(Original video posted available here.)
Like a moose in the headlights, Sarah Palin obviously has absolutely no idea what the "Bush Doctrine" is. For the record, the Bush Doctrine is the KEY FOREIGN POLICY DOCTRINE of the past 8 years. It advocates "preventive war...that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat [is] not immediate." And no, "preventive" is NOT the same as "preemptive" (where a country strikes first, knowing that another country is about to attack it militarily), but apparently Sarah Palin's neocon foreign policy tutors didn't quite get to that one in her pre-interview cramming sessions.
I also love how she won't answer the question on Pakistan, and how Charlie Gibson says he "got lost in a blizzard of words." Ha.
OK, so let's cut to the chase. Sarah Palin is not qualified in any way, shape or form to be "a heartbeat away" from the presidency. The issue here that should outrage everybody, or at least give them a great deal of concern, is that John McCain chose someone for VP who's completely unqualified, thereby putting his own political prospects ahead of his country's security. That's the main point, and it's about time we all started to focus on it.
UPDATE: The conservatives are freaking out. Check out Michelle Malkin's near-hysteria, for instance. Obviously, they know that Sarah Palin just had a meltdown on national TV and there's nothing they can do about it. Waaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh!
UPDATE BY ROB: And, apparently, Palin thinks that Iraq had something to do with 9/11.
According to ABC:
On the anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history, Gov. Sarah Palin took a hard-line approach on national security and said that war with Russia may be necessary if Georgia were to join NATO and be invaded by Russia.
When Gibson said if under the NATO treaty, the United States would have to go to war if Russia again invaded Georgia, Palin responded: "Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help."And we've got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable," she told Gibson.
2. She advocated rashly for what sounded like immediate NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine. If there's anything that will piss off Putin and ratchet up hostilities with Russia, that would certainly be high on the list.
3. She then proceeds to the conclusion, which she shouldn't be talking about in such a flippant way, that if our NATO allies were attacked, it would mean war with Russia.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Actually, it's McCain's super-hawk "neo-con" foreign policy advisers who have told her what to say, she's just dutifully mouthing the words (I mean, c'mon, does ANYONE believe this person knows jack about the Caucusus, Ukraine, NATO, etc?).
If we were forced to respond we would need to pull troops from either Afghanistan or Iraq. Which mission would Palin sacrifice first for this new war to defend Georgia? Alternatively would she institute a draft? Increase the size of the military?
How would she square this commitment with other commitments?
As a side note, I think all of the candidates are wrong on Georgian membership in NATO. Ukraine, maybe. Logistically supporting Georgia would be very tricky even if we were able to resolve the troop availability question. We'd have stretched supply lines -- and yeah, ultimately it would mean that ICBM's would probably end up being used -- a catastrophe.
Maybe some day, but for now a cautious approach over the span of many years is the right idea in my opinion. There is no need to rush their membership. And I am happy with Europe taking the lead on decision making here.
It's past-time though for the U.S. and Europe -- especially the U.S. -- to get serious about energy independence. That's the long-term answer it seems.
They may all resign from NATO if this ticket gets elected -- ain't no way central Europe wants to get into a hot war with Russia over Georgia or even the Ukraine.
It's insanity. If these people were in charge during the Cuban Missile Crisis or at any time during the late '70's through the mid-'80s, the "Cold War" would have been a potential Thermonuclear War.
Something tells me this will be the last interview, and there will be no seperate campaign appearances and certainly no town halls for Sarah Palin.
Cut rare by-passes for any of you out there who lack health insurance.
I saw the original and then clicked on it to watch it again.
Oh. my.
Mr. Gibson noted that the job of vice president is not just about reforming a government but "running a government on a huge international stage in a very dangerous world." He told Ms. Palin he had asked Mr. McCain about her national security credentials and that Mr. McCain had pointed to her commanding of the Alaska National Guard and noted that Alaska is close to Russia. Are those sufficient credentials?"But it is about reform of government, and it's about putting government back on the side of the people," Ms. Palin responded. She started to talk about energy independence, drawing on her experience with oil and gas development in Alaska, when Mr. Gibson interrupted to say, "National security is a whole lot more than energy."
"It is," she conceded, "but I want you to not lose sight of the fact that energy is a foundation of national security."
The conservatives are freaking out. Check out Michelle Malkin's near-hysteria, for instance. Obviously, they know that Sarah Palin just had a meltdown on national TV and there's nothing they can do about it. Waaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh!
Now, when the republicans put Palin in solitary confinement for the remainder of the campaign, it will be because no one will give her a break and they aren't going to play this media game. I already see it coming.
It is much harder to mislead (a la McCain with "lipstick") if such speeches and interviews are not sound bites.
