This would be true if Obama and Palin were two clones, differing only in party affiliation (and, gender, which is beside this point). They’re not. It’s the whole package on foreign policy, including knowledge and the ability to express that knowledge in a coherent and factual way. Whether they have ever visited foreign lands, met foreign leaders, or keep current on foreign affairs is also part of that package.

I hear false equivalency arguments from both sides of the isle. Constantly.

You write that “Palin appeals to that politically unsophisticated portion of the base” who “vote only one or two very emotional issues – without considering the multitude of other issues a candidate has to represent.” But that is no more true for the right than the left, to the extent it is true at all. More to the point, Palin’s appeal is that she understands and can well-articulate certain basic and fundamental truths. Her application of those precepts has sometimes been raw and unsophisticated, but it is far better that a Presidential candidate has a grasp of these fundamental truths without the sophistication to apply them to specifics (that’s what the staff is for) than that they lack a deep appreciation of those fundamentals and cover it up with a “sophisticated” framework built on sand.

It often requires sophistication to apply those principles to particulars, but no matter how elaborate, the structure must rest on a firm foundation of appreciation of fundamentals. Obama is a good example of a candidate who, in the vernacular, doesn’t get it. No matter how articulate or learned he may be (I question his putative articulateness), he has repeatedly shown that he lacks an understanding of certain fundamental truths that undergird our polity in general, and sound policy in particular. I truly doubt, for example, that Sarah Palin would have passed the so-called “stimulus” package, or rescued GM. In his case, what comes as sophistication is merely sophistry because it doesn’t rest on a sound foundation of the appreciation of the fundamentals.

b010gn4 Says:

Is tu quoque reasoning the only type of reply a conservative is capable of mustering when one of their own is criticized?

The point, as I’m sure you are more than capable of grasping, is not to rejoin with a tu quoque argument but to point out that no one who voted for Obama has any credibility to criticize Palin’s lack of foreign policy experience. It’s a charge of hypocrisy, essentially: how can you criticize her when you voted for someone just as flawed in that regard? I do wish you people would argue on the level instead of resorting to this kind of silly spin.

As to Noonan, her column adds nothing to the debate that Noonan has not already said. It rehashes old arguments and rakes old strawmen over the coals; those who found her persuasive then will doubtless find her persuasive now, and those of us who thought she was wide of the mark will stick with that view, too.

It’s time to embrace excellence.

If Palin improves herself (which all of us try to do each and every day) and she can get out among the common folk (which out number the rest of everybody and anybody) and get their attention and get them to thinking about their future and the future of this Republic.

Well, more power to her and yes…God bless her and America

Because like it was said above, and Peggy said, we are going to need it no matter who wins what or who controls what. Because this world is getting meaner and more dangerous by the day and no matter who is the President, most are going to not be friends of ours and many will be enemies.

Think about that for a while and consider your options.

Papa Ray

Given the subject matter of this post, I thought you’d be interested in Peggy Noonan’s take on Palin and her advice to the GOP.

It’s scathing to say the least.

First of all, the post is addressing Palin, not Obama. Second of all, Obama was not the # 1 choice on foreign policy/national security when he was a candidate, or before that (so even this is a bad analogy if you can’t help but scream “You too!”).

So, with all the “You too!” logical fallacies out of the way, isn’t this poll stunning? Especially given her apparent lack of knowledge and curiosity on foreign policy that has been on full display ever since her pick last fall?

If you disagree, why is this not a concern to you? See if you can make a case FOR Palin, rather than crying “You too!” Didn’t your mama ever teach you that two wrongs don’t make a right?

And I’ll say it now and check back in 2012, but the meme of “Dems are smart, Reps are dumb” is going to boomerang. Obama’s likely going to come out of this with an “ivory tower academic” descriptor.

Palin appeals to that politically unsophisticated portion of the base. Maybe they vote only one or two very emotional issues – without considering the multitude of other issues a candidate has to represent. I know one thing (and probably one thing only) I may have in common with the Republican base and that is my absolute exhaustion from politicians who don’t tell the truth, can’t state the issues in an easy to understand format, and always attempt to baffle with BS if they can’t talk about the facts.

Palin has very little grasp of the facts – and never did – but she does understand the need for plain speech in an easy going delivery (even though it’s devoid of fact in many cases the sound bite is already done). That will make her a difficult opponent for someone like Romney who is steeped in nuance, BS, and political maneuvering. Despite the common thinking Romney does not understand the economy, he understands buying up companies and breaking them into pieces to be sold off – that isn’t economics inasmuch as it’s just greed.

None of the other names listed can claim foreign policy as a strong suit. That means that respondents just picked who they liked. Whenever respondents are faced with a choice where none of options is especially appropriate or relevant, they’ll just pick the person they generally like.

So Palin’s small lead in foreign policy from a small group of hopefuls, none of whom has much experience in the area, is essentially meaningless outside of its being indicative of who has a slight lead in general appeal.

If, for example, Dick Cheney was put on the list, he’d steal the foreign policy approval stamped by conservatives in a heartbeat. I would guess that Romney’s lead on fiscal issues is more meaningful, and will be more enduring.

A more interesting question to ask Americans is just how much of a $H!T they give about foreign policy compared to the economy these days. I bet you’d find at least 30% support for invading some other country and taking the jobs and giving them to Americans.

As far as Obama’s lack of foreign policy knowledge, I like how you dismiss it as arcana so you can justify Palin’s lack of it. That’s a pretty transparent tactic and I’m disappointed you used it.

What’s more, I think most Americans would disagree with you. Maybe not the Republican base, but I think people DO want our leaders to know who the leader of North Korea is. As for your other measure, that’s important too and Palin never showed us that she had that either. Again, how you think she’s not deficient in that regard when she didn’t prove ANYTHING to us last Fall, besides she’s charismatic and will go off script, is beyond me.

Last, the fact that you or I could successfully argue that we have more foreign policy knowledge than Palin should tell you all you need to know. Again, it’s about fear, not hate, and people are fearful that’ll well get another 4 years of cowboy diplomacy. That didn’t work last time around and Americans won’t vote for it in 2012/2016/2020 either.

By the way, the Captcha is “thump ing.” And I’m just warning you now, as I did back during the campaign, that’s what Republicans will get if they don’t open their eyes to how unserious and unstudied Palin is.