Site Presented By
Wednesday, Nov 4, 2009
Readerreader
Published Letters: 1492 Editor's Choice: 13
It's a little simplistic to say that Palin is a token woman, and an offensive one at that, in a way that is comparable to say, Clarence Thomas. There, you had a black man replacing Thurgood Marshall who HATED the NAACP and was almost single-minded in his objections to both affirmative action and Marshall's legacy. Understandable why some found that hard to swallow. With Palin, there is no evidence that she is a closet Bircher, shares the "Goldwater dream" of 64 (deconstrucing the federal government and/or blowing up the TVA's dams on the Tennessee River), or grinds her teeth hoping to "turn back the clock" on womens' rights. Sure, she is opposed to abortion, but that is a direct product of her Christian faith, and this has been part of the Republican platform for decades. Her interest in politics seems to be more pragmatic than ideological, and McCain found plenty to like about her as evidenced by her immediate appeal. My advice: knock her if you like on the issues, as if she were Mitt Romney. But get over the token/offense psychodrama.
Has George Bush done a lousy job on the hunt for Bin Laden? Kind of hard to argue otherwise, isn't it? He gave the game away early on with his infamous statement that he doesn't really think about Bin Laden very often. Funny, because I certainly do, and it is not my job to catch him.
That said, it's tough to conclude that Sen. Obama would do any better. Recall that Joe Biden noted, during the primaries, that he worked with Barack every day in the Senate and had not heard so much as a peep from Barack on possible options or tactics in Iraq. Sure, we all know Barack gave an anti-war speech in 2002 to his 98% Democrat constituency on the south side of Chicago. Beyond that, there isn't much to commend him as a guru on foreign policy.
You also have to recall that Barack made his famous "I will bomb Pakistan" declaration against the backdrop of his stubborn and foolish refusal to repudiate a debate declaration that he would take a rogues-round-the-world tour his first year in office. It was a classic get-tough reaction that was made for political expediency, and cannot be taken seriously as an indicator of future foreign policy. If Barack has a better idea on how to catch Bid Laden, I would like to hear it.
In short, Barack and McCain are not distinguishable on Bid Laden. If you are a lifelong Republican looking for a reason to vote for Obama, you'll need a more convincing reason than this.
True, challengers beat incumbents when times are bad. Typically, however, those challengers have a prescription for improvement -- one voters can comprehend. For Bill Clinton in '92, it was (i) government funding for jobs training and transferrable skills (think factory workers in New Hampshire), (ii) a middle class tax cut (to offset the Bush tax hike of '91), and a stimulus package to "jump start" the economy. (In the primariies, these ideas beat out Paul Tsongas' proposal to initiate a Germany/Japan-inspired "government industrial policy" and Tom Harken's New Deal-esque government employment programs). In 1980, Reagen beat Carter by promising what he called (probably misleadingly) Kennedy-inspired dramatic tax cuts.
Trouble here is that Sen. Obama dropped a VERY short bunt during his convention, in terms of policy. Now, post-convention, he has nothing to run on besides John McCain's nine houses, Sarah Palin's per diem account, and his own resolution not to be swift boated. Sure, the economy is in trouble, but what is the junior senator going to do about it? McCain has no solutions either, but his own bunt down the third base line (stale non-starter solutions PLUS a vague call for bipartisanship) may be just slightly better than nothing (i.e., Obama's program).
As the old saying goes, when you and your friend are chased in the woods by a bear (or, in this case, a bad economy, angry electorate, etc.), you don't have to outrun the bear -- just outrun the guy standing next to you. The voters might wish to punish them both -- but one of these guys is going to win.
I watched the Gibson interview and was equally confused when he asked her about the Bush Doctrine. I thought at first he meant the war on terror generally. Then, when he said no -- the issues going back to 2002, I thought he was asking about the axis of evil and whether she thinks Iran and North Korea are still in it. I watch these things as closely as anyone, and I shared Palin's confusion until Gibson clarified he was talking preemption. Of course, in hindsight, that now seems clear, but I think a little slack is in order here. She obviously knew McCain's talking point on preemption -- if the intelligence is half way decent, bomb away. The fact she didn't react immediately to a mere label is not much of a deal.
The bigger problem here is that interviews like this are pointless because (a) the VP merely rehashes the top guy's agenda and (b) you get no real insight into what the VP really thinks. I was as curious as anyone to see how Palin thinks on her feet, but my expectation that the interview would be utterly unrevealing was confirmed.
An Israeli columnist issues a scathing indictment of Israel and calls on the U.S. to apply pressure.
Even when government officials purposely subject an innocent person to brutal torture, they enjoy full immunity.
Hey, guys: Are adult films making you bad at sex?
What was once depicted as a grave act of lawlessness -- Bush's NSA program -- is now deemed a vital state secret.
The loony wing of the Republican Party prepares for a big day in Tuesday's elections
Salon headlines in your mailbox