As for how Republicans should see this so far:
The Good:
On the issue of Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO, I believe Obama and Biden favor that also. Actually, congrats to Palin for explaining to America just what that means;
The Bad:
When Gibson pressed Palin on Israel, she gave a canned answer four times about not second-guessing Israel's decisions with respect to self-defense. At least in the transcript she comes across as reciting a talking point and unwilling to actually discuss the issue. That said, she is running for Vice President of the United States, and unlike, me, for instance, what she says matters. So, she gets some credit for having the sense not to talk about something of which she is ignorant, where a poor word choice can have long-lasting and lethal consequences;
And the Ugly:
She was obviusly unfamiliar with the Bush Doctrine. I suspect the line by this evening will be, of course Palin knows what the Bush Doctrine is, and for Gibson it was a gotcha moment that demonstrates how biased the press is. Well, sure, if Gibson wants to give Joe Biden a pop quiz on U.S. foreign policy, I won't mind. This will be a tough one to spin outside of the Dittoheads.
2. Sees God in her foreign policy? Check.
3. Belligerent toward other nations? Check.
4. Refuses to back down from obviously false claims? Check.
Sounds very familiar.
On a positive side, a person that I know leaning for McCain is now voting for Obama because he can't believe McCain would pick such an idiot for vice president.
In Palin's case and McCain it is impossible to square their "populism" as anything but a continuation of Bush economics, which is pretty much the antithesis of economic populism.
A person can't be against unions; in favor of the Bush tax code; and believe in unfettered free trade in all cases (except for intervention in man-made bank failures) -- and be considered an economic populist. Obama and Biden aren't even full fledged populists -- although there policies are likely to do a lot more for working families and the middle class than the alternative in this election.
Palin's populism only goes skin deep.
Otherwise she is for every regressive tax in the book, for Bushian economics in general. She left Wasilla in the hole financially (no oil companies to fleece) to build her silly sports stadium.
Dangerous, dangerous politician on so many levels. About the worst combination of traits I can think of ... except for Bush, Cheney, and, sadly, the 2008 version of John McCain (McCain 3.0, I guess).
The TransCanada deal is also one that's a little curious (e.g. my understanding is that the natural gas supplies wouldn't go to the lower 48, but would instead go to Alberta for use in extraction of the countries oil sands deposits. My sense is that there's probably some more to be learned about this one).
Agreed though that her record as mayor and her statement of economic principles doesn't inspire much confidence. The email from her hometown too seems to suggests that her priorities are completely out of whack (e.g. she got the town into debt over a money losing sports complex when the town would have been greater served by improving the towns storm drainage and sewer systems).
She also seems to favor a borrow now, pay later approach as Governor (e.g. she gives away the oil royalties, and uses bonds to fund major projects -- dumping debt on future generations).
The GOP have been right wing populists for the last 30 years, while pushing economic regression at the same time.
2. The trip to Mexico is a new one. When did she visit? What was the purpose of the trip? Those would have been nice follow-up questions.
3. The idea that we shouldn't second guess Israel is absolutely crazy. The only time when we are ever obligated to respond militarily is when an ally comes under attack -- not when it launches a pre-emptive strike against another sovereign nation without first receiving explicit U.S. approval (which I read as Congressional authorization).
"Populist is not an empty political buzzword that can be attached to someone like Palin, whose campaigns (lieutenant governor, governor and now Veep) are financed and even run by the lobbyists and executives of Big Oil, Wall Street bankers, drug companies, telecom giants and other entrenched economic interests",.
The fact that she and other GOP leaders mocked community organizers (i.e. persons who work within the grassroots)further demonstrates their hostility towards "the little people".
V.P. for ExxonMobil perhaps, V.P. for the U.S. No!
Like it or not, being in favor of guns and religion is a populist appeal. People identify with that and vote accordingly, because they are lead to believe that they are voting "one of them."
This is what electing the guy you rather have a beer is all about.
We liberals must be aware of this: fighting for the little guy is not good enough. We must show them a reflection of them in us.
If Charlie Gibson had asked Sarah Palin to define the Bush Doctrine, and waited until she came up with an answer, the campaign would have been over today.
I sort of feel sorry for her...
We've seen what happens when "the average person" becomes president. The world is simply too complex to do that again. She wants to be a heartbeat away from becoming the leader of the free world behind a 72 year old man with a recurrent deadly illness and she gives answers like she's in a beauty pageant and hasn't even followed the news enough over the last 6 years to know what the Bush Doctrine is. It's fine for the average person not to know, but it's not fine for someone who could become President at any moment, any more than it's fine for your pediatric oncologist to say, "Ah, gee whiz, I don't read what's in those fancy medical magazines-I just give it my all and pray a lot when I see a sick child." Time for a second opinion.
