Sarah Palin … Country First?

    Published: September 17, 2008, 2:05 am ET
    Liberal Commentator

    There is no question that during his lifetime John McCain has put his country first, something all Americans can agree upon, respect, and admire. In fact, he has made this the central theme of his campaign: Country first.

    However, in the past two weeks I’m wondering if John McCain has “lost his bearings” a little. After meeting Sarah Palin no more than two times, he offered her the vice presidential job. Is this honorable or impulsive? Some serious questions need to be asked about his decision to put a relatively unknown and supremely inexperienced one-year governor a heartbeat away from being the leader of the free world. Was his VP decision purely politically motivated? Or was he putting the “country first” as he likes to advertise?

    McCain is famous for saying, “I’d rather lose an election than lose a war.” I find myself questioning the sincerity of that statement after leveling the charge of in-experience against Barack Obama and then picking a woman just as in-experienced. Many argue that the questions of experience raised against Sarah Palin reveal deep bias within the media and sexism, because Barack Obama is just as inexperienced. (I would disagree pointing to the extremely successful and organized campaign he has run for the past two years.) But let us not forget: Barack Obama got to where he is by a little thing called Democracy. He actually fought his way to the top, and he earned the trust of more than 18 million Americans.

    Sarah Palin has not.

    I think John McCain’s pick of Sarah Palin is not just political pandering, but unethical. It is simply irresponsible on his part as a 72 year old man to put someone so inexperienced and so profoundly un-examined by the American people this close to the Presidency.

    Sarah Palin’s first on-camera interview proved she was not ready to be President. She decided that war with Russia was justified, that God has a pre-ordained destiny for this country, and she was unable to tell Charlie Gibson what the Bush Doctrine was. And many say that Gibson was too soft!

    Charlie Gibson: “Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?”
    Sarah Palin: “In what respect Charlie?”
    Charlie Gibson: “What do you interpret it to be?”
    Sarah Palin: “His world-view?”
    Gibson: “No the Bush Doctrine, annunciated in 2002.”
    Palin: I believe what President Bush has attempted to do is … rid this world of Islamic Extremism, terrorist who have been hell-bent on destroying this nation.”

    Enough said.

    Comments »
    To post a comment, leave your first and last name and a valid e-mail address. Comments may not appear immediately because they must be approved by a moderator before posting. No registration is required, but you may sign in with DISQUS, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo, or OpenID.
    • Darius Rasheed Nazeri
      Tim,
      There is something ludicrous about the question you pose. Perhaps, you should consult someone who knows something about politics?

      Again, anyone who knows anything about politics knows what the Bush Doctrine is--and we are talking about a potential Vice President of the United States here, for God's sake.

      Look, I don't care who you are and what you think of Palin, the fact that she did not know what the Bush Doctrine was, was just to painfully obvious.

      It sounded a lot like the student who has not done his homework and gets called on by the professor--so he has to improvise.

      Maybe you should go back and watch the interview again. And, please try and be as objective an observer as you can be this time.

      Best!
    • Timothy Patterson
      Is that statement in the "National Security for the United States Strategy" explicitly labeled as the "Bush Doctrine?" If not, your logic suggests that everything in the statement could be interpreted as the Bush doctrine, which it assuredly is not.
      Plus, simply stating the year 2002 hardly identifies what "doctrine" Gibson was referring to.

      Furthermore, you didn't address my point that Gibson asked Palin two different questions. When someone asks for a clarification of the first question, asking a completely different one isn't likely to provide any enlightenment.

      I'm sure most people (even those ardent followers of politics) would argue that the definition of the Bush Doctrine is purely contextual. Don't be so quick to call my claims outlandish. The evidence you've proffered has yet to prove me wrong.
    • Darius Rasheed Nazeri
      Daniel,
      Thank you for this post as it really brings up some of the real topics we should be talking about and some of the real questions we should be asking.

      Timothy,
      Anyone who knows anything about politics (US Politics, Foreign Policy, and/or our very recent history) knows that the "Bush Doctrine" was much more accurately defined by Gibson than Palin--who had no idea what he was asking about.

      I knew what it meant before I was a freshman in college.

      The doctrine, articulated in a "National Security of the United States Strategy" paper, explicitly claims that "[W]e will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively." The notion that America has a right to take preemptive action is unique to this document. Before this, the policy was more about "containment and deterrence."

      So, Gibson's question was neither "poorly worded" as you claim, nor is the phrase "Bush doctrine" an "amorphous concept."

      "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?" is as simply and elementary a way as you could ask that question.

      By the way, when "he throws out a date," he is referring to the above-mentioned document which was published in Sept. 2002.

      Maybe do a little bit of research next time before you make such outlandish claims.
    • Timothy Patterson
      It seems to me that the "Bush Doctrine" is an amorphous concept to begin with. It could mean any number of things... a doctrine of preemption (not uniquely Bush's by any means), a commitment to spreading freedom around the world, or fighting terrorism wherever it lies, even if that be in recognized nations.

      The truth is, Palin didn't confess to not knowing what the doctrine was; she asked for Gibson to clarify the question. And in fact Gibson asked two different questions. Question #1: Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine? When asked for clarification, Gibson asks a completely distinct question. Question #2: What do you interpret the Bush Doctrine to be? When she tries to nail down what exactly the question is yet again, he throws out a date. I'm surprised she came up with ANY answer to such a vague question!

      If all people can attack her for is stumbling while trying to answer a very poorly worded question, Palin seems to be doing pretty well.
    blog comments powered by Disqus