Palin's Favorability Ratings Begin to Falter

[The_Lillard_King]

It was jsut a matter of time:


http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stum...n-s-favorability-ratings-begin-to-falter.aspx

 

[44Thrilla]

The honeymoon is over.

I'd still like to bang her, though.

 

[drexlersdad]

you know porn stars have been winning elections in other countries for decades.

 

[ucatchtrout]

wasn't there that chick in Italy?

 

[maxiep]

She's been attacked without responding for a couple of weeks. She was overhyped after her speech in St. Paul so this coming down to earth is simply mean reversion.

 

[ucatchtrout]

Troopergate has hit the news, and her not knowing what the Bush Doctrine was during the interview with Charlie Gibson have knocked some of the wind out of her sails.

 

[Denny Crane]

Troopergate has hit the news, and her not knowing what the Bush Doctrine was during the interview with Charlie Gibson have knocked some of the wind out of her sails.

Two questions:

Exactly what is the Bush Doctrine?

What would you say if Charlie Gibson got the definition completely wrong?

 

[mook]

Think about every pretty woman you've ever met (and I'm not saying this to be sexist or judgmental about Palin's attractiveness. Although let's face it, I'd rather look at her than Joe Biden.) The first thing you think is that she's hot, so everything about her must be great. You fill in all the missing details with what you hope she might be. She must be totally cool with the dishes in your sink, the empty beer cans in your bed, the wretched stink of death and despair emittiing from your feet. And she has man hands. She goes and surprises you by not being as beautiful on the inside as she is on the outside. All those details you imagined would be great somehow aren't.

Obama went through the same love affair with America that Palin has had. Eventually people complain that the candidate is too this or too that. Poll numbers drop. People panic. The candidate "must be doing something wrong."

The reality is that politicians are just like hot women (and incidentally Portland Trail Blazers). You build them up so you can tear them down.

And then you blame them for being torn down.

 

[Dumpy]

Two questions:

Exactly what is the Bush Doctrine?

What would you say if Charlie Gibson got the definition completely wrong?

In my view, the Bush Doctrine stands for the principle that the U.S. has the right to launch unilateral preemptive attacks for its own self-preservation. I believe that was Gibson's view as well. I don't understand what the big deal is, to tell you the truth. Israel does it. The U.S. has just been isolated throughout its history so that we haven't had to take such actions before (although maybe the Bay of Pigs invasion counts?)

I understand your viewpoint that the Bush Doctrine has "evolved" to include the concept of nation-building, but I don't agree with that--I think that is more of a "policy" and not a "doctrine." Regardless, it is just semantics.

 

[Dumpy]

Think about every pretty woman you've ever met (and I'm not saying this to be sexist or judgmental about Palin's attractiveness. Although let's face it, I'd rather look at her than Joe Biden.) The first thing you think is that she's hot, so everything about her must be great. You fill in all the missing details with what you hope she might be. She must be totally cool with the dishes in your sink, the empty beer cans in your bed, the wretched stink of death and despair emittiing from your feet. And she has man hands. She goes and surprises you by not being as beautiful on the inside as she is on the outside. All those details you imagined would be great somehow aren't.

Obama went through the same love affair with America that Palin has had. Eventually people complain that the candidate is too this or too that. Poll numbers drop. People panic. The candidate "must be doing something wrong."

The reality is that politicians are just like hot women (and incidentally Portland Trail Blazers). You build them up so you can tear them down.

And then you blame them for being torn down.

well said, it's like imagining what someone sounds like before they speak for the first time.

 

[Denny Crane]

In my view, the Bush Doctrine stands for the principle that the U.S. has the right to launch unilateral preemptive attacks for its own self-preservation. I believe that was Gibson's view as well. I don't understand what the big deal is, to tell you the truth. Israel does it. The U.S. has just been isolated throughout its history so that we haven't had to take such actions before (although maybe the Bay of Pigs invasion counts?)

I understand your viewpoint that the Bush Doctrine has "evolved" to include the concept of nation-building, but I don't agree with that--I think that is more of a "policy" and not a "doctrine." Regardless, it is just semantics.

