Posted on 06/01/2011 9:43:57 AM PDT by Rennes Templar
Somehow, it has never occurred to me that "policy" is a free-standing independent discipline. Except, perhaps, for top level bureaucrats -- as opposed to executives.
Isn't "policy" the means by which "principles" are executed?
And aren't "principles" supposed to be what guides executives? While bureaucrats compose the "policies" by which these "principles" are effected.
I don't want a "policy wonk" for President. I want a principled Chief Executive.
Reagan wasn't a "policy wonk". If Palin isn't one, either, I'm fine with that.
Personally, I fail to see why Krauthammer believes "policy" -- as distinct from "principle" -- should be a criterion for choosing the Chief Executive.
If you truly believe that, you are incredibly naive.
I've wondered how a guy with a degree in Poli Sci gets into Harvard Medical School.
Of course, you may have gotten there by opening your skull and letting the admissions officials inspect your astounding brain.
Or maybe you traded on family connections? Hmmmm? And how do you get to be a pundit in the first place? Family connections? HMMMM?
I'd like to see you vetted, Charles.
Great point and spot on.
“Boy are you gonna get flamed...” =======
Palin threads are no place for discussion, reason, debate, cognitive thinking, nor persuasion. The thread is a rabid out-cussing competition toward anyone who is undecided, or wants to process the competencies of different candidates wannabees. It may be fear that she won’t run at all and their pockets have been emptied trying to get her to run. Heaven help Sarah if she does not announce given the old adage of the thin line between love and hate.
To converse here, I have thought and erringly said the same flame inducing thing on FR that the Kraut said. Two years of accumulated wealth and PAC cash with no evidence this time and money was used to increase historical knowledge of world history, or why North and South Korea are divided.
There is nothing said by Palin that any Freeper wouldn’t say themselves, but by itself that doesn’t necessarily qualify us for president. Sarah needs to add something to the debate besides fury at the media. It makes her look like she can’t handle the media, nor the acute pressures of the presidency. It risks looking thin skinned, grudging and a little small.
But you can’t know these things or say that here. So, be quiet.
‘Of course, you may have gotten there by opening your skull and letting the admissions officials inspect your astounding brain.”
That’s funny right there.
I’d love Palin to be president, but fear that her reputation has been demonized to the point of making it difficult to win.
Could be wrong, but I think that she knows this too and will not enter the race this time.
She was the running mate of a losing ticket and has high negatives, even in her own state.
Sarah needs to be like Nixon after losing to JFK and wait for a more favorable climate.
Severing as Senator would repair her “Tina Fey”, airhead image with the middle voters.
We still have Backman. She could be our choice if Sarah is out.
Did Charles read all of the policy related articles in The Harvard Review written by Obama?
Palin has more schooling than Obama had when he became POTUS.
Anyone besides me think this guy has a problem with female leaders?
Timing is everything. Newt's time has come and gone. Hillary Clinton's time has come and gone. If Palin is to seek the Presidency, here time is now - not eight or 14 years from now. Besides, I am not sure the Senate prepares anyone for the Presidency.
“I have been a member of this website for over a decade and the level of analysis and depth of comments have decreased in recent years. “ ===========
Relatively new over the year the discourse has turned from the like minded conversing, to having to couch your thoughts, to ducking the cascade of flames, insult and banning threats from other FReepers. I don’t couch well either.
Great post.
Yeah cause the smartest people in the room are doing such a great job of running everything.....
It's difficult to say, either way, from what she wrote: if you actually read her statement and try to pin down exactly what she's saying, you'll find that it is actually pretty incoherent.
She calls civilian deaths "devastating" (or at least, hearing about them is devastating); but she's still apparently trying to justify NATO airstrikes that take out "terrorists and terrorist positions." The obvious conclusion is that Palin is defending the strikes even if they do (contrary to Karzai's warning) kill civilians as well.
