Given McCain’s age and health history, the choice of Vice President has unusually great significance. He chose someone who looks good, sounds good, and fits his marketing needs. She is, however, grossly unqualified to be President of the United States. Perhaps her primary qualification is to make Obama look over-qualified.
McCain treats the election as if it were a reality TV show, to be won by tricks. It mocks the McCain campaign’s slogan of “Country First.” This choice not only demonstrates his well-known erraticness plus, in my opinion, displays contempt for the American people. Are we as stupid as he believes us to be?
America will survive whoever wins. Electing unqualified people with good marketing worked for us in the 19th century, it might prove disastrous in the 21st. (Although the song “Tippecanoe and Tyler too“ may have won the Presidency for Harrison in the 1840, he had prior service as Governor, Representative, and Senator).
Content
-
Compare and Contrast Palin and Obama
-
Is executive experience like homeopathic medicine?
-
Interviews, the “troopergate” scandal, and other data about Palin
-
Update: Palin giggles as radio hosts mock a cancer-surviving legislator as a ‘bitch’ and ‘cancer’.”
-
Where to go for more analysis of McCain’s choice of VP
-
My posts about the candidates
1. Compare and Contrast Palin and Obama
Obama might become President. So might Palin. Note that several of the details in the mainstream stories are either mis-leading or incorrect about her background.
Sarah Palin
Education
- University of Idaho, major in communications
Political Offices
- Part-time Wasilla City Council: 1992 – 1996
- Full-time Wasilla Mayor: 1996 – 2002 (2000 population 5,470)
- Member (Part-time?), Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission: 19 February 2003 to 23 January 2004
- Alaska Governor: 4 December 2006 to present (21 months).
About the O&G Conservation Commission: She is listed in their 2004 report as the “public member”, the other members being the geologist and the engineer. Some news reports describer her as the “chairwoman”, but this appears inaccurate. In 1969 the commission was reduced in size; after then it no longer had a Chairman or Executive Secretary. Sources: history, 2004 annual report.
Saying that she has good executive experience because of her time as part-time mayor of a tiny village seems a stretch. How many employees does it have? In 2002 it had an operating budget of $5.8 million (source).
Professional Career (dates and details differ about this info)
- Part-time sports reporter for 2 TV stations: 1987 – 1989
- Co-owner, commercial fishing operation, 1988 – 2007 (role uncertain)
- Owner or co-owner of a snow machine, watercraft, and all-terrain vehicle business: 1994 – 1997 (role uncertain)
I have found nothing describing her role in what appear to be these two family businesses. Was she, as many reports say, really a fisherman?
Barack Obama
Education
- Columbia University
- Harvard Law school
Political Office (aprox 1/2 of this time spent campaigning)
- IL Senate: 1 January 1997 - 4 November 2004
- US Senate: 4 January 2005 – present (44 months)
Professional Career
- Director of Illinois Project Vote!: April – October 1992
- Practicing attorney: Associate in his firm 1993 – 1996, Counsel 1996 - 2004
- part-time Lecturer at U of Chicago: 1992-1996, Senior Lecturer 1996-2004
Scandals
There are many rumors about Obama’s relationship with Rezko, which are too complex to review here. See Wikipedia for a brief and more links.
2. Does executive experience work like homeopathic medicine?
The belief that Palin has substantial ”executive experience” is odd, IMO. As if scale has no meaning, both in the time spent governing and the size of the organization she ran. Is this like Homeopathic medicine: executive experience has an effect irrelevant to its concentration? One drop, one molecule, is all it takes?
Or is executive experience like most things in life, where the scale matters? A village of 5 thousand people has a part-time mayor, but that is not comperable to being Governor. Being a senior executive legislature of a state or nation for 20 months gains less experience than doing so for 5 years.
Legislative experience is slightly different. For example, a US Senator’s experience has nothing to do with the size of the State he or she represents. They all cast one equal vote; they all do similar things in the Senate.
3. Interviews, the “troopergate” scandal, and other data
The “troopergate” scandal sounds ugly. Very ugly.
- “Palin staff pushed to have trooper fired“, Daily Anchorage News, 14 August 2008 — “Governor says she’s learned calls were made about Wooten’s ouster”
- “Interview with Sarah Palin“, Time, 14 August 2008 — Slow pitches to Palin.
- “Why Walt Monegan got fired: Palin’s abuse of power“, Andrew Halcro, posted at his blog, undated — A brief description of the troopergate story, accuracy unknown.
4. Update: Palin giggles as radio hosts mock a cancer-surviving legislator as a ‘bitch’ and ‘cancer’.” Summary: “Hear Sarah Palin giggle as radio hosts mock a cancer-surviving legislator as a ‘bitch’ and ‘cancer’.”
Youtube recording of an interview with Sarah Palin, “Bob and Mark” show, Bob Lester and Mark Colavecchio, broadcast on radio station KWHL, 15 January 2008. The shock jocks crudely mock Lyda Green, President of Alaska’s State Senate. Governor Palin giggles in response. {Update: that youtube link no longer works; use Google to find others, as the Palin staff will seek to keep this hidden. See comments for other links).
