Palin’s Ro(t)e American History Lesson

I think Palin will do pretty well in tonight's debate. She'll come across as sympathetic to voters' beliefs.

It'll certainly be interesting to see how she does tonight because she has strengths but also some obvious weaknesses (a couple of the Couric questions were absolutely disastrous, particularly the SC question.) But as some pundit noted this morning, the debate format tonight should work to Palin's advantage with short response times and little follow up (it's usually on those follow up questions where she gets tripped up because she seems pretty confident with short initial responses but then hesitates to get into too much detail- which obviously reflects some potential lack of knowledge as well as probable concern about stepping into traps.)

I am on the fence about her and ready to be convinced one way or the other. As a McCain supporter I was enthused by the energy she brought to the campaign and the polishing of reformer image for the ticket, but so far I'm not convinced she'd be ready to be POTUS (I think it's a position she could easily grow into though.) At this point I intend to vote for McCain because I believe that his health is good, but I will be concerned if his health fails during the early part of his term.

I do find it annoying that some of the negative perceptions of Palin are based on false information which is being repeated often enough until it's been accepted as true. For instance, in this article Tony Campbell cites that she didn't know what the duties of VP were, when actually in the interview response that that's based on what she was obviously saying is that she would want to know from a presidential candidate what HIS expectations were for his VP. The context of the question was whether or not she'd consider VP which meant leaving her post as AK governor, and she was saying that she felt what she was doing there was important and she'd have to know that leaving that position would put her in place to do more for the country (not be a do-nothing VP.) Although we've come to think of VP as an important job now, in the very recent past it was considered an almost purely ceremonial position (with the main duty of attending funerals.) When you hear the interview in it's entirety it's obvious this is what she was referring to.

Bill Press (liberal talk show host) has said she'll likely do fine, and that nobody should expect a disaster with her. I.e., don't be overconfident or underestimate her despite her recent problems with Couric. I agree with Press. Biden needs _not_ to attack Pain in any harsh or vicious manner. (Will Biden be asked about his family's ethical problems, I wonder, if he mentions ethical failures by Republicans?)

The VP role is being deliberately "scrutinized" this year as another example of liberal hypocrisy. More irritating (in addition to the scummier examples of hatred we've seen and related childish-smart-ass juvie junk such as on stupid Stephanie Miller's junior-high-school-level or lower show) has been the repetition of "mayor, mayor, mayor" (like the Bloomberg so beloved by so many play-pen people out there?) Palin rather than _governor_ Palin, _governor_ like Clinton, Carter, Bush, et cetera, i.e., one with more relevant experience and qualifications than Obama to be President.

If you don't like her or her politics, fine, but try behaving yourselves for a change. Scummy attacks only will result in a backlash from higher-quality individuals and _voters_.

Unfortunately though, DLS, I don't think maturity is prevailing these days (have you seen the latest get-out-the-vote effort, for instance, in which Sarah Silverstein's informs us that we can literally register to vote while we poop if we have a laptop?)

We're in the midst of an economic meltdown, a war on two fronts, record deficits and exploding healthcare costs just as the demographic timebomb of babyboomer retirement is about to go off, and scarcely anyone seems to be able to reason with any higher faculty than a sixth grader. Say what you will about McCain's age, but in my view his generation represents the last gasp of grownup thinking.

At this point I intend to vote for McCain because I believe that his health is good, but I will be concerned if his health fails during the early part of his term.

You sure are a high stakes gambler!

Maybe it wouldn't be so scrutinized if Cheney didn't make such a hack job of it.

CStanley

Say what you will about McCain's age, but in my view his generation represents the last gasp of grownup thinking.

I would amend that last statement to "last gasp of outdated grownup thinking"

20th centruy values need to be updated, just like 19th century values were in the 20th.

and how can you call McCain the grownup when he's been having temper tantrums? He's sounding more like Bill Hickey in Creepshow every day "Where's my cake Bedelia?"

CStanley said: "Say what you will about McCain's age, but in my view his generation represents the last gasp of grownup thinking."

It seems you don't think much of yourself and your peers.

Every time I meet someone that has such negative and self-depreciating opinions about themselves and the world they live in if feel both sad and sorry. CStanley, You're O.K... I'm O.K... The world's O.K. and the sky is not falling.

