TV Appearance
Posted on October 6th, 2008 by Bernard Finel
I was on This Week in Defensenews on September 28th. Check it out here: Third segment: War Report Card.
I was on This Week in Defensenews on September 28th. Check it out here: Third segment: War Report Card.
Palin has been called many things. Is she a “Christianist,” a “movement conservative,” a “reformer,” an expert on energy issues? Many people, both supporters and opponents have tried to label her, but in doing so, they make a grave mistake. Really, she’s none of those things. She’s a pure politician and an opportunist. There is no there there.
She’s supposedly a conservative Christian, and yet she supports the “right to privacy” and seems respectful of homosexuals. She’s a “reformer” in the sense that she took on some of her corrupt colleagues, but she was also perfectly happy to feed at the trough of federal spending. Her answers to question are defined not by rigid adherence to any particular ideology — whether extreme or mainstream — but rather by a virtually incoherent flailing around for a sound-bite likely to placate her current audience.
I still think she has a lot of Tracy Flick in her… but increasingly I see her as Suzanne Stone — the supremely ambitious weathergirl played by Nicole Kidman in To Die For. Though instead of sleeping her way to the top, Palin is trying to get there one inept interview and one nasty speech at a time. Palin’s confidence and lust for power are the sum-total of her personality.
She’s too lazy to read. Too ignorant of policy debates to even understand the questions asked of her. And too arrogant to realize that she not fooling much of anyone. And McCain… that smitten old fool is making an ass of himself trying to defend her.
Okay, so Republicans have been jumped all over Obama for months over his willingness to attack al Qaeda targets in Pakistan. It turns out, though, that McCain is willing to do the same thing… he just doesn’t think we should announce it.
Four points:
(1) McCain’s argument — that we need to do what we need to do, but that we don’t need to embarrass Pakistan in the process is reasonable enough. But really, isn’t that a pretty thin reed to rely on for claiming Obama is naive in his arguments?
(2) I get the desire to avoid embarrassing Pakistan… but we don’t have control over that. Just because we don’t announce it does not mean it would become common knowledge. Bombs blow up, they make noise, they kill people — sometimes innocent civilians. If we strike targets in Pakistan, it will come out whether we announce it or not.
(3) If we don’t announce our policy, then we miss an opportunity to address the issue. Look… it is simply intolerable for Pakistan to refuse us the right to strike AQ targets if they are unable or unwilling to act themselves. States ought not have a right to claim sovereign rights in territory where they lack effective control. If Pakistan wants to make this an international issue… I say we take them up on that debate. Sooner or later, we will need a new law of ungoverned spaces. Might as well engage the issue now.
(4) A small aside. From the McCain/Palin joint interview with Katie:
Couric: But you were pretty specific about what you wanted to do, cross-border …
Palin: Well, as Sen. McCain is suggesting here, also, never would our administration get out there and show our cards to terrorists, in this case, to enemies and let them know what the game plan was, not when that could ultimately adversely affect a plan to keep America secure.
See the problem? Palin doesn’t understand the issue at all. McCain’s concern is not about tipping off the “terrorists,” it is about embarrassing Pakistan. The terrorists know we’re striking them. No one is arguing about giving up sources and methods. It has nothing to do with tipping our hand to our enemies. Palin’s been embroiled in this specific debate for several days — since her pizza parlor “gaffe” and she still does not understand the issue. Pitiful.
My original title was “Now Comes the Hard Part”… which better captures my arguments.
James Joyner lays out the only plausible defense of McCain’s erratic behavior when faced with any sort of crisis:
…. McCain has indeed been horridly disappointing on the financial crisis. While Obama has looked unprepared by not having an instant response to the unfolding crisis — which was also the case with the Russian invasion of Georgia — McCain has perhaps gone too far in the other direction.
George Patton famously said that, “A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week.” He offered no advice, however, on what to do with a bad plan.
But as one of my students suggested in class recently, Patton’s advice is probably right in a firefight, but not necessarily elsewhere. Patton was not known as a particularly sophisticated observer of diplomacy or economics. In those realms, the kind of calm demonstrated by Obama strikes me as much wiser course of action.
Okay, we are now past the convention bounce. Absent a terrorist attack, I think we can see the outlines of the race. The McCain-Palin ticket is now stuck in a weird pattern of relying on lies and hollow sound bites, and they are demonstrably losing the battle to convince the public of their basic competence. McCain has even overdrawn on being a POW. I don’t see how they are going to turn it around.
My electoral map follows — Obama 338/McCain 200.
My initial reactions to Palin:
