by blue stockings | First, the pathetic:
And before you go further, you might want to see TBogg's rebuttal to the Right's equally pathetic whiiiiiiine that this wasn't a fair test.
It is embarrassing to have to spell this out, but for the record let me explain why Gov. Palin's answer to the "Bush Doctrine" question -- the only part of the recent interview I have yet seen over here in China -- implies a disqualifying lack of preparation for the job.
Not the mundane job of vice president, of course, which many people could handle. Rather the job of potential Commander in Chief and most powerful individual on earth.....
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...
Sarah Palin did not know this issue, or any part of it. The view she actually expressed -- an endorsement of "preemptive" action -- was fine on its own merits. But it is not the stated doctrine of the Bush Administration, it is not the policy her running mate has endorsed, and it is not the concept under which her own son is going off to Iraq....
A further point. The truly toxic combination of traits GW Bush brought to decision making was:
1) Ignorance
2) Lack of curiosity
3) "Decisiveness"...[W]e know about #1 and we can guess, from her demeanor about #3. Most of all we know something about the person who put her in this untenable role.
Publius at Obsidian Wings says:
The upshot is that the interview shows that Palin has not followed -- and thus probably has no interest in -- the foreign policy debates over the past seven years. And I'm not talking about at a wonk level -- she's not even up to "regular newspaper reader" level. And she might be President in 2 months.
At The Corner, Jay Nordlinger sputters that Charlie Gibson's style might have upset Palin, that he was mean to her.
As I said in a post earlier today, any problem Sarah Palin had in that interview is her own fault — on no one else’s head. But readers have been weighing in with critiques of Gibson’s performance, and some of their criticisms are right-on.
Did he have to glower? Did he have to distort her previous comments? Did he have to condescend like crazy? (No way he would have done it with a left-wing woman.) Did he have to go all gotcha on the Bush Doctrine?
Ooooh boo hoo, poor little pitbull. A left-wing woman would have known the answer. Hillary would have given the correct answer and then some.
But former Republican John Cole had the best summation:
Dan Drezner, after watching the Palin interview, asks a question:
Question to other GOP policy wonks: is it possible to support a candidate that campaigns on the notion that expertise is simply irrelevant?
The depressing thing is that this has been the GOP platform for years now. Expertise is overrated. Gut instincts, being “tough,” and being “decisive,” and not “blinking” are all far more important than actually knowing things.
Look at the thorough disdain for science the GOP has displayed for the past few years. Amorphous morals trump reason and science, and then those morals are conveniently discarded or altered when it becomes inconvenient for the GOP (see: family values, David Vitter).
The funny thing about all this is that the new savior of the GOP, Sarah Palin, is the one who is finally waking everyone up to what the Republican party really is all about. They are not serious about foreign policy (Fallows is just brutal). They are not serious (or honest) about scientific policy. They are not serious about economic policy (other than cutting taxes). They are not serious about an energy policy (just drill, baby, drill).
They just are not serious about, well, anything. (Balloon Juice)
John Cole calls her "the distilled essence of wingnut." As my co-blogger says, that's got the hallmark on it.
On the same general subject, Maura Kelly at the Guardian writes:
While plenty of people somewhere in the US support Sarah Palin, there are also plenty of us for whom she has inspired new-found depths of loathing. Thank God that Charlie Gibson, in as professional a manner as possible, showed her up for the moron that she is. (As Press Box columnist Jack Schafer so succinctly put it: "Never mind about [Palin] not being ready to be president. She wasn't even ready for this interview." (Guardian)
She points out that there were plenty of reasons, even before this interview, to hate the thought of Palin on any presidential ticket.
[R]eally, even before the interview, there was just so much to dislike about her — and McCain too. By choosing the dimwit from Wasilla, the Republican presidential hopeful signalled his disrespect for women: Did he really think we'd vote for her just because she happens to have certain anatomical parts? He also signalled his alarming disregard for the country at large: Does he really think someone with little experience outside of Alaska — a sleazy opportunist with questionable ethics and poor diplomatic skills who clearly had no idea, last night, what the Bush doctrine was — will be able to lead if he's unable to?
But really, it's the "hockey mom" who is so stubbornly — and smugly — anti-intellectual that I really want to eviscerate here, so let me stick to enumerating her many failings.
[M]ost importantly — not to mention unassailably — in addition to being an anti-intellectual, she's an anti-politician. Rather than being able to bridge any partisan divides, she created enemies left and right — on both the left and the right — in her home state. A number of local Republicans have spoken out against her, emphasizing her unwillingness to engage with anyone who doesn't share her point-of-view. If she couldn't even win over the Republicans in her home state, how are we supposed to believe she can help to improve what McCain referred to as the "bipartisan rancour" of things on Capitol Hill?(Guardian; lots more)
At Shakesville, Melissa McEwen asks:
John McCain has asked you to put your trust in a person who is manifestly unfit for the presidency. Doesn’t that bother you? Doesn’t it piss you off? Doesn’t it scare you?
Because it fucking should.
Second, why it might not matter, from Brad at Sadly, No!
Oh sure, some of the more literate right-wingers have expressed reservations about Sarah Palin’s qualifications, but most of them see her total lack of knowledge about world affairs to be a badge of honor. Thinking about stuff? Weighing costs and benefits? Pffft, that’s what liberals have done for years and look where it’s gotten us! Think about all the reckless wars we could’ve waged if liberals hadn’t gotten in the way! And they have the nerve to teach our kids that we evolved from apes!!!
The GOP has become one giant St00p1d Machine. They revel in being ignorant about everything, and anyone who actually has knowledge about a given topic is treated at best as suspect. The fact that Sarah Palin has, at least for the moment, been a boon to McCain’s campaign is the dark reflection of a nation that has lost its ability to think.
Call me a cockeyed optimist, but I think the majority are about to wake up. And I don't believe the polls.
Lots more at Memeorandum....
RECENT POSTINGS
McCain Lies About Palin's Earmarks: Palin Revives Discredited View of 911
Dirty Tricks: Gov. Bill Richardson on Republican Redistricting Plans
Example for the Media & the Obama Campaign: Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher Owns Ann Althouse
Comments