Rich Lowry: She can, and should, do better

NRO ^ | 9/13/08 | Rich Lowry

[kabar]

The reality is that the VP or the President for that matter do not have to be foreign policy experts. There are plenty of advisors and staffers who know the issues in great detail. They inhabit the intelligence agencies, the State Department, and all the other foreign affairs agencies. What you really need is judgment not whether someone has met or shook hands with foreign heads of state. I trust Palin's judgment more than Obama's or Biden's.

Lowry and the rest of his ilk inside the Beltway are policy wonks who smugly like to trot out their knowledge of the details and the nuances of foreign affairs. It really doesn't matter a tinker's damn. A President will have access to that information at his/her fingertips. The President is the CEO who must then make the decisions after reviewing the information. HST was a complete neophyte when it came to foreign affairs [he was a history buff] and assumed the Presidency without much preparation. He did a remarkable job in fashioning our foreign policy and national security infrastructure that eventually led to the fall of the Soviet Union and communism. Thank God Henry Wallace was not kept by FDR as his VP.

[CharacterCounts]

There is no actual “Bush Doctrine.” Its merely a journalistic term to describe a range of Bush’s policies. No “Bush Doctrine” has ever been enacted into law.

[EyeGuy]

“Sarah already told them she wasn’t looking for their “good opinon”

####
To perhaps the biggest responsorial cheers she received that night, and later in the week. Telling, wouldn’t you say, about what much of the American public has concluded about the media elite.

Good observation.

[Junior_G]

This is a sober and much-needed splash of cold water from Rich Lowry. When conservatives started to argue that nobody knows what the Bush Doctrine is, that just seemed to be the wrong way to respond to Palin's unsteady performance in that interview. The more effective focus is on Charles Gibson's obvious, unhidden disdain for Sarah Palin during the interview. His treatment of her compared to his softball treatment of Obama is disgusting; and the media's tendency to completely ignore the numerous gaffes from Obama and Biden is inexcusable in light of their treatment of Palin.

[Earthdweller]

The problem was she looked like she was going to the dentist when she first started the interview. Maybe in Alaska there are not as many liberal snobs to contend with. LOL.

That said...as the interview went on she caught on quick to the condescending tone trick and came out strong in the end. Of course the last part of the interview was not as widely looked at because they didn't put out the video until yesterday...

Here it is..

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video_log/2008/09/sarah_palins_2020_interview.html

[Will88]

“The fact still remains that she very likely didn’t know any of the possible definitions of the Bush doctrine.”

You’re making yourself look foolish there, Rich. Palin replied to that question with: “In what respect”, or something close to that. There is no precise, limited and widely understood definition of what the, or a “Bush Doctrine” is. And your acting as if there is exposes your ignorance, and puts you at odds with some very knowledgeable commentators who’ve also addressed this portion of the interview.

“Bush Doctrine” is actually a term that was used often the first year or two after 9/11, but has declined in usage significantly since.

And Lowry cannot at all say she very likely didn’t know any of the definitions for “Bush Doctrine.” Sounds like Rich wishes to denigrate Governor Palin for some reason.

[Puddleglum]

I think she did beter than this writer perceived. Sure, she is not a foreign policy wonk like say, Presb Bush the elder, but she has the mental aptitude for it. She will likely ask hard questions of her advisors, should she be fortunate enough to become VP.

[Junior_G]

Before I read the Krauthammer piece, my understanding of the Bush Doctrine was that it simply meant we don’t wait to be attacked, and we take it to the enemy first. I thought a perfect response for Palin would be: “It means we don’t wait to be attacked. Like if I punched you in the teeth before you asked your next question.”

[Earthdweller]

The intelligent answer was “Which liberal spin are you talking about Charlie? There are so many”

[VOA]

Why is it that as a governor, she should have a deep knowledge and
experience in foreign policy? Do US governors conduct foreign policy?

In some states, international experience is a given due to heavy trade
with foreign nations.

When I heard the knocks on Palin for not having "experience",
particularly of the international type, I just said "It's a
carbon copy of what Dems said about Dubya in 2000."

Governors of states like Alaska, California, Texas, Florida
or New York can't avoid getting international experience.
Either by traveling to other countries on trade-promotion tours
And/or entertaining visiting delegations from foreign nations.

[arasina]

OK, now let’s have Charlie grill Obama the say way he did Palin.

That's why the Saddleback debate format was good, IMO. Removes the majority of bias that way. Each candidate gets ask identical questions and the voters can judge from their answers.

Why are those in the MSM asking the questions in the first place? They've already "confessed" to leaning left in their personal politics.

[snowsislander]

Sarah Palin and her baby are living reproaches Barak Obama. Her very being exposes Obama for the mountebank he is. She is the real deal and so transparent that people instantly recognize her to be authentic. He is a sham and her very presence utterly diminishes him on a moral scale. More, are our moral power illuminates the moral power of John McCain. This the left does not understand.