It's the old "collateral damage" excuse, and it breeds serious ill-will if it happens too much. If you read what Karzai actually said, in part he's telling NATO that such incidents are being and will be used by the bad guys to paint us as occupiers -- much as the Iraqi insurgents so successfully made the same claims in 2006.
Look at it from his perspective: there comes a point where enough "collateral damage" is enough, and beyond which NATO's actions would be seen as those of an occupier, rather than a strategic partner. We should not forget Afghanistan's last experience with an occupying power -- they're very sensitive, over there, to what foreigners do to them.
And her call for "immediate withdrawal" is definitely a threat, stated in response to Karzai's comments about taking unilateral action. That gets to the heart of the fundamental questions about NATO's role and goals in Afghanistan. Palin says, "I still firmly support our mission in Afghanistan, but we must have the support of the host government." But, apparently, she cannot be bothered to address what the host government is complaining about.
The bottom line is that this is not an issue that can be disposed of in fewer than 300 words, as Ms. Palin has tried to do. Well, no, pundits and talking heads can get away with it ... but not somebody who apparently wishes to have control of actual foreign policy.
Which, if any, of these atrocities does Charles Krauthammer think President Palin would engage in?
Obama's calculated insults to Israel expose his leftist ideology
One of Obama's first acts as president was to send money to the Palestinians, money that can be used to buy rockets to fire into Israel, irrespective of the rationale for the money.
They say a picture is worth a thousand words. A photograph that should tell us a lot about Obama shows him on the phone, talking with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Obama was seated, leaning back in his chair, with his feet up on the desk, and the soles of his feet pointed directly at the camera. In the Middle East, showing the soles of your feet is an insult, as Obama undoubtedly knows.
This photograph was no accident. Photographers cannot roam around White House, willy-nilly, taking snapshots of the president as he talks to leaders of foreign nations.
It was a photograph with a message. No one would have known who was on the other end of the line, unless Obama wanted them to know -- and wanted to demonstrate his disdain.
Netanyahu's visits to the White House have been unlike previous Israeli leaders' visits to the White House, and certainly unlike the pomp and circumstance accompanying other nations' leaders' visits to the White House over the years.
After one of his meetings with Netanyahu, Obama simply told the prime minister that he was going upstairs to have dinner. You wouldn't say that to an ordinary neighbor visiting in your home, without inviting him to join you.
Obama knew that. Netanyahu knew that. It was a calculated insult. And the American public would have heard about it, if so much of the media didn't have such a hear-no-evil, see-no-evil and speak-no-evil attitude in its coverage of Obama.
Visits to the White House by prime ministers of Britain -- our oldest and staunchest ally -- have likewise been downplayed, and Obama's visit to the Queen of England was likewise conducted without the respect normally shown to a monarch.
One of Obama's first acts upon reaching the White House was to return to the British Embassy a bust of Winston Churchill, the most eminent statesman in Britain's history.
All of this is consistent with Obama's general approach to foreign policy -- selling out our allies to curry favor with our adversaries. He flew to Moscow, shortly after taking office, to renege on the American commitment to put a missile shield in Eastern Europe, in hopes of getting a deal with the Russians.
Obama is politically savvy enough to know how to get his point across without blowing his cover.
The fate of the United States of America may depend on how savvy we the people are in seeing what he is doing -- and how soon, before the situation becomes irretrievable.
-------
Sowell could have added President Urkel forcing The Dalai Lama to vacate The White House via the back door with nary a word of caution not to trip on any of the bags of garbage sitting outside the door.
He could've mentioned The State Dinner he held for The Prime Minister of India outdoors. Under a tent.
I'm sure there are many other examples.
There you go again... letting your facts get in the way of Rhetoric. How dare you sir.
Um, actually, Charles, I’m not sure what you mean. Other perhaps than “Sarah Palin didn’t call me and listen to me like I was God speaking from the burning bush.”
It’s conservative political policy, Charles. It’s not the Gnostic mysteries.
I’m saying, that is what Charles was saying.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.