There's been a lot going around about Gibson's glowering, condescending interview of Sarah Palin recently on ABC. The most talked about moment was when Palin was hesitant about Gibson's meaning referring to the "Bush doctrine" and yet, the very person who coined the term, columnist Charles Krauthammer, says there have come to be several meanings of the term, and the one Gibson said it meant is not in common use any more.
Krauthammer:
"Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed "doctrines" in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines which come out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few other contradictory or conflicting foreign policy crosscurrents.Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine.
Yes, Sarah Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage."
6 comments:
Krauthammer just wants to tout himself as the "inventer" of the term and the authority on it. But he misrepresents it, too. Others have said the Bush Doctrine is a collection of principles, not a shifting series of them, and that the pre-emptive strike doctrine is often considered the defining element.
BUT....the more important question is whether, apart from possible confusion about the meaning of the term, was her response enlightened, knowledgeable and fit for a person who may be President?
I didn't think so. Not at all. I think McCain could have answered it well. Palin, totally flat and clearly unable to discuss the issue meaningfully even after Gibson explained his meaning. She addressed US responses to clear and imminent threats, which is universally considered to be acceptable under international law. The doctrine of preemptive attacks goes beyond that and is incredibly controversial and very likely in contravention of international law (i.e., only powerful countries like the US can get away with it). She was unaware of the distinction, so couldn't address it.
She wasn't confused because she didn't know "which" Bush Doctrine he was referring to. She simply didn't have the background to talk about it.
I think you underestimate her.
we'll see. i hope i am, because she appears poised to go places and accomplish things, whether or not she wins this with mccain. =] but right now, the thought of her being a hearbeat away from that chair truly unnerves me. she is the only one of the 4 i have no confidence in her fundamental ability to handle the job - apart from policy differences.
at the end of the day, all my comments about her should be understood with this in mind. on a 10-scale of "likely to be a great president", i would rank the P and VP candidates like this:
Obama 8.5
McCain 5
Biden 6
Palin 0.5
i know you'll disagree. i just want to clarify this is about capability in my mind. preparedness. not policy differences. and i think the liberal lashing out arises primarily out of that perception and a sense of shock that she's being treated as a serious candidate for the position. you can't crash-course study for this role. there's no Cliff's notes. give her 8-12 more years operating on a national/international level, and maybe i'll agree with you that she may be a viable contender. but not now. not with what i've seen.
Again I say - Obama's rhetorical ability aside - what has he done and what experience does he have that makes him more qualified than Palin?
I would put it like this:
McCain 7.5
Obama 6
Palin 6
Biden 1
Although I'm tempted to put Palin higher. Why? It's nothing more than a gut reaction, but I have a feeling were she put in the position with advisers and apparatus to assist in the vetting of ideas, she would be tremendously good, correct in her instincts, etc. The comparison to Truman comes to mind - nobody when he took office would have pegged him for a great one - yet that's have many evaluate him now. He had the right character and instincts or the time.
Although I will admit to wanting to believe Obama would be a great president. I'm just not sure...and the principle reason is that I don't see any evidence in his career to date to show he is willing to buck his party or the liberal line in any significant way. I think a great president shows that independence. I know he's talking the talk now, but I'm looking for evidence that he has walked the walk in this regard.
Post a Comment