you had no problems labeling me a racist though ... this is all so funny.
I'd also like to point out that no where, no where have I ever attacked Osama personally. not once. i don't think i have even attacked his experience. Hell I like the guy. I just won't vote for him.
By the way, from the article linked about the gay Muslim racist, there's this disturbing passage:
This makes me sad. I hate politics.
EDIT: To clarify, it doesn't make me sad that some morons still think Obama is a Muslim. There's no hope for them. It makes me sad that the campaign won't even visit a mosque or allow someone dressed as a Muslim to appear on camera. The variety of our country is what makes it great, even if some of us forget that from time to time.
Undecided, right? Any thoughts oon who'll you pull the lever for you can share?
How can someone with 480 posts possibly have enough experience to assign blame for thread closure.
Are you familiar with the great purge of August 2006?
Do you agree with the Perspective Doctrine?
I need some flesh and blood on what exactly Palin would do if McCain croaked on January 25, 2009. In other words, connect her purported lack of experience with policy failures we should reasonably expect to transpire.
There have been some very poor presidential performances in the past 40 years -- I'd pick 1979-80 as the most concentrated collection, but that's obviously a matter of taste -- yet the country continues to hum along. What exactly is it that she's going to do?(**) Nuke Russia? What is she going to fail to do?
(**) And how is that related to her shortcomings?
So do I.
Granted - but how are you pinning that on Carter? Just as lame to blame high gas prices on W.
I am not even sure "the country" knows what that means.
Well, those at least are directly Carter's fault.
Damn that Jimmy Carter!
When all he had to do was ship them some stingers!
Well, now I am just piling on. It was comically inept.
Undecided, right? Any thoughts oon who'll you pull the lever for you can share?
Still 50/50. My disdain for the zany left will fade by election day and there's a long way to go. If I had to guess, I'd say Obama. If Obama wasn't pledged to raise taxes on the "rich" (and I fear, raise the roughly 95K cutoff above which you don't have to pay Social Security taxes) it would probably be a done deal by now. If he hadn't backtracked on FISA, it probably would also. I need an economic interventionist to be a strong civil libertarian to get my vote.
Fill the federal government with neocons, theocrats, and cronies chosen above all for their adherence to ideology as opposed to their competence or qualifications.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main