48 posts tagged “political”

Lopez: What is a conservative?

Noonan: Thank you for asking. I think this is something we should talk about more, and something I would urge NR to address with a greater force or breadth. Bill Buckley and his hardy band — James Burnham, Jeffrey Hart, etc. — brought to their task a certain missionary zeal. They thought they had to explain this thing, conservatism, to an American public that had just come through 25 years of the New Deal and had not heard or seen conservatism announced, put forward, or explained in a coherent way in more than a generation. (Russell Kirk of course was very much a part of this project, in perhaps a broader way.) Let me tell you, everyone wants to talk about politics, and the kind of ad McCain should cut, but what about the philosophies that animate our politics? But briefly, my views. You can debate whether conservatism is a philosophy, a program of settled ideas, a school of thought, a way of seeing the world. I tend to see it, to experience it, as a way of being, a way of understanding the world and responding to it. I cannot help but think that knowing there is a God is the start of all conservatism. (Apologies to agnostic friends who are various kinds and flavors of conservative.) Once you know that you know something big. From there you go on to knowing man. “If men were angels . . . ” They are not, so you don’t want to give them too much governmental power. I’ll throw forward some words and phrases meant to be shorthand for a lot. Prudence. A sense of reality. Understanding limits. Respect for tradition — it didn’t happen by accident. The long view. Respect for the individual and his rights. A knowledge that life is worth living, we’re lucky to be here. I would add or emphasize, for me, a Catholic sense of mystery — we don’t know all, can’t know all, must do our best. I think of ideology as some abstract thing dreamed up by intellectuals and squished down on the heads of human beings — “You will conform your actions to my ideological assumptions and expectations!” I see philosophy as something that rises up from human beings who observe and live with human beings. Conservatism is not an ideology. That’s the last thing it is.

This is taken from an enlightening interview with Noonan.  Going forward from this current political situation, she shares her view that Conservatives need to begin focusing on what makes America...and she is clear that Washington isn't it.  It's worth reading the whole thing. 

I'm rapidly running out of ways to criticize Barack Obama.  Over the past two years, I've been lamenting at various times (and in no particular order): Obama's inexperience, questionable associations, stated policy goals, inept assessments of world events, pandering to abortion extremists, Chicago-style thug politics, indiscriminate acceptance of donations, effete inability to relate to rural voters, hypocritical vice-presidential pick, nebulous and disingenuous center-left talk and finally his irritatingly frequent mental pauses when off the prompter.

At first, I went with inexperience.  Up until the Democrat primaries, I remained convinced that Clinton would get the nomination.  This was primarily because I had faith in the commitment to reason of my Democrat countrymen.  Quite frankly I believe that a Clinton ticket might have taken on Obama as VP and sailed to victory, while still acknowledging the political realities of our current situation (this isn't to say that I would have supported such a ticket, rather I think it would have simply been less awful).  Despite a late comeback from Clinton, Obama walked away with the nod.  Despite the same dirty politicking which gave him his Senate seat, and one very memorable use of the race card (Bill Clinton is a racist now?) the Democrat constituency decided to give Obama the opportunity to lead this country.

I thought then, foolishly, that we'd begin to see the press digging through his record in the Senate.  They'd form their narrative of his rise to prominence and fill in the gaping holes left by his campaign narrative.  Nope.  This is a separate issue, but the press has championed this man's candidacy from the start, downplaying serious concerns and trumpeting the story that Obama's people want told.  In a year that favors Democrats, with a candidate like John McCain agonizing over how honorable he must be instead of trying to win, and the race being within 4-7 points...imagine today's headlines if the so-called journalists in our news media had deigned to investigate Obama with half as much energy as they devoted to Sarah Palin...or Joe the Plumber.  Within days of daring to ask Obama a hard question in which the candidate revealed his socialist leanings, Joe's garbage had been thorougly rifled through.  They can't do that to a candidate for President?  They won't, and they didn't.

Over the next few months I would identify an issue, follow its progression through the mainstream news and through the blogs, and inevitably watch it die a limping, somewhat befuddled death.  So many times, I saw what I thought could not be ignored.  I thought each of these issues would finally begin the process of seriously investigating this man who wants to lead a federal government that I know he intends to grow dramatically.