I can't find any reference to the Bush Doctrine being what you (and Charlie Gibson) say it is. Even so, if it has evolved, then Palin's response "which aspect?" seems perfectly fine, no matter how it's being spun.

You might reconsider the "we haven't had to take such actions before" part as well. Spanish-American War, how we did obtain Texas and California, the Philippines, Hawaii, the indian wars, and so on.

 

[Dumpy]

I can't find any reference to the Bush Doctrine being what you (and Charlie Gibson) say it is. Even so, if it has evolved, then Palin's response "which aspect?" seems perfectly fine, no matter how it's being spun.

You might reconsider the "we haven't had to take such actions before" part as well. Spanish-American War, how we did obtain Texas and California, the Philippines, Hawaii, the indian wars, and so on.

how about something simple, like Wikipedia:

The main elements of the Bush Doctrine were delineated in a National Security Council document, the National Security Strategy of the United States, published on September 20, 2002.[26] This document is often cited as the definitive statement of the doctrine.[27][28][29] It was updated in 2006 and is stated as follows: [30]

“ It is an enduring American principle that this duty obligates the government to anticipate and counter threats, using all elements of national power, before the threats can do grave damage. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction – and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. There are few greater threats than a terrorist attack with WMD. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense.

I don't believe that it HAS evolved, but you raised that argument in a different thread, I believe.

 

[Denny Crane]

how about something simple, like Wikipedia:



I don't believe that it HAS evolved, but you raised that argument in a different thread, I believe.

Apparently, people choose to cite whatever it is they want and call it the Bush Doctrine. While others see it as quite a bit more than what WikiPedia calls the "main part" Implying there are other parts, no? Then Palin's answer, "which aspect, Charlie?" is still a perfectly fine answer and demonstrates she understood it at the time. Her actual answer after clarification was perfectly consistent with the Bush Doctrine:

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.15845/pub_detail.asp

The Bush Doctrine, which is likely to shape U.S. policy for decades to come, reflects the realities of American power as well as the aspirations of American political principles.

Does the Bush Doctrine represent a new course for American policy or simply an elaborate justification for the administration's actions? Why attack Iraq but not North Korea? What is the real role of preemption? What is wrong with the tried-and-true concepts of deterrence?

If nothing else, the Bush Doctrine, articulated by the president over the past eighteen months in a series of speeches and encapsulated in the new National Security Strategy paper released in September, represents a reversal of course from Clinton-era policies in regard to the uses of U.S. power and, especially, military force. So perhaps it is no surprise that many Americans--and others in the rest of the world as well--are struggling to keep up with the changes. Indeed, it often appears that many in the administration cannot keep up with the president. But in fact the Bush Doctrine represents a return to the first principles of American security strategy. The Bush Doctrine also represents the realities of international politics in the post-cold-war, sole-superpower world. Further, the combination of these two factors--America's universal political principles and unprecedented global power and influence--make the Bush Doctrine a whole greater than the sum of its parts; it is likely to remain the basis for U.S. security strategy for decades to come.

A comprehensive history of U.S. national security strategy is well beyond the scope of this article, but let it be stipulated that Americans always have taken an expansive view of their security interests and been more than willing to exercise military power where the correlation of forces is favorable. Blessed now with a global balance heavily weighted in favor of the United States, the Bush administration has declared itself ready to remove the rogue regimes and terrorists it regards as uniquely dangerous. For Americans, normal power calculations of "threats" and "opportunities" have been colored by an abiding faith in a set of political principles believed to have universal application. Americans have come to regard the exercise of their power as not simply a force for national greatness but for human liberty.

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view.
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. (seems consistent with "the Bush administration has declared itself ready to remove the rogue regimes and terrorists it regards as uniquely dangerous"). There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?
PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

 

[Dumpy]

who the hell cares? Really? Why does this bug you so much? She obviously didnt know what he was talking about, but so what? Did you react the same way when Bush was asked who his favorite philosopher was, and he answered "Jesus Christ" because he didn't know the name of any philosophers? Or that he couldn't name the leaders of certain other countries? Again, who cares? Reagan didn't seem to mind being seen as an "amiable dunce," and as far as I can tell, no other republican minds, either. It just doesn't matter as much as you seem to think it does.