I'm a center-right independent (pro-life) who voted for Bush twice. I won't be voting Republican again for quite a while, it seems. The reason? The party is no longer serious about governing. I was appalled by the Palin pick from the get-go when it seemed McCain had put very little into vetting her and (more importantly) seemed to think it was responsible to drop an unknown onto the national stage with only two months to go before the election. Taken together there was little reason to believe that McCain knew enough to judge whether she was ready to be president should the need arise, or that there was enough time for us to form a sound opinion on that important question. Which adds up to the posture of saying that it is OK to elect a president whose vice president might well NOT be capable of stepping in if she had to. That's not serious governance. It's not country first.

Since then, of course, McCain has not had the good fortune of getting away with it. Although he made the outrageous choice to keep Palin from actual scrutiny, he had to allow her a few interviews. In them, she has shown herself to be utterly unqualified. It's not that she's missing a few facts, which is not a big deal. It's that she's so radically uninformed that she doesn't understand the import of many of the questions she is asked. Some Republicans try to excuse this, but in ways that miss this fundamental problem. See, for example, the lame defense on the Bush Doctrine. Her response wasn't that of someone who was worried about which definition of the Bush Doctrine was in play -- it was that of someone who hasn't thought about American foreign policy *at all*.

Anyway, the point of all of this is that I'm growing increasingly angry at the Republican party. I'm no Democrat and I never will be because of their stance on social issues and a few other things. But I'll be stuck voting Democrat until the Republican party grows up and starts being serious about governance and serious about treating intelligent voters with a modicum of respect.

Your post here is all about the politics of the choice. It's not helpful to a voter like me.

The Palin supporters who attempt to compare her to Obama become more and more comical by the hour. One can say what they want about their relative levels of experience, especially "executive" experience. Based on declared positions on issues, everyone will find more in common with one candidate or another. However, in terms of the ability to absorb, analyze and distill information, Obama is obviously her intellectual superior by a wide margin. While he doesn't seem to have Clinton's ability to speak extemporaneously on issues, one at least gets the sense that Obama can offer a useful, coherent opinion on most any issue of national or international importance off the cuff, just by tapping the reservoir of information he's built from personal inquiry. Palin seems to have zero grasp of issues that don't confront her life in Alaska, and so I can't imagine how she has anything useful to contribute in a nationally elected office. Her knowledge deficit is simply too great for on the job training at this level.

She does seem to have considerable political talent of a sort. Were she to win a House seat, I can see her perhaps growing to the point that in 8 or 10 years of being immersed in a broader range of topics, she'd be ready for the primetime.

One final thought. Watching her sometimes, I wonder if she doesn't have ADD/ADHD. As someone who has ADD, I assimilate a lot of nebulous information and allow it to slowly distill. As the information cooks down into coherent ideas or themes, I often lose hold of the specific information that underpins the broader understanding. In a conversation, this sometimes manfests itself where I speak confidently in expressing a particular view, but if someone really tries to pin me down to cite a particular fact, I often come up empty, especially when put on the spot. Then twenty minutes later, it comes to me. I'm not saying this happens with Palin, but it might explain some things. On the other hand, many of her answers seem to be not only devoid of any real content, but seem to imply that she doesn't even know enough to understand the question.

I didn't see the example you gave, C.S., but I have heard something remarkable on the radio. Stephanie Miller's lefty radio show actually has "behaved" like sub-Saharan Africa in that it has actually gotten _worse_ in succeeding years. (I first heard her show three years ago.) As to misbehavior in Washington and dysfunctionality that is not limited to the GOP: I asked aloud on this site some time ago, would we really have as much faith or confidence in today's Congress and executive branch (including NASA) as well as industry, for that matter, now to undertake the manned moon effort from scratch as we had in the people who actually did it 40-50 years ago? (No.)

"have you seen the latest get-out-the-vote effort, for instance, in which Sarah Silverstein's informs us that we can literally register to vote while we poop if we have a laptop"

No, but I suspect there will be at least one self-absorbed (narcissistic) person who will do so and boast about it on-line, too. (Something the people on Stephanie Miller's shock-jock thinks-they-are-comedians radio show might be delighted to report about)

I see comments such as, "Stop attacking Sarah" or "Palin may have AD/HD", stop, stop, stop.... She is UNQUALIFIED. No matter what party you are registered with, she DOES NOT have what it takes to be second in command. Just imagine you have her at a job interview (for VP of the US), and you are asking Katie Kouric questions to see if she knows her stuff, and she gives those same lame brain answers....would you hire her! Case closed...!!!!

Back to the question of Supreme Court cases, who among us couldn't come up with a few? I thought immediately of Brown versus Board of Education and of course Gore versus Bush. How could Palin not know either of those?

