Sickened.

There’s something incredibly unsettling about the way the Republicans are running their campaign as the election runs down.  It’s not even the crazy people at their rallies that bothers me so much, though indeed I worry that if Obama is elected, there will be madmen out there.  Watching the YouTube clips, the most unnerving element is Sarah Palin.

How can she stand on that stage and connote that there is something unpatriotic, something insidious about Barack Obama because he is acquainted with Bill Ayers?  First of all, the Republican claim is overblown and scurrilous.  Second, the Republicans are absolutely crossing the line between opposition to another’s policies or ideology to direct attacks at their opponent’s character.  This is what makes people cynical about politics.  One might whole heartedly oppose every idea ever espoused by Obama-Biden, but one ought not question their patriotism, their motivation, their character.  The unscrupulousness of it…

And this is the lady who is running to be our Vice President?  She knows nothing, says nothing about policy.  Platitudes, one after another.  Cascading, spewing, disgorging.  They are desperately, recklessly fighting to win this election, no holds barred.  They’ve foregone concrete policy; with an economic recession, what policy can they trumpet anyway?  They are now campaigning on pure vitriol.  Bring out the hate, the slander, the calumny.  It’s despicable and revolting.

…A few clips of the VP nominees.

To be unbiased, I won’t comment 🙂

On past VPs

On Dick Cheney

On favorite movies

___

Err, I wasn’t going to comment, I really wasn’t.  But clip #1, the way she starts…clearly she has no idea whatsoever who past VPs have been.  So she draws a name out of the bag, female nominee!  Then the most recent (Republican) with the exception of Cheney.  Hey least she didn’t say Cheney!

And clip #2: A very good response from Joe Biden.  I applaud.  And Sarah Palin.  She has the ability to elicit from me some truly colorful phrases.  Duck-hunting accident? wtf.

Church and state

Biden and Palin on separation of church and state

Joe Biden and Sarah Palin on Roe v. Wade.

Palin’s inability to formulate cohesive sentences v. Biden’s articulate and precise responses. Huh.

Saturday Night Live – Palin / Hillary Open – Video – NBC.com

Link to SNL video.

Sarah Palin and Katie Couric

I’m lazy and lacking in time, and I’ve had so many satisfying conversations with Chad about this that I won’t again expound.  So I lift James Fallow in whole.

Videos here.

To be serious about Palin and Couric

26 Sep 2008 07:00 pm

Gov. Palin’s comments about Russia seem to have drawn more attention than any other part of her interview with Katie Couric. I think this is mainly because .. well, they just sound funny. “As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space” and so on.

But, no joke, it is worth spending a little time on what, specifically, we have learned about Palin and her limitations via her attempted answers to Katie Couric.  After the jump, three specimens  — one about Israel, one about financial markets, one about domestic spending — that, as I mentioned after the Charlie Gibson interview, indicate that Palin is disqualifyingly ignorant of the fundamentals of public policy.

After thirty years of meeting and interviewing politicians, I can think of exactly three people who sounded as uninformed and vacant as this. All are now out of office. One was a chronic drunk.

George W. Bush is in a completely different and superior league to what we’ve seen from Palin. When people made fun of his inexpressiveness in the 2000 campaign (and onwards), it was because he mispronounced words or used cliches. It was nothing like the total inability to express any coherent thought on any issue outside “values politics” that Palin has revealed. (And to be fair: she can talk clearly and with nuance about those values issues, from abortion to prayer, and about some Alaskan questions.)

Details after the jump. The crucial point, of course, is that Palin did not put herself in this position. Her running mate did.
___________

1) Sarah Palin on “second guessing” Israel

Couric: You recently said three times that you would never, quote, “second guess” Israel if that country decided to attack Iran. Why not?

Palin: We shouldn’t second guess Israel’s security efforts because we cannot ever afford to send a message that we would allow a second Holocaust, for one. Israel has got to have the opportunity and the ability to protect itself. They are our closest ally in the Mideast. We need them. They need us. And we shouldn’t second guess their efforts.

Couric: You don’t think the United States is within its rights to express its position to Israel? And if that means second-guessing or discussing an option?

Palin: No, abso … we need to express our rights and our concerns and …

Couric: But you said never second guess them.

Palin: We don’t have to second-guess what their efforts would be if they believe … that it is in their country and their allies, including us, all of our best interests to fight against a regime, especially Iran, who would seek to wipe them off the face of the earth. It is obvious to me who the good guys are in this one and who the bad guys are. The bad guys are the ones who say Israel is a stinking corpse and should be wiped off the face of the earth. That’s not a good guy who is saying that. Now, one who would seek to protect the good guys in this, the leaders of Israel and her friends, her allies, including the United States, in my world, those are the good guys.

What’s the problem here? Two extremely glaring ones. The first is that Palin has obviously been given the slogan “don’t second-guess Israel’s security efforts” and is clinging to it all the way down, even when she can’t amplify or explain it under questioning.

The far more profound worry is that knowing who “the good guys” are is the first, rather than the last, step in making foreign policy decisions — especially those with the snarls that involve Israel, Iran, nuclear proliferation, preemptive strikes, and so on. The United States should know what it stands for — and the physical security of Israel is obviously one of those things. The chilling fact is that in the interview itself, Palin betrayed no awareness that there could be an analytical step beyond identifying “the good guys.”

2) Sarah Palin on the financial crisis:

Couric: If this [bailout bill] doesn’t pass, do you think there’s a risk of another Great Depression?