I see this as just more misdirection from the issues. Remember the issues? Why don't we spend some time discussion Palin's decision-making process, her demonstration of ethical behavior, her understanding of economics? etc.? Is it because no one knows?

 

[mook]

Apparently, people choose to cite whatever it is they want and call it the Bush Doctrine. While others see it as quite a bit more than what WikiPedia calls the "main part" Implying there are other parts, no? Then Palin's answer, "which aspect, Charlie?" is still a perfectly fine answer and demonstrates she understood it at the time.

I wouldn't describe it as "perfectly fine." It sounded a lot like a bluff to me (and to a lot of people). It sounded like I did back in high school when I had to write an essay I hadn't prepared for, but had read a little about.

That said, the truth is that the Bush Doctrine is a muddle, which is a reflection that he's changed it every time he tried to think of a good reason to be in Iraq. So Gibson was asking her to take one shot at multiple targets. I'd describe her response to that as barely adequate, maybe something I'd say were I in her shoes.

A response that is worthy of the Vice President of the United States would be something like, "Well, Charlie, I'm sure you know that there are several aspects to the Bush Doctrine. Pre-emptive war is one, building democracy is another, etc."

She didn't demonstrate that she grasped The Bush Doctrine any better than Gibson did. Considering this doctrine is a huge reflection of the last 8 years of her own party's foreign policy, I find that pretty disappointing.

I don't want her to be as smart as me or Charlie Gibson in foreign affairs, I want her to be an expert (like Biden is). Her interview clearly demonstrated that she was competent enough to maybe win a debate with me. But I expect a hell of a lot more than that.

 

[Denny Crane]

who the hell cares? Really? Why does this bug you so much? She obviously didnt know what he was talking about, but so what? Did you react the same way when Bush was asked who his favorite philosopher was, and he answered "Jesus Christ" because he didn't know the name of any philosophers? Or that he couldn't name the leaders of certain other countries? Again, who cares? Reagan didn't seem to mind being seen as an "amiable dunce," and as far as I can tell, no other republican minds, either. It just doesn't matter as much as you seem to think it does.

I see this as just more misdirection from the issues. Remember the issues? Why don't we spend some time discussion Palin's decision-making process, her demonstration of ethical behavior, her understanding of economics? etc.? Is it because no one knows?

I'm interested in the truth, wherever it leads.

It bothers me that we can't trust the press to be objective.

Aren't "the issues" an outright smoke screen in their own right? Maybe we should consider what a president can actually do, which isn't much at all except as commander in chief or through executive order.

Instead, one side wants to discuss "issues" which is really just a laundry list of impossible amounts of spending on idiotic things that half the people think they want and half the people think they don't want and nobody's minds are going to be changed no matter how many debates there are. These are things that aren't going to make it out of congress in large part, or if passed are surely to be altered beyond recognition.

The other side wants to stand side by side with the other candidate on full display to show their grasp of the issues so the voters can decide which of the two would make the better decision when the issue is a real world one instead of some hypothetical that is really pandering to some section of the voters.

Most of us seem to want the guy who'll be most entertaining on TV, while Rome burns.

 

[mook]

who the hell cares? Really? Why does this bug you so much? She obviously didnt know what he was talking about, but so what? Did you react the same way when Bush was asked who his favorite philosopher was, and he answered "Jesus Christ" because he didn't know the name of any philosophers? Or that he couldn't name the leaders of certain other countries? Again, who cares? Reagan didn't seem to mind being seen as an "amiable dunce," and as far as I can tell, no other republican minds, either. It just doesn't matter as much as you seem to think it does.

I see this as just more misdirection from the issues. Remember the issues? Why don't we spend some time discussion Palin's decision-making process, her demonstration of ethical behavior, her understanding of economics? etc.? Is it because no one knows?