But for Palin , it is unbelievable, completely beyond belief, that she could not instantly recall Exxon vs. Alaska, about which the governor, one, uh, let me see, here it is, Sarah Palin said ""justice delayed being justice denied. For us it was like a kick in Alaska's collective gut,"

Come on, Palin defenders. That. is. inexcusable.

Well, I learned in junior high school that the government of the US is divided into three branches: the legislature, which makes laws, the Supreme Court, which resolves legal disputes in teh law/US constitution and the executive branch.

The executive branch (persident) is the commander in chief of the military, he signs bills into law, he is responsible for enforcnig the law and ensuring the US Constitution is upheld. The prez also has a cabinet of advisors, and can take other actions.

Given that one of the main responsibilites of the prez is to enforce the law, I would expect a president who has the mental agility to see all sides of the argument, able to understand the legal implications (doesn't have to be a lawyer, but must have enough experience around legislation and writing legislation to understand various legal implications) and someone who understands the US Constitution well enough to know to ensure everyone's rights are met.

So I think we would want at a minimum a prez and veep who can talk knowledgably about law, cases and the impact of those cases on various aspects of American life.

If we have a broken bone, for instance, we don't go to a preacher to just make us feel good and sympathize with us. We might go to a preacher. But we would go to the doctor to set the bone.

Likewise with the position of the president (and veep)... we need people in those offices who have a disciplined and agile mind, who can see various points of view, can enforce the law and uphold (and protect) the constitution of the US. For instance what is the diference between "unlawful enemy combatant" and "prisoner of war" and how are they treated under US law or international law? Can citizens of the US be considered "unlawful enemy combatants" if they are caught "running with terrorists"? Would they be considered traitors to the US? What rights do these people have?

I'm not looking for answers here... I have my own opinions on the matter. But I would expect a president and vice president to be able to AT THE VERY LEAST understand some basics distinctions about these sorts of "classes" of people and the pros and cons of giving them such labels. Given that we are in two wars with detainees of various labels, the next president should have enough knowledge about these "classes" (and law) to ask probing and useful questions to their advisors.

Otherwise I fear that innocent people will be locked up and the key thrown away, as they were under Bush. I'm referring to some detainess at Gitmo who were not terrorists, but were turned over to the American military in the Middle-East so a bounty could be collected.

I look forward to hearing Palin's approach on this.

GD: Thinking of something when you're on the spot sometimes is different. I have no idea whether she could answer that question intelligently over a cup of tea without the cameras on her or not, but it's possible. Not that that excuses it, because thinking under high pressure situations is also a job requirement, but it says something different about her than the assumption that she' s completely ignorant.

Steve: No self deprecation at all. I'm one generation removed from McCain but I suppose I've always felt like an old soul. Most people that I like or admire are either from his time or if they're younger, they tend to have the same value system as the best of his generation.

Oh, and GD? I'm guessing that Palin probably agreed with Brown vs. Board of Ed and Gore v. Bush, so those wouldn't have been appropriate answers to the question she was asked (at least I hope that she agreed with Brown, and I presume she agreed with Gore v Bush and certainly wouldn't have said so if that weren't the case!)

Don't lose sight of that element of the question; most candidates have had time to learn every political nuance of major court decisions and what is OK to say on the campaign trail and what isn't. She probably couldn't come off the top of her head without concern of pissing someone off with what decisions she's thought were bungled.

Chris www: My 'gamble' on McCain's health isn't high stakes according to actuarial tables and his medical reports. And besides, I have to put the risk of this decision up against the risk that I'd be getting Obama right away as president, and I would not be happy with that choice.

I sit corrected. CStanley shows that to some, it IS excusable to be so ignorant of issues or so lame under the intense pressure of, huh? Katie Couric? I agree with Brown, disagree with Bush v Gore, and agree with Palin on Exxon vs Alaska. But come on. Palin says a Supreme Court decision was a "kick in the gut" a year ago and now can't even recall that? That's pathetic.

If history's the topic, then perhaps a more immediate question is relevant: To which branch of government does she think the Vice-Presidency belongs?

I have any number of questions for Sarah Palin, and while I can see where CStanley is coming from in defending her, it's just unreasonable to expect the country to simply accept that she will come up to speed, or that she just bobbles sometimes under pressure. If she'd had more time in office, we'd have a history by which to judge her. If she'd had more time in the wider public eye, ditto. But to toss her into the ring a mere matter of weeks in front of a crucial election, and then lower the standards for her, is just not realistic.

The bar is set very very low for her tonight, but she's still going to have to hit the ball out of the park.