Each issue was glossed over, roundly ignored, outright denied or rationalized.  I swear I saw Obama change his position and contradict himself, yet his supporters barely noticed. 

The cult of personality which has developed around this man is nothing short of alarming.  Do you remember the fainting?  The Berlin rally?  Try criticizing this man in front of people who have cheered themselves hoarse for a vision they can't even articulate.  They're roaring their approval for a cloud, a man who changes shape to become what people want to see. 

Nothing, no issue has stuck to him for more than a few days.  Not Jeremiah Wright, not his socialism, not the corrupt donation process on his site, not the voter fraud perpetrated on his behalf, not his idiotic foreign policy declarations...nothing.  And he is poised to assume the Presidency in what will be an historic, and historically bad, moment. 

This election may see a permanent leftward shift in our country.  Permanent.  You understand, of course, that the more power you give to government the less you have yourself?  And what it is given it rarely if ever gives back willingly?  This means that if universal healthcare doesn't work, we're stuck with it.  This means that if you work hard and become rich, you'll be taxed and your money given to those who don't work or who simply aren't as successful.  And you'll be stuck with that. 

I believe there has already been a shift in this country.  We used to be a nation of independent spirits, distrustful of the government and anyone telling us what to do with our property.  We've become, over the past 50 years, a nation of people asking "where's mine?" with an outstretched hand.  We've voluntarily sewn ourselves up in red tape.  We've seen our taxes increase to our detriment and decrease to our prosperity, yet we've learned nothing.

Maybe Obama really is the president this country wants.  Maybe he is the President this country deserves. 

Since the topic has been coming up lately, I submit to you this piece.  I found it reinforces my own views.  Since I am not interested in making a substantial post of my own, you must subsist on my regurgitations.  How's that for imagery?

Obama’s New Tax Welfare
Behind the 95.

By Peter Ferrara

Barack Obama says he plans to cut taxes for 95 percent of American workers. That sounds terrific, but there are three problems. One, it is meant to draw attention from the real core of the Obama tax plan: proposed increases in every major federal tax. Two, the structure of the cuts will create perverse incentives. And three, many of the people receiving “tax cuts” don’t pay taxes to begin with, meaning they’ll be in effect getting welfare.

The first point requires but a simple list. Obama proposes to raise the top two individual income tax rates by 25 percent or more, through both explicit rate increases and the phaseout of personal exemptions and all itemized deductions for upper-income earners. He’ll increase the capital-gains tax rate by 33 percent, the tax rate on dividends by 33 percent, and the top payroll-tax rate by 16 to 32 percent. He’ll create a new payroll tax for national health insurance, estimated at 7 percent. He’ll reinstate the death/inheritance tax, which is being phased out under current law, with a new top marginal rate of 45 percent. He’ll increase the corporate tax burden by 25 percent “by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens.” He’ll even increase tariffs through his protectionist trade policies.

Obama argues that only higher-income workers and rich corporations will suffer these tax increases, and they can afford it. But tax and economic policy is not about who “can afford it.” Increasing these marginal tax rates greatly harms the economy — when more of the money earned goes to the government, there’s less incentive for “the rich” to work, save, invest, and create and expand businesses. This affects people trying to start businesses with investment money from wealthy folks. Not to mention people looking for jobs, which usually come from businesspeople with money.

This isn’t just a theory. Ireland adopted a 12.5 percent corporate tax rate 20 years ago, when it suffered the second-lowest per capita GDP in the European Union (EU). Its economy boomed as a result, and today Ireland enjoys the second highest per-capita GDP in the EU. Ireland, with its 12.5-percent rate, raises 50 percent more corporate-tax revenue as a percent of GDP than the U.S. does with its 35 percent rate. Yet Barack Obama laughs at McCain’s proposal to reduce that corporate rate to 25 percent, the minimum needed to restore international competitiveness for U.S. companies and employers, mocking it as still more tax cuts for rich corporate fat cats.



Obama’s tax plan is exactly the opposite of the supply-side economics that Reagan adopted, which produced the astounding boom of the 1980s. That boom, in fact, lasted 25 years, from 1982 to 2007, as Art Laffer and Steve Moore discuss in their new book, The End of Prosperity. Laffer and Moore explain that more wealth was produced during those 25 years than in the previous 200 years of American history.