I think Palin's understanding of her own president's last 8 years of foreign policy is a pretty big deal. It's the single biggest issue she'll have control over if McCain dies, especially considering she'll face a Democratic congress.

 

[Denny Crane]

I wouldn't describe it as "perfectly fine." It sounded a lot like a bluff to me (and to a lot of people). It sounded like I did back in high school when I had to write an essay I hadn't prepared for.

That said, the truth is that the Bush Doctrine is a muddle, which is a reflection that he's changed it every time he tried to think of a good reason to be in Iraq. So Gibson was asking her to take one shot at multiple targets. I'd describe her response to that as barely adequate, maybe something I'd say.

A response that is worthy of the Vice President of the United States would be something like, "Well, Charlie, I'm sure you know that there are several aspects to the Bush Doctrine. Pre-emptive war is one, building democracy is another, etc."

She didn't demonstrate that she grasped The Bush Doctrine any better than Gibson did. Considering this doctrine is a huge reflection of the last 8 years of her own party's foreign policy, I find that pretty disappointing.

I don't want her to be as smart as me or Charlie Gibson in foreign affairs, I want her to be an expert (like Biden is). Her interview clearly demonstrated that she was competent enough to maybe win a debate with me. But I expect a hell of a lot more than that.

That's all good, but the reality is that "Well, Charlie, I'm sure you know that there are several aspects to the Bush Doctrine. Pre-emptive war is one, building democracy is another, etc." doesn't fit in a sound bite, and is so long that it would end up on the editing room floor given the way the interview was hacked together for presentation on a half-hour news show that had several other segments/stories.

 

[mook]

That's all good, but the reality is that "Well, Charlie, I'm sure you know that there are several aspects to the Bush Doctrine. Pre-emptive war is one, building democracy is another, etc." doesn't fit in a sound bite, and is so long that it would end up on the editing room floor given the way the interview was hacked together for presentation on a half-hour news show that had several other segments/stories.

Maybe. But again, I'd blame Palin for putting herself in that position. Nobody put a gun to her head and told her she had to do this particular interview with this particular reporter with ABC getting to cut it as they so pleased.

She could have gone anywhere, and required that the interview be shown in its entirety. That's how Obama earned his chops. She could have spent an hour straight chatting with Charlie Rose if she wanted. She didn't.

Considering that a big criticism of her is a lack of gravitas, it really surprised me that she willingly went with an interview that played to this perceived weakness.

You can't decide to be interviewed in a forum custom-tailored for shallow questions and sound-bite responses, and then complain that all they took were sound bites of you.

 

[Dumpy]

If you think that is all that a president can do, you are sadly mistaken. Among other things, he directs the attention and the resources of the federal departments and executive agencies. Understanding a candidate's position on things like the environment and the endangered species act (for example) will give a sense of what the related agencies may seek to accomplish under his term in office. Bush, in particular, has kept a stronger hold on agency activity than any other president that I am aware of.

But I see you didn't bother to respond to whether we should have a sense of the process she uses to reach decisions, and to delve into her ethics.

If it is just entertainment that people want, than Sarah Palin is a shoo-in. What are you worried about?

 

[Dumpy]

I think Palin's understanding of her own president's last 8 years of foreign policy is a pretty big deal. It's the single biggest issue she'll have control over if McCain dies, especially considering she'll face a Democratic congress.

I kind of disagree, to be honest. For one thing, it was a stupid question, if for no other reason than it assumed that the audience knew what he was talking about, even is she didn't. Gibson should just have asked, "Do you believe that the U.S. has the right to make unilateral preemptive attacks on another country?"

But to answer your point, that's the sort of thing you pick up easily and quickly enough through daily briefings. There are plenty of presidents that knew nothing about foreign or economic policy when they were elected, and that didn't stop them from doing a good job. You just have to rely on experts to explain things to you. Of course, the people she'd be relying on are the neocons, who view her as a blank slate that they are now filling up, even as we speak.

 

[Denny Crane]

Maybe. But again, I'd blame Palin for putting herself in that position. Nobody put a gun to her head and told her she had to do this particular interview with this particular reporter with ABC getting to cut it as they so pleased.

