Interview Gives Us A Peek Into Palin’s Foreign Policy Knowledge
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, Foreign Policy, Palin, VideoA couple things from today’s interview were revealing.
First, Palin didn’t really seem to know what the Bush Doctrine is.
I don’t know, maybe it was just nerves, but that was a pretty weak, “talking pointy” answer. For most anybody who follows politics, that answer would have been a gimme.
Second, she tried to excuse her lack on experience in meeting with foreign heads of state by making an incorrect assertion about other VP’s experience.
Here’s the exchange and the reality from ABC:
“Have you ever met a foreign head of state?” Gibson asked Palin Thursday.“I have not,” Palin said, “and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you.”
However Palin, who obtained her first passport two years ago, would in fact be the first vice president in 32 years who hadn’t met a foreign head of state, if she were elected.
Yes, I suppose you could look at the entire history of the vice presidency and possibly prove her assertion correct, but I think we should probably stick with the past 30 years, yeah? Especially since the claim is that everything changed after 9/11, right?
Given that, if you really think that this is a dangerous world, then this interview should at least give you some pause when trusting Palin to be a heartbeat away. She’s obviously a smart person, but just being a smart person doesn’t make one qualified to deal with the complicated struggles she could face.
Say what you will about Obama’s foreign policy knowledge, but he is on the record with sage foreign policy calls about the Iraq invasion, our relationship with Pakistan, the growing threats in Afghanistan and our need to engage in diplomacy with Iran. And even then he choose Joe Biden as his VP, who equals McCain in foreign policy gravitas.
I’ll have more after the second part of her interview on Nightline tonight.
This entry was posted on Thursday, September 11th, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Foreign Policy, Palin, Video. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
September 12th, 2008 at 6:05 am
What’s with the weasel words? She not only didn’t “seem” to know what the Bush Doctrine is, SHE DIDN’T KNOW.
September 12th, 2008 at 6:13 am
I’d think left-leaners might be happy that she didn’t quote Bush, chapter and verse.
September 12th, 2008 at 6:40 am
Anyone know if Bill Clinton met a foreign head of state before he became president? I don’t, but it’s clear he had about as much foreign policy as Palin, and he used his national guard leadership as foreign policy experience just like Palin. (I don’t think he mentioned being close to Mexico, to his credit).
Yeah, yeah, this time is different… post 9/11… etc. I get it. I wasn’t very impressed with her interview either, but apparently voters have looked the other way on foreign policy in the past.
September 12th, 2008 at 7:02 am
Sage? Hardly. He is just as vague as she is. Palin is the Barack Obama of the republicans. They both are paper-thin politicians who come to their conclusions after meeting with their campaign staffers and consulting their foreign policy advisers. What would Barack Obama say differently about accepting a nuclear Iran, or a military strike from Israel?
First Obama tries to make this race out to be Obama vs. Bush, now he is making it Obama vs. Palin. He seems to be avoiding Obama vs. MacCain for some reason.
September 12th, 2008 at 7:12 am
Since when does simply meeting foreign heads of state qualify someone as a foreign policy expert? Answer me this question:
Who would be more qualified to be Vice President (or President as the case may be) of a technology company – A middle-manager who met with the CEOs of Microsoft and Apple or the person who held the position of President in a smaller company?
And who blames Palin for asking Charlie Gibson to be more specific about his general statement in regard to the Bush Doctrine with the liberal spin the media puts on everything? You call it shaky, I call it saavy.
Time to focus on the actual people running for President here.
September 12th, 2008 at 7:53 am
To a certain degree, I think you are correct, Jimmy. He has taken his eye off McCain.
Palin is a non-starter. She is exactly what she appears to be–hard right, smart, inexperienced in national and international politics, ruthless, partisan.
That’s all one needs to know; if you think she is worth voting for her, then do so.
I disagree that Obama is running against Bush, and not McCain. There are very few policy differences between Bush and McCain, so if you don’t care what Bush is doing/has done a vote for McCain is largely a vote for the continuation of Bush’s presidency.
Now, it is not completely fair to say this is a third term for Bush–indeed, some of Bush’s most egregious faults/failures would not be continued (but they may be a reason for some people who support Bush to not support McCain.
McCain has worked very hard to blur some of his stances so that he can appeal to Bush’s stalwart supporters and those who think Bush did a poor job.
Where exactly are the differences?
Two of the more significant ones are that McCain would confer more with congressional leaders on matters of war and also be more open in his dealings with foreign leaders, particularly allies. Even so, McCain’s foreign policy stance is not noticeable different from Bush–and in fact is even more hardline in some ways (Georgia, for example).
He says he opposes torture, and I believe the practice would drastically change under McCain.
In the war in Iraq, McCain was an early critic–not of the war, but the way it was waged. He wanted a far larger number of troops. However, if you are against the war itself and believe it should never been fought, then you can support McCain because he and Bush are indistinguishable.
McCain is much more friendly to the environment than Bush, believing in the global warming and believing that mankind needs to be a stewerd for the earth. Bush claimed at one point early in his presidency to be concerned about the environment, but his actions demonstrate otherwise.
Economically, I cannot see any differences, can you? (honest question–please offer some).
Healthcare, I cannot see any differences, can you?
Energy, I cannot see any differences, can you?
Immigration? Lockstep.
Judicial philosophy? Lockstep.
Prolife? You don’t need to ask.
Now, if you want to be critical of Obama for being lazy and “running against Bush” as a shorthand for running against McCain, I get that–it is far easier to draw a parallel between McCain and Bush rather than defining McCain from scratch.
But, there is no denying that McCain and Bush have far more in common than they have differences and voting for McCain will ultimately continue many of the policies that Bush has put into play.
September 12th, 2008 at 9:26 am
Those differences you listed are many and are all significant, and don’t forget that all of Obama’s beloved democrats including ‘04 candidate John Kerry were just as hawkish, if not moreso, than McCain on Iraq in the beginning. The fact that McCain was one of the only voices on either side of the Isle that was criticizing Bush for his minimalist approach to waging a successful war is also significant, and the issue of the surge certainly favors him in this campaign.
Regarding judges, you are right that he claims now that he will choose a Roberts/Alito – like justice to nominate, but also remember that he was the chair of the “gang of 14″ for the republicans, so at least he can point to a record of “reaching across the isle” on that issue.
Don’t forget McCain-Feingold, which riles the nerves of Republicans, and that Bush’s stand on immigration has always been hostile to conservatives, and McCain’s record on Immigration has been in lockstep with Ted Kennedy, since they authored that bill together.
On the economy, I would say the fact that he never requested an earmark in his entire 25 year career in Washington gives him an edge over one of the most blank-check signing, bloated budget-ratifying administrations American history. Will it play out as president? Who knows, but I certainly don’t think Obama/Biden would be better with the veto pen, considering their record on Earmarks and Obama’s philosophy of using the government to redistribute wealth.
Regarding similarities, we should not forget that America is not a European country and our citizens value individualism and ownership. Perhaps the biggest knock on Bush is not so much his ideas or values, but rather his implementation of those values as president. Incompetence is the best way to describe Bush.
Americans want low taxes and seem to understand better than any other populace that private enterprise is not the enemy. They want an ownership society and restricted government spending. They want a strong foreign policy; imagine if Patreus was Commanding General of MNF from 2003, and all those Sunni trial leaders were on his speed-dial from the beginning. The insurgency never would have happened, and the Democrats would have been harping over their support for the war.
Bush paid a lot of lip service to these principles but was not successful in achieving them in practice. Obama and the Democrats want us to throw the baby out with the bathwater.