Palin: Unfortunately, that is the road that America may find itself on. Not necessarily this, as it’s been proposed, has to pass or we’re going to find ourselves in another Great Depression. But, there has got to be action – bipartisan effort – Congress not pointing fingers at one another but finding the solution to this, taking action, and being serious about the reforms on Wall Street that are needed.

Of course, talking about “another Great Depression” is like talking about “another Holocaust.” So many fundamentals have changed in each circumstances that an exact repetition is inconceivable.

On the Holocaust front: the rise of Israel, the transformation of Germany, the fact that one Holocaust already occurred, etc.  On the Great Depression: the acceptance of Keynes, the rise of institutions specifically designed to avoid cascading worldwide deflation, the fact that one Great Depression has already occurred, etc.

There is no sign, listening to Palin, that she has any idea of what another world depression might mean, how loaded a term “another Great Depression” is, how this relates to what John McCain or her Republican party is saying and doing, or anything else involving public finance.

I submit: no one could have read a novel (Grapes of Wrath), seen a  movie (Cinderella Man, to choose an easy one; or Annie, or Of Mice and Men or Bonnie and Clyde or All the Kings Men or They Shoot Horses Don’t They), or read any history book about the Great Depression and have said these things. Implication: Sarah Palin has never seen or read, or never absorbed, any such material.

3) Sarah Palin on America’s budget choices (this is a passage that Andrew Sullivan and many others have identified):

Couric: Why isn’t it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries? Allow them to spend more, and put more money into the economy, instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?

Palin: That’s why I say I, like every American I’m speaking with, we’re ill about this position that we have been put in. Where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy. Um, helping, oh, it’s got to be about job creation, too. Shoring up our economy, and putting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions, and tax relief for Americans, and trade — we have got to see trade as opportunity, not as, uh, competitive, um, scary thing, but one in five jobs created in the trade sector today. We’ve got to look at that as more opportunity. All of those things under the umbrella of job creation.

At face value, this is incomprehensible. More than that, it suggests a person whose previous two decades of adult life have not equipped her to absorb the briefings she is no doubt receiving about the big, obvious issues in the campaign: the market crash, health care proposals, tax plans.

Two natural reactions are: to laugh at the “Putin rears his head” part, and simply to avoid concentrating on the rest. But given her candidacy for national office, neither of those is enough.

I am not aware of any other current figure in national politics — by which I mean any member of the Senate or House — who would do a worse job under questioning. There could be some I don’t know about. But they’re not on a national ticket.

Republican gimmicks.

Sitting in an incredibly posh, hypermodern hotel room this last day in Ville de Québec.  Thanks to AAA and due to fact that this place is 10 minutes from Vieux-Québec, spiffy place and superb price 🙂  The tub is a jacuzzi complete with bubble bath set and mirror that doubles as a TV.  Cushier linens I have never beheld.

Back to Republican gimmicks.  John McCain disappoints me, as I mentioned this morning.  I question his decision-making, which, for me, is among the most important factors.  What, I ask, are the chances that this senator in his twenty-second year of office will heed the counsel of a state-level public official who has served for less than two years?  And honestly, I’m not sure whether I want him to heed her counsel any time soon.  She will be incredibly out of her element for awhile.  State office is entirely different from federal.  Imagine her in a national security situation the first year of office.

It’s true that George W. Bush and Bill Clinton were governors when elected.  But they had a coterie of well-qualified advisors and experienced VPs.  And there’s no way for the president-elect to by bypassed.  This seems like a pretty tenuous argument.  What?  Inexperienced governor for president is preferable to inexperienced governor for VP?  They serve different roles, however.  The president is a decision-maker, a delegator, an agenda-setter.  A shrewd governor can successfully carry out these, though often a learning-curve is required.  The vice president supports the president as advisor, but this role is poorly-defined, thus the VP can be influential or assume wallflower status.  I’d say that she’s going to find herself in an awkward position if McCain wins.

Another thing.  It’s little secret that the Republicans hope to win over some disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters through Palin.  I find it almost insulting to women, to assume that they will vote based on appearance rather than issue.  That Palin is a woman will somehow blot out the fact that she is pro-life, opposed to gun control, supports ANWR drilling and teaching of creationism in schools.  And related, I also cringe at how Clinton is being touted as the female candidate who (almost) shattered the glass ceiling of politics.  She is not and was not simply a female candidate who appealed to people because she was ‘ground-breaking’ in that way.

Anyway, tired as anything.  Post turns out far less cohesive than I’d like, but shrug.  Time to study French, then to bed!

Sarah Palin.

I’m supposed to be prepping for more pleasant strolls through Québec City, but then Sarah Palin was announced as the Republican VP nominee.

My respect for John McCain has taken a fall; not that it much matters since I would not vote for him regardless, but this reeks of short-term pandering.  What are her qualifications?  From the briefest of skims, I garner that 1) She’s a woman, 2) She’s a mother of five.  One, the last, has Down syndrome.  It’s laudable that she can deal with five, especially one with Down’s.  But I don’t know whether I would love having a VP who’s busier taking care of the family.  It’ll make a great story for the Republicans to spin though. 3) She’s served as the illustrious governor of the largest state for less than two years, 4) She’d like to drill for oil in her backyard, and 5) She calls herself a hockey-mom.

The woman-factor is going to let the Republicans pat themselves on the back.  Yay progressiveness!  Undercut those Dems who rejected Hillary Clinton.  They had Geraldine Ferraro, now we’ve got Sarah Palin!

Finish later, time to go stroll through Québec.

Oh, she’s also a runner-up in the 1984 Miss Alaska Pageant. She can spar with Cindy McCain.