She could have gone anywhere, and required that the interview be shown in its entirety. That's how Obama earned his chops. She could have spent an hour straight chatting with Charlie Rose if she wanted. She didn't.

Considering that a big criticism of her is a lack of gravitas, it really surprised me that she willingly went with an interview that played to this perceived weakness.

You can't decide to be interviewed in a forum custom-tailored for shallow questions and sound-bite responses, and then complain that all they took were sound bites of you.

I think they picked the toughest interviewer they could find, on a network that gets the most exposure.

Judging from the far less edited version they ran overnight on ABC's World News Now, she did several hours of interviews with him in multiple sessions.

 

[mook]

If you think that is all that a president can do, you are sadly mistaken. Among other things, he directs the attention and the resources of the federal departments and executive agencies. Understanding a candidate's position on things like the environment and the endangered species act (for example) will give a sense of what the related agencies may seek to accomplish under his term in office. Bush, in particular, has kept a stronger hold on agency activity than any other president that I am aware of.

Where did I say that was all she'd be responsible for? Sure, those other issues are important. But the single issue she'd have most control over is foreign policy. That's hardly a controversial statement.

But I see you didn't bother to respond to whether we should have a sense of the process she uses to reach decisions, and to delve into her ethics.

If it is just entertainment that people want, than Sarah Palin is a shoo-in. What are you worried about?

It's not just about entertainment vs decision-making. This isn't binary. Knowledge is a big deal too. Knowledge of world events and in particular the last president's impact on them is a huge deal.

Knowledge isn't everything. Nixon knew a lot of stuff too. But it's certainly an important factor. Testing a candidate's knowledge of major issues they will have control over seems like a pretty reasonable thing to do.

I wouldn't hire an accountant who had little expertise in cost accounting, and I wouldn't hire a vice president who had little expertise in understanding world affairs.

 

[mook]

I think they picked the toughest interviewer they could find, on a network that gets the most exposure.

If that's their reasoning, I think it was frankly dumb. That interview was a major deal, no matter where it took place. I would have watched it if it were on public access after the smelly-looking guy in the turban who tells you how to refinance your mortgage with Tarot cards. Sarah Pallin was THE interview everybody wanted.

People impressed with superficial sound bites already have gristle to chew on. It's those of us interested in detail and complicated answers to complicated questions who were really looking forward to the interview.

 

[Denny Crane]

If you think that is all that a president can do, you are sadly mistaken. Among other things, he directs the attention and the resources of the federal departments and executive agencies. Understanding a candidate's position on things like the environment and the endangered species act (for example) will give a sense of what the related agencies may seek to accomplish under his term in office. Bush, in particular, has kept a stronger hold on agency activity than any other president that I am aware of.

When I wrote Executive Orders, that means his directives to agencies to act on their mandates. Aside from already stipulating this, those things you mention aren't going to affect anyone in a good way, if at all.

But I see you didn't bother to respond to whether we should have a sense of the process she uses to reach decisions, and to delve into her ethics.

Go for it. Isn't it silly, though, to spend an unprecedented amount of energy on this #2 on the ticket while giving the #1 on the other ticket a free pass?

Seriously, which is more important to figure out: "did Palin fire some bureaucrat for some politically incorrect reason?" or "how fishy is the convicted felon and bigtime democratic party donor Tony Rezko's financial deals with Obama in Illinois that benefited Obama by $1M or more?" One is actually BIG news.

If it is just entertainment that people want, than Sarah Palin is a shoo-in. What are you worried about?

Asked and answered. The truth, and objective reporting.

 

[Dumpy]

Where did I say that was all she'd be responsible for? Sure, those other issues are important. But the single issue she'd have most control over is foreign policy. That's hardly a controversial statement.

sorry--misunderstanding. I was responding to Denny's comment about the limited nature of what a president actually does.

It's not just about entertainment vs decision-making. This isn't binary. Knowledge is a big deal too. Knowledge of world events and in particular the last president's impact on them is a huge deal.