Applying this understanding to the Charlie Gibson interview, Sarah was not harmed at all because there was nothing which fundamentally undermined America's judgment that she is authentic and morally true. It does not matter if Sarah Palin is unsure about the Bush Doctrine-so is most of America-that is not the dimension which bonds her to the people. They want to know that her heart is right and that her mind is clear. They know that no one can foresee the challenges the country will face. They are not putting a fact checker one heartbeat away from the presidency. They are putting a human being with a soul in office. They want someone whose character they can trust, because they know that it is character alone that counts when the phone rings at 3 a.m.

BTTT.

[scory]

Political junkies and policy wonks viewed this interview one way and normal people viewed it much differently. The junkies and wonks worried about missteps or gaffes about policy and bits of minutiae. Normal people wondered about her judgment and character. Normal people are far less concerned with her ability to recite arcane details but wanted to know if she sounds smart, can maintain her composure under pressure, hold a position and remain respectful and likable.

As it turned out she did fine on the recitation of details (and the junkies were right to worry about this because had she screwed up big the leftist media would have gone into full obsessive attack mode about it). But she did very well indeed in the image/character/likability part of this and THAT is what is really crucial in all this.

We’ve elected our fair share of likable ignoramuses in the past. Gaffes are pretty much overrated and only have a real impact if they are really serious. But unlikable wonks rarely get themselves elected - witness Adlai Stevenson, Al Gore or (the epitome of the unlikable wonk) John Kerry.

In Governor Palin we have a person who is obviously intelligent and capable as well as poised and likable. It is no accident she has such huge positives in her state and is establishing these nationally.

[Will88]

“Before I read the Krauthammer piece,”

From that piece:

“In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, “The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism,” I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.”

It’s fairly amazing that that piece is from 6/4/2001, BEFORE 9/11.

“Bush Doctrine” has never had a precise and limited and generally accepted meaning. It gained many new meanings after 9/11. But I just lost a lot of respect for Rich Lowry. He and Gibson both owe Governor Palin any apology. Not holding my breath.

[mouske]

I agree with you. I believe that foreign policy experience, or the lack thereof, is being overanalyzed. It does not matter how many foreign leaders you have met. When it comes time to make an important foreign policy decision, will the US leader fret about what foreign leaders think, or will the US leader make the correct decision - what is right or wrong, what is best for the US?

[gov_bean_ counter]

Gone are the days where we are left to wonder what was left on the cutting room floors. It is clear now that last night ABC used the 10 minutes before the interview to define Gov. Palin and used a poorly edited interview in an attempt to back it up. Then the tried to put the cherry on top with two libs and a RINO.

Ten years ago this may have worked. No more. Monday morning Bortz, Limbaugh, Hannity and others will all be bringing Americans up to speed with "the rest of the story".

I genuinely hope the McCain campaign demands ABC rebroadcast the entire interview or risk having access to their candidates cut off for the rest of the campaign.

[SampleMan]

Her actual answers were far better than the Pravda edited version released.

[tips up]

Jesse Jackson has probably met more foreign leaders than Palin and Obama combined, but so what? So has Bono. Are they qualified to be President?

[supercat]

Lowry apparently hasn't read the Krauthammer piece.

What would have been great, even though it would have likely been cut, would have been if she'd asked "Do you mean the Krauthammer Bush Doctrine of XXX, 2001, or the YYY Bush Doctrine of September 20, 2001, or..."? She shouldn't finish the list, lest she appear as a show-off, but should instead let the "or" hang. If Charlie failed to answer, she could ask what his version of the Bush Doctrine said; any awkwardness would be on Charlie's end, not hers.

Still, she did fine.

[snarkytart]

Political junkies and policy wonks viewed this interview one way and normal people viewed it much differently. The junkies and wonks worried about missteps or gaffes about policy and bits of minutiae. Normal people wondered about her judgment and character. Normal people are far less concerned with her ability to recite arcane details but wanted to know if she sounds smart, can maintain her composure under pressure, hold a position and remain respectful and likable. As it turned out she did fine on the recitation of details (and the junkies were right to worry about this because had she screwed up big the leftist media would have gone into full obsessive attack mode about it). But she did very well indeed in the image/character/likability part of this and THAT is what is really crucial in all this. We’ve elected our fair share of likable ignoramuses in the past. Gaffes are pretty much overrated and only have a real impact if they are really serious. But unlikable wonks rarely get themselves elected - witness Adlai Stevenson, Al Gore or (the epitome of the unlikable wonk) John Kerry. In Governor Palin we have a person who is obviously intelligent and capable as well as poised and likable. It is no accident she has such huge positives in her state and is establishing these nationally.

THANK YOU!! Sarah asking Charlie what he meant by the Bush Doctrine did not come across bad to those who are not needle headed political junkies. She didn't seem lost or confused, but cautious as to what little game Charlie Gibson was trying to play. She even said, 'You mean his world view' Then went on to explain how she thinks America should deal with credible threats. She never lost her composure, or got agitated. She didn't fumble her words. To the average person watching she was FINE!! And on the Bush Doctrine, as it turns out, she was correct to ask Gibson to clarify his question. Lowry is always a wimp and scared.