Obama’s tax plan is also exactly the opposite of President Kennedy’s, which produced another astounding boom in the 1960s. Pursuing the exact opposite policies from Kennedy and Reagan will produce exactly the opposite results.

(Note also that Obama’s tax increases will not produce nearly enough revenue to finance all his lavish spending proposals, as shown by a brilliant new paper from Alan Reynolds of the Cato Institute. And by the way, Bill Clinton campaigned in 1992 promising a tax cut for the middle class — after he was elected he dropped that idea, adopting tax increases for people making as little as $20,000 per year.)

Finally, Obama’s “tax cut,” if he follows through with it, will often be a simple giveaway. As it stands right now, roughly one-third of income earners pay no federal income taxes. Many actually receive payments from the income-tax system — these payments total 3.8 percent of all federal taxes paid. Simple arithmetic holds that if one-third of earners don’t pay income tax, it’s impossible to cut taxes for 95 percent of earners.

Obama’s “tax cut” is, in reality, a $500-per-worker refundable income-tax credit for workers making up to $75,000 per year, and for families making up to $150,000. The term “refundable” means that if the worker does not have enough tax liability to take advantage of the credit, the government sends the worker a check to cover the full amount of the credit anyway. It is like George McGovern’s 1972 promise of a $1,000 check for everyone, which the American people rejected as a crass vote-buying scheme.

Besides the $500-per-worker credit, Obama proposes a slew of income-tax credits targeted toward low- and moderate-income people, also refundable. Obama proposes such tax credits for child care, education, housing, retirement, health care, welfare, etc.

Though the people receiving these credits will spend the money, the programs will probably hurt the economy on net, because the credits will be phased out at higher income levels. This, in effect, constitutes yet another marginal tax on high-income earners, and thus another blow to their incentives to be productive.

These programs alone would cost $1.3 trillion over ten years. I call it The New Tax Welfare.

— Peter Ferrara is director of entitlement and budget policy for the Institute for Policy Innovation, and general counsel of the American Civil Rights Union. He formerly served in President Reagan’s White Office of Policy Development, and as associate deputy attorney general of the United States under the first President Bush.

For your perusal and discussion:

Jive Turkey Rides Again
By the Editors

If we learned anything from the mess in Florida in 2000, it’s this: When elections don’t end on Election Day, things get ugly quickly. That is why today, and not the day after Election Day, is the day for Americans of all political stripes to aggressively press for more robust safeguards against vote fraud and for immediate action on the registration-fraud investigations targeting ACORN, the community-organizing enterprise that has been the sometime employer and full-time ally of Barack Obama.

ACORN’s voter-registration affiliate, Project Vote, was founded by leftist activist Sandy Newman. When Newman was looking to hire somebody to run Project Vote in Illinois, he turned to a local lawyer who had conducted training for ACORN: Barack Obama. Small world. (“He did one hell of a job,” Newman says. Undoubtedly.) ACORN’s political-action committee is supporting Obama, to nobody’s great surprise, and ACORN has hired Michelle Obama’s old Chicago law firm to help them out in a million-dollar embezzlement case. (National Review’s Stanley Kurtz documents the Obama-ACORN nexus here.) More significant, Obama represented ACORN in a lawsuit against Illinois, seeking to force the implementation of “motor voter” registrations, an initiative that has provided rich opportunity for voter-registration fraud. Senator Obama today disavows his connection to the leftist group in much the same way he describes his longtime associate and benefactor, the impenitent terrorist Bill Ayers, as “some guy who lived in my neighborhood.” Which is to say, he does so dishonestly.

ACORN’s Nevada offices were raided by federal law enforcement on Tuesday as part of a vote-fraud investigation. At least ten states have reported suspicions about ACORN’s new voters, who number at least three million since 2004. Among those the group was seeking to register to vote in Nevada were the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys. “Tony Romo is not registered to vote in the state of Nevada,” deadpanned Ross Miller, Nevada’s secretary of state. It is against the law to employ felons in voter-registration projects; ACORN seems to have employed at lest 59 of them, inmates on work release.