Knowledge isn't everything. Nixon knew a lot of stuff too. But it's certainly an important factor. Testing a candidate's knowledge of major issues they will have control over seems like a pretty reasonable thing to do.

I wouldn't hire an accountant who had little expertise in cost accounting, and I wouldn't hire a vice president who had little expertise in understanding world affairs.

To a certain extent . . . for me personally, it is more important to understand the way that a leader goes about reaching decisions. One problem (to me), is that the populace seems to prefer politicians that are "resolute" and "determined" and have a position on everything, and refuse to change those viewpoints even if situations change or more information is known. I prefer those that are secure and candid enough to say, "you know, I don't know how I would address that problem. But it is important, and I'd put a lot of thought into developing a potential solution. Some of the factors I'd consired are a, b, and c. I'd hope to accomplish d, e, and f. How we can do that would require a lot of thought, and I'd be interested in forming a bipartisan committee to explore it." When I have an assignment to give someone at work, the people I prefer are those who will say, "I've never done that before, but I'll learn the right way to do it." The people I am terrified of are those that pretend that they know what they are doing, and will continue on their road to failure because they refuse to admit that they have no idea what they are doing, and are afraid to then ask for help. It's not so important to have answers, so long as there is a process in place to explore options. That's what I want out of a leader.

 

[Denny Crane]

I wouldn't hire an accountant who had little expertise in cost accounting, and I wouldn't hire a vice president who had little expertise in understanding world affairs.

This is the kind of smoke screen I was talking about.

What expertise does one gain by being governor of Arkansas? I happen to think Clinton turned out to be one of the better presidents in many respects, including foreign policy; he used military force in Bosnia, Kosovo, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and Haiti (off the top of my head), negotiated nuclear reduction treaties, had one of the best foreign trade negotiating teams in my memory, etc.

 

[Denny Crane]

sorry--misunderstanding. I was responding to Denny's comment about the limited nature of what a president actually does.



To a certain extent . . . for me personally, it is more important to understand the way that a leader goes about reaching decisions. One problem (to me), is that the populace seems to prefer politicians that are "resolute" and "determined" and have a position on everything, and refuse to change those viewpoints even if situations change or more information is known. I prefer those that are secure and candid enough to say, "you know, I don't know how I would address that problem. But it is important, and I'd put a lot of thought into developing a potential solution. Some of the factors I'd consired are a, b, and c. I'd hope to accomplish d, e, and f. How we can do that would require a lot of thought, and I'd be interested in forming a bipartisan committee to explore it." When I have an assignment to give someone at work, the people I prefer are those who will say, "I've never done that before, but I'll learn the right way to do it." The people I am terrified of are those that pretend that they know what they are doing, and will continue on their road to failure because they refuse to admit that they have no idea what they are doing, and are afraid to then ask for help. It's not so important to have answers, so long as there is a process in place to explore options. That's what I want out of a leader.

So, "for the earmark" before "I refused the earmark" is a good thing. Good to know.

 

[Dumpy]

This is the kind of smoke screen I was talking about.

What expertise does one gain by being governor of Arkansas? I happen to think Clinton turned out to be one of the better presidents in many respects, including foreign policy; he used military force in Bosnia, Kosovo, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and Haiti (off the top of my head), negotiated nuclear reduction treaties, had one of the best foreign trade negotiating teams in my memory, etc.

that's why newly-elected presidents rely heavily on the staff and infrastructure of their party that is already in place, those with the experience in former administrations. It is disingenous for one party or the other to point to a candidate's advisors and point out that they held certain jobs or represented certain clients in the meantime. Those experts will be needed to guide a new president's first few years in office, and new blood can gradually be given positions of more and more responsibility. George Bush recycled many of his father's advisors, and really, who would fault him for that?

But for the same reason, I think it is misleading for McCain to claim that he represents "change." It's an unfortunate state that there is such anger against Bush that McCain has no other choice.

 

[Dumpy]

So, "for the earmark" before "I refused the earmark" is a good thing. Good to know.

I don't have a problem with it. I have a problem with her lack of honesty in explaining it (which undoubtedly is on the instruction on her handlers)