This must be heard to be believed, as interviews with Governors go. Esp bizarre are her giggles. If McCain-Palin win, we will have an interesting time ahead. If McCain dies or become incapacitated, we’ll have quite a ride ahead of us. We will have no excuse, no basis to complain.
The only report I can find from the time of the incident: “Palin’s responses on radio talk show very unbecoming“, Anchorage Daily News, 27 January 2008.
5. For more analysis of McCain’s choice of VP
- Zenpundit — who has collected many links on the topic!
- Also drop by Sic Semper Tyrannis, the blog of Patrick Lang (Colonel, US Army, retired) — esp note the comments, which typically run from good to excellent.
- “What is McCain Thinking? One Alaskan’s Perspective.“, by AKMuckraker, posted at Mudflats, 29 August 2008 – A seemingly fair look at Palin.
- Most esp, see National Review Online’s The Corner — a stream of wildly enthusiastic posts.
- “Palin the irresponsible choice?” David Frum, National Post, 29 August 2008 — A conservative dissents from the enthusiasm about Palin.
- “Palin touts stance on ‘Bridge to Nowhere,’ doesn’t note flip-flop“, Anchorage Daily News, 31 August 2008 — IMO a fair review of her record as Gov.
Skimming #4, the NRO site, is fascinating. Pure identity politics: she’s one of us, we love her. They like her for who she is, not what she can do. Almost zero discussion of her training, experience, or ability to function as President. Strange, very strange for conservatives. And it show the moral bankruptcy of the Republican Party.
Not about Palin, but useful analysis: “Foreign Policy and the President’s Irrelevance” by George Friedman on Stratfor, 5 Feb 2008
Update: Update: an interesting perspective on the experience debate
“No Experience Necessary“, Michael Kinsley, Slate, 31 August 2008 — “How Sarah Palin made the GOP change its mind about presidential qualifications.” Excerpt:
The whole ‘experience’ debate is silly. Under our system of government, there is only one job that gives you both executive and foreign policy experience, and that’s the one McCain and Obama are running for.
Nevertheless, it’s a hardy perennial:
- If your opponent is a governor, you accuse him of lacking foreign policy experience.
- If he or she is a member of Congress, you say this person has never run anything.
- And if, by any chance, your opponent has done both, you say that he or she is a ‘professional politician.’
When Republicans aren’t complaining about someone’s lack of experience, they are calling for term limits
… In fact, it’s not about experience at all. It’s about honesty. The question should be whether McCain—and all the other Republicans who have been going on for months about Obama’s dangerous lack of foreign policy experience—ever meant a word of it.
And the answer is apparently not. Many conservative pundits woke up this very morning fully prepared to harp on Obama’s alleged lack of experience for months more. Now they face the choice of either executing a Communist-style U-turn (”Experience? Feh! Who needs it?”) or trying to keep a straight face while touting the importance of having been mayor of a town of 9,000 if you later find yourself president of a nation of 300 million.
Please share your comments by posting below (brief and relevant, please), or email me at fabmaximus at hotmail dot com (note the spam-protected spelling).
6. My Posts about the Candidates
1. How the Iraq and Vietnam wars are mirror images of each other (7 February 2008) — Now we have McCain, the leading Republican Presidential candidate, talking of an open-ended commitment to victory in Iraq.
2. What do blogs do for America? (26 February 2008) — As our problems reach critical dimensions and our economy sinks into what is (at best) a severe recession, our national leadership will likely move into the hands of someone with astonishingly little capacity to govern.
3. A look at the next phase of the Iraq War: 2009-2012 (1 March 2008) — What is next in Iraq? None of the leading candidates have expressed any intention of leaving Iraq – except in the distant and vague future. McCain intends to fight so long as (or until) we suffer few casualties, then stay for a long time (perhaps a hundred years, as McCain said here and here) ). On the other hand, Obama has been quite explicit…
4. Our metastable Empire, built on a foundation of clay (3 March 2008) — We can elect leaders with vast ambitions (foreign for McCain, domestic for Obama), but can no longer afford them.
5. How long will all American Presidents be War Presidents? (21 March 2008) — The Presidential campaign rolls on in the seventh year since 9/11, with the only debate about the Long War being in which nations America should fight. We see this even the speeches of the most “liberal” candidate, Senator Barack Obama.
6. American history changes direction as the baton passes between our political parties (18 May 2008) – Importance of the November 2008 political landslide.
7. President Obama, an Muslim apostate? (2 June 2008) — Nope.
8. Is Obama running for the office of Chief Shaman? (6 June 2008) — Weirdness from our next President.
9. Does America need a charismatic President? (15 july 2008)
10. More about charisma, by Don Vandergriff…(#2 in the “getting ready for Obama” series) (16 July 2008) — About charisma: know it before you buy it!