Unsurprisingly, the team of vote-canvassers assembled by ACORN for the benefit of Senator Obama — a gang one disgruntled felon/inmate/activist described as “lazy crackheads” — has produced some colorful results: 21 separate voter-registration applications were filed for a single voter in Miami; activists have attempted to register untold numbers of dead, underage, imprisoned, imaginary, or otherwise ineligible voters in swing states; in Indiana, signatures were forged on registration cards for names apparently pulled out of the phone book at random, and Indianapolis/Marion County’s registration now stands at 105 percent of the voting-age population; in Nevada, registrations for Cowboys’ star Terrell Owens and other would-be voters were filed from non-existent addresses, and there were no records of the existence of many of the people proffered as voters. In Albuquerque, at least 1,400 registration cards are in question. Missouri (53,500 new ACORN voters) and Ohio are finding forged signatures and registrations from non-existent addresses. These are not isolated cases; they run into several thousands already, and the investigations have only begun.

In July of 2007, five ACORN activists pleaded guilty to fraud in Washington state for submitting nearly 2,000 phony voter applications. ACORN’s new team has facilitated at least 40,000 new voter registrations in the state of Washington for this election. The Wall Street Journal reports that ACORN workers in Ohio were “given crack cocaine in exchange for fraudulent registrations that included underage voters, dead voters and pillars of the community named Mary Poppins, Dick Tracy and Jive Turkey.” The Republican party in Ohio is asking the state this year to cross-reference driver’s-license numbers on registrations against the state’s motor-vehicles database, so that any mismatches can be examined. They are making their case in federal court, but Ohio’s Democratic secretary of state is resisting. Democratic officeholders across the country deny there is a problem.

There are millions of new ACORN-registered voters on the rolls for this election. It would be corrosive to our institutions if fraud were to force a close 2008 presidential race to be hashed out in court after the fact, or cast doubt on the result. Recall the gubernatorial election of Christine Gregoire of Washington state, where those ACORN activists were convicted of fraud. In Gregoire’s election, Democratic districts tallied up more mail-in ballots than there were mail-in voters, while Republican districts were found to have fewer votes than voters. Mail-in ballots are inherently problematic because there is no way of knowing who actually fills them out; their use should probably be restricted to overseas military and diplomatic personnel. Asking voters to go to the polls and show a valid photo ID would put an end to many of these questions, and doing so is not too much to ask to maintain the integrity of our democracy.

Alright, so I think the consensus is that last night was 90 minutes we'll never get back again.

McCain let Obama get away with blaming Republicans for the current financial crisis, never making the case that Democrats are the ones who have presided over this process of opening up mortgages to people who have a history of not paying their bills. 

Obama predictably tread (trod?) water on foreign policy, but McCain didn't do much to exploit his opponent's weakness.

For a townhall format, Tom Brokaw certainly didn't open up the questions to the audience very much.  I would have liked to see Brokaw just call out the subject and stand back...too bad he seemed to think people wanted to obey time limits and politely change the subject before getting into anything worthwhile.

I wanted blood last night, and all I got was the same bullcrap.  I am now starting to think that McCain doesn't even want to win this thing.  There is so much ammunition he could use against Obama, even if he never mentioned Ayers again.  Rezko, Wright, the Chicago machine...just for associations. 

How about bringing up the fact that Obama still can't admit the surge worked?  You'll notice that Obama didn't respond to that, which by debate rules is a concession of the point...which makes McCain's earlier silence on Freddie and Fannie just as damning. 

I am having real trouble with my candidate, because he just seems unwilling to go on a sustained attack.  It's maddening. 

Today I wanted to talk about the comparative treatment of Joe Biden and Sarah Palin in the media.

I wanted to make the case that Gwen Ifill has a clear ethical conflict because she stands to profit from the victory of Barack Obama.

I was going to go over all the things I thought Sarah Palin should say tonight to counter the underwhelming performances in her mainstream TV interviews. 

I wanted to do a lot of things today, but I'm not really in the mood. 

Suffice it to say that I am rooting for Sarah Palin in tonight's debate.  I saw her Alaskan debates two years ago, and I remember being struck by how she commanded the scene.  She could do the same thing tonight, so long as she sticks to her guns.  She has a philosophy and ideological framework that informs her views. 

With this, she doesn't need to know all the facts and statistics that gotcha journalism seems to think is relevant.  She doesn't need to know the GDP of Australia right off the top of her head.  Google can tell her that in three seconds.  She needs to know only that our actions as a nation can be made within the aforementioned framework of conservatism...or that of liberalism. 

