Honest Question
If George W. Bush, the sitting President of the United States, spent the week linking Iraq and 911 (as he has in the past, but has since backed off from after catching so much heat for and losing credibility for it) and openly (some might suggest carelessly) tossing around the hypothetical of going to war with Russia, and not quite appearing up to snuff on dominant foreign policy paradigms (as he also has in the past)…
…would it be justified to give him flak for it?
She is clearly referring to al Qaeda, Brad. The writer and you infer what you want to hear I am afraid. There is no other way to get from what she said to what you read.
Comment by James — 9/12/2008 @ 12:49 pm
Agreed, all three are mitigated (in the case of Russia, she was just saying out loud the logical conclusion of the McCain/Obama policy, in the case of The Bush Doctrine it could be unclear to even close foreign policy watchers in some contexts what aspect was being referred to (though I don’t think that was the case here)). When I’m bringing these things up, let’s not jump to the “Is this or is this not a complete disqualifier for her candidacy” line of thinking, because I certainly don’t mean them as such.
However, it struck me that if Bush spent the week doing these same things, he would rightly get flak for at the very least being irresponsible and loose-lipped. But it’s starting to get to a weird point with Palin where the pendulum has swung the other way, from dogpiling on her, to treating her as a china doll who deserves the benefit of the doubt in all cases. What happened to the middle ground, where she doesn’t deserve the level of flak she initially got, but likewise it’s pretty clear that she’s got no discernible foreign policy experience or body of knowledge or even a particular tact with addressing those issues, and that’s important to examine and judge?
I mean, call me biased, but it was pretty clear to me in the Gibson interview that she was either parrying or just engaging in rote recitation, and not of the “debate prep to get thoughts well-expressed way”, but as her critics are alleging, that she was given opinions where no opinions or formed thoughts existed before. To steer clear of Bush, if Tim Kaine or Barack Obama began putting in performances like that, would the right lay off?
Just strikes me that we’re entering double standard territory with Palin, if not already well within the borders of it.
Comment by Brad — 9/12/2008 @ 12:54 pm
Name one politician that gives a straight answer, Brad. One.
Comment by James — 9/12/2008 @ 1:11 pm
She did give straight answers. That’s the problem. :)
In related news, I’ll second almost entirely Ross Douthat’s thoughts on the matter here. I’m by no means anti-Palin, but I do have to admit I’m disappointed by how she’s being used and absorbed. I certainly understand message discipline. This strikes me as a little different, more “immaculate conception message cloning”.
Comment by Brad — 9/12/2008 @ 1:15 pm
The most painful moment was the Bush Doctrine thing, but it really wasn’t clear what he meant. He should have qualified it with a mention of pre-emption, say, if that’s what he wanted.
Comment by Adam — 9/12/2008 @ 1:55 pm