11. Obama might be the shaman that America needs (17 July 2008) — At what point does criticism of Obama’s charisma and rhetoric become criticism of leadership itself — and blind faith in technocratic solutions so loved by policy nerds? Michael Knox Beran crosses that line in “Obama, Shaman“, City Journal, Summer 2008.
12. Obama describes the first step to America’s renewal, 8 August 2008 — Obama’s statement about America may be the simple truth; this may be why so many find it disturbing.
13. A powerful perspective on the candidates for President of the US, 28 August 2008 — John Derbyshire expresses what I have said about the candidates dreams of saving the world.
For interesting articles about the candidates from other sources, see About the candidates for President of the United States.
Agreed. . . the deeper we get into economic problems, the more likely we will be governed by someone who isn’t qualified to lead, but highly qualified to exploit our anger and fears.
In general, all signs point toward increasing authoritarianism and increasing militarism. . The most discouraging revelation of the past seven years has been the Congressional opposition’s unwillingness to oppose any of the executive assaults on its power, or any of its clear violations of the Constitution. We’ve already reached the condition of a single party, single branch government.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: I strongly disagree with your last sentance.
“We’ve already reached the condition of a single party, single branch government.”
Will you still believe this if the Democratic Party gains large majorities in both houses of Congress and Obama wins? The first is likely (per the polls), the second is a 50-50 chance.
Comment by plato's cave — 30 August 2008 @ 1:21 am
Because of the dumbing down of American politics, where all campaigns are basically run on slogans, I think Obama will find it difficult to attack her inexperience directly. Looking at their records it easy to see Obama is better qualified for just about any job. Particularly telling are the education backgrounds. Degrees from Columbia and Harvard versus a degree in communications (!?) from the University of Idaho. But for many Americans Obama has been attacked for being inexperienced so him responding with the same attacks on Palin would look hypocritical.
Comment by Mongo — 30 August 2008 @ 4:19 am
Ah, old Tippecanoe. Here’s another 19th C. presidential jingle:
Republicans: ” Ma…Ma…Where’s my pa ?!?”
Democrats: ” Gone to the White House…Ha..Ha..Ha!!”
Grover Cleveland was (incorrectly) alledged to have fathered a child out of wedlock. He won anyway. Twice. Non-consecutively.
.
.
Fabuis Maximus replies: Note that the first was a campaign song, the second a “hit ad.”
Comment by zenpundit — 30 August 2008 @ 4:34 am
Neither Palan or Obama are qualified. McCain and Biden maybe but they support bad policies. Palan has some experience running a state unlike Obama but other than that zip. I really don’t like the choices in this election because it points to the moral bankruptcy of both parties and maybe the nation. The American voter appears not ready for change. They are so afraid of losing what they have that they keep voting for the same people over and over again not understanding they are still losing what they value. When the voters are ready for change then with luck they will have someone worth voting for.
“There is a Providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children and the United States of America.”
Otto von Bismarck
I hope that continues to be so.
Comment by FxConde — 30 August 2008 @ 5:14 am
How come Tim Kaine was a viable pick for most of the leftwing pundits and yet Palin is not?
It is also important to distinguish between Executive and Legislative experience. Republicans have traditionally viewed the former as more important if you look at past nominees. That is why many conservatives are uncomfortable with McCain. Ont he converse the Democrats have always put up Senators except for Clinton and Carter (who both won). Palin actually has experience running government versus just representing for a short period of time like Obama has.
From a qualification standpoint Mitt Romney is the man. He would be a flawless candidate if not for the contrast of being a rich white man and Mormon. One could argue that Palin was not picked because she was a woman but rather because she is not Mormon.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: Tim Kaine’s overall experience is far more than Palin’s (and more than Obama’s).
* University of Missouri (economics)
* Harvard Law
* 17 years as an attorney
* taught legal ethics for 6 years at the University of Richmond Law School
* 7 years in the Richmond VA city council
* For 3 of those years was Mayor of Richmond (elected from the city council)
* 4 years as Lt Gov of VA
* 32 months as Gov of VA
“Palin actually has experience running government versus just representing for a short period of time like Obama has.”
I guess that’s true, if you consider “governments” as all alike, that size does not matter. Which is absurd, IMO. For 6 years Palin was a part-time mayor of a tiny tiny village, and Gov of AK for 21 months. And now ready to be President?
Comment by DJ — 30 August 2008 @ 5:50 am
“What is McCain Thinking? One Alaskan’s Perspective.“, by AKMuckraker, posted at Mudflats, 29 August 2008 – A seemingly fair look at Palin.
No, that his not a fair look at Palin…
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: The fairness of reports like this is, of course, subjective. Which is why I said “seemingly”. Please tell us why you disagree.
Comment by yarrrrrr — 30 August 2008 @ 12:03 pm
Palin raised taxes on oil companies, the idea that Big Oil was pulling Bush’s strings is very prevalent so this puts distance between them. Obama has recently talked about aditional taxes for Big Oil they are the whipping boy despite a lack of evidence.
Comment by Barry — 30 August 2008 @ 12:33 pm
The NRO responses show what this pick was about… raw meat for the neocons, shoring up the base in the red states