The American people need to decide which one is for them.  I believe that conservatism is the more common sense approach, the more effective way of managing foreign affairs and domestic fortunes.  I believe that liberalism breeds discontent and dependency on a government which cannot possibly fulfill the promises it makes.  Only the individual can chart his own life, secure his own liberty, and pursue his own happiness.  We are made poorer by government largesse, poorer in spirit and poorer in character.  And, of course, poorer in pocket.

Sarah Palin still has my support, and if she stays true to what makes her effective then we'll see quite a debate.  If she tries instead to live up to the expectations of those who want her to fail (the media, in particular) then she will play right into their hands.

We'll know tonight what kind of future she has, or this race will continue to limp along inconclusively as it has for much of the past two years.  After two years we are finally nearing the end, but what of it?  Tonight I would not be surprised to see yet another unimportant milepost on this long, slow deathmarch of a campaign. 

Rather than provide running commentary as I have done in the past, I will respond to the debates afterward with a general impression.
Going into it, I have to confess that my spirits are at an all-time low.  Before Palin's selection I was neutral to glum about the situation for conservatives.  An all-too brief burst of optimism has been extinguished by the financial crisis and the apparent Obama resurgence. 
John McCain needs to make the sort of performance that he made at the Saddleback Forum.  He needs to be assured of himself and have a focused message.  He needs to contrast himself with Obama's liberalism and confront him on his duplicity.  He needs to point to the Washington Post article which has finally said that Obama was wrong on the surge and troop withdrawal. 
Obama, to my mind, just needs to maintain a semblance of credibility in the face of his repeated gaffes.  Nobody will call him on them so he just needs to refrain from making more.

Oh, and I'll be getting drunk during the debate so I'll either be really happy or crying into my suds when I post again.

This is the second part of my analysis on the Gibson-Palin interview.  In the first part, I focused on what I felt were the substantive issues regarding Palin’s selection and her qualifications to be Vice-President.  I attempted to fairly gauge those areas in which she needs improvement while also mentioning areas in which she showed strength.  My conclusion was that shortfalls in actual knowledge are not disqualifiers for the job of Vice-President - understanding that the quality of leadership is more important to the average person while philosophical adherence to certain political principles (and a willingness to apply those principles in the practice of government) is enough to win over those who seek consistency in their candidate.

In this section I will focus on the quality of Gibson’s journalism, hopefully demonstrating that much more could have been learned about Sarah Palin had he showed less of an agenda in his questioning.  Additionally, I will explore the transcripts of the unedited interview, contrasting that with the aired version.  Lastly, I will attempt to put Barack Obama in the hotseat, and share how I think he would have performed in a similar interview.  No, I will not ask him if he is tired.

The Style

Observing Charlie Gibson interview Sarah Palin is, I will freely admit, a frustrating experience for me.  I carry a lot of baggage from the primaries, most of it related to what I feel was grossly unfair media coverage of Obama.  Most conservatives feel that he was actively promoted by the people who are supposed to simply present the happenings of the day and let us make the decisions.  Too many editorialists in the newsroom is a bad thing for any network, conservative or Republican.

Gibson, unfortunately, allowed too much of himself to infect this interview process.  My initial impression that he was affecting a tough posture as a nod to the left’s extreme reaction to Palin’s selection has only been reinforced.  Sadly, it is also pretty clear to me how Charlie Gibson is planning to vote in November.

Perhaps what Gibson said wouldn’t have been so bad if he hadn’t come across as viscerally disapproving of Palin.  Everything in his posture and body language said to me that he knew what he was doing, which makes it worse.  He seemed to glare at her, in some shots.  And linguistically, he was making some pretty poor choices.

For an example, should an expository journalist ever ask a candidate:

GIBSON: Doesn’t that take some hubris?

Isn't there a Presidential candidate who could rightly be asked that question?

The key word here is expository.  Gibson’s task was to question Palin about her views on foreign policy, social issues, the role of government and perhaps a bit of personal information to give a more complete picture of how she views herself.  Instead, suggesting that because she didn’t turn down a request from the Presidential nominee because she could possibly have a tragic amount of pride is a blatant dig and an even more blatant departure from unbiased reporting. 

Readers of this page know that I tend to use words that are exact whenever I can, so know that when I say “blatant” I intend to say that there is no rational way to argue that Gibson is applying a neutral standard here.

Gibson wasted no opportunity to challenge Palin’s answers to his questions, as in this exchange:

PALIN: I answered him yes because I have the confidence in that readiness. And knowing that you can’t blink. You have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we’re on, reform of this country, and victory in the war. You can’t blink. So, I didn’t blink then, when asked to run as his running mate.

GIBSON: But this is not just reforming a government. This is also running a government on the huge international stage, in a very dangerous world. When I asked John McCain about your national security credentials, he cited the fact you have command of the Alaskan National Guard and Alaska is close to Russia. Are those sufficient credentials?

PALIN: But it is about reform of government. And it’s about putting government back on the side of the people. And that has much to do with foreign policy and national security issues.

Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie. And that’s with the energy independence that I’ve been working on for these years, as the governor of this state, that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy. That I worked on as chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conversation Commission, overseeing the oil and gas developments in our state, to produce more for the United States.

GIBSON: National security is a whole lot more than energy.

PALIN: It is. But - but I want you to not lose sight of the fact that energy is a foundation of national security. It’s that important. It’s that significant.

Was Gibson presuming to actually lecture the governor of Alaska on the fact that reform isn’t the sole objective of leading a government?  And when Palin brought up one of her major strengths, energy policy and experience, Gibson almost cavalierly brushed aside the notion that energy independence is foundational for national security.

It’s that editorializing that turns me off.

Another prime example, and the one that got the most traction when it came to criticism of Palin, was the question on the Bush Doctrine.  Following is the exchange, as aired:

 

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view?

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, annunciated September 2002, before the Iraq War.

PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell-bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made, and with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine as I understand it is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with us?

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligent and legitimate evidence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country.

Most of the critics I’ve read seem to equate Palin’s initial request for clarification as somehow indicative of her intelligence and preparedness to assume office.  But put yourself in her shoes for half a second, and attempt to seriously answer Gibson’s question - without speaking for longer than two minutes.  Had Gibson rolled this question into his condescending explanation of what he was referring to, I doubt there would have been any confusion for the viewer or for Palin.  But let’s examine the unedited transcript for half a second:

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

PALIN: I agree that a president’s job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.

I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.

GIBSON: Do we have a right to anticipatory self-defense? Do we have a right to make a preemptive strike again another country if we feel that country might strike us?

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

The bolded section was edited out of the program that went to air.  I’m not claiming that Palin did well on this question, but to simply state “yes we have the right to attack our enemies if we think they’ll attack us” is something that requires a fair bit of contextualizing.  Gibson wanted a straight answer to a delicate question, and didn’t see fit to frame that question in order to get a useful response.

You can compare for yourself the difference between the unaired transcripts and the final interview cut.  In fact I'd encourage you to do so, because no words I write should convince you of anything.  You need to read both sources with an open mind and decide for yourself what you think about her. 

What I took away from this interview and Gibson’s treatment of Palin is primarily that she has shaken things up in a huge way.  You can hate her guts, despise her policies, and heap scorn upon her children, but nobody can deny that she changed the dynamics of this race completely.  What I think is most upsetting to the media is that they never saw it coming.  Her name was hardly mentioned at all in the lead up to the pick, and I think there was a general assumption that it would be a perfunctory candidate and McCain would graciously lose in November.  The narrative has changed, and I am fairly certain that pissed off a few of our celebreporters. 

Charlie Gibson didn’t do his best on this one, and it shows.  But this interview is indicative of the spirit of those who are criticizing Palin for her “provincial” tastes and experiences.  Yes, I heard the word, and no, it wasn’t in the Gibson interview.

Answer me this:  Can anyone who uses the word “provincial” to describe another human being ever really be counted as an impartial observer?

The WASTE OF TIME

Now I’m going to have some fun and use my very partial imagination. Let’s explore for a moment how Barack Obama would have answered some of Sarah Palin’s questions, and how Sarah might have answered some of the questions Charlie asked Barry.

GIBSON:  Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?

 

OBAMA:  What aspect of it? 

 

GIBSON: You tell me.

 

OBAMA:  The Bush Doctrine is a series of failed policies that have made our country weaker, lost the respect of our allies, and cost the lives of thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Uh, also, our own soldiers.  I mean look at the situation in Iraq…sectarian violence, uh, uh, daily attacks against our troops, the Iraqis making no political progress…

 

GIBSON:  The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

 

OBAMA:  Uh, uh, I, I do not…that is I do not feel…that this country should do that.

 

GIBSON:  What about the surge?  Do you agree that the surge was effective?

 

OBAMA:  How do you mean?

 

GIBSON:  The surge, as I understand it, was the rapid buildup of troops to counter growing threats against Iraq and our own soldiers.  Because of this surge violence is down that has been judged a success by General David Petraeus, who stepped aside this week and turned over command to his successor.

 

OBAMA:  I don’t think anyone can deny the heroism of our troops. 

See what I did there…this is fun.  Now let’s do Sarah Palin following her VP speech.

GIBSON:  Governor, I’m curious about your feelings last night.  It was an historic moment.  How does it feel?

 

PALIN:  Charlie, it felt just great.  I’ve been workin’ hard for Alaska and I’m honored to be given a chance to work for the whole country with John McCain.

 

GIBSON:  When John McCain called you, did you truly, in your gut, think that a woman would ever have been chosen as the Republican VP?

 

PALIN:  You know, Charlie, I didn’t really think about that.  All my life I’ve been blessed with the knowledge that a woman can succeed at whatever she sets her mind to, be it sports, motherhood, or even a career in politics. 

 

GIBSON:  You won’t get much time to enjoy this before people immediately start talking about the rest of the campaign.

 

(LAUGHTER)

 

GIBSON:  How do you think you’ll be an asset to John McCain on the trail?

 

PALIN:  First, I’ll be able to spread his message with my own emphasis.  I think that I bring some pretty good experience on energy, which is on everyone’s mind right now Charlie.  This is a ticket that means real change, change you can count on.

 

GIBSON:  Do you worry that this race could turn on your gender?  Are you concerned about sexism?

 

PALIN:  Well no, Charlie I’m not.  Like I said, I’m not a big believer in playing the victim.  Never have been. 

 

GIBSON:  I watched closely your countenance last night, your mien, as you spoke to the crowd. 

 

PALIN:  Don’t look too hard, Charlie.

 

(LAUGHTER)

 

GIBSON:  But seriously…you seemed at once humbled and happy to be selected.  Do you take joy from it?

 

PALIN:  I sure gosh do, Charlie, and you better believe that with John McCain leading the way I’m ready to get working to help the American people.

I think I like my reality better.

Actually, I've contracted out the services of one Charles Krauthammer for this blog, since I am confident that he is miles beyond me in terms of firsthand knowledge of the subject matter in the Gibson-Palin interview.  Taken from National Review Online.

I will, upon viewing the rest of the interview, offer my own thoughts.  But this is something to chew on and will save me time later.  Also, I am gratified to note that my perception of Gibson's partisanship, which I wrote about in my last post, was shared by others in the conservative community. 

It Was Gibson’s Gaffe
Which made the smug condescension all the more precious.

By Charles Krauthammer

“Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she
agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what
he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed
her that it meant the right of ‘anticipatory self-defense.’ ”

— New York Times, September 12

Informed her? Rubbish.

The Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration — and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today.

He asked Palin, “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?”

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, “In what respect, Charlie?”

Sensing his “gotcha” moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, he grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine “is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense.”

Wrong.

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of The Weekly Standard titled, “The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism,” I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.

Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to Congress nine days later, Bush declared: “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.” This “with us or against us” policy regarding terror — first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan — became the essence of the Bush doctrine.

Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq War was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of pre-emptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.

It’s not. It’s the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of Bush foreign policy and the one that most distinctively defines it: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush’s second inaugural address: “The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.”



This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy’s pledge that the United States “shall pay any price, bear any burden . . . to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson’s 14 points.

If I were in any public foreign-policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume — unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise — that he was speaking about Bush’s grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda.

Not the Gibson doctrine of pre-emption.

Not the “with us or against us” no-neutrality-is-permitted policy of the immediate post-9/11 days.

Not the unilateralism that characterized the pre-9/11 first year of the Bush administration.

Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed “doctrines” in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines, which came out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few conflicting foreign-policy crosscurrents.

Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine.

Yes, Palin didn’t know what it is. But neither does Gibson. And at least she didn’t pretend to know — while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, “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 phenom who presumes to play on their stage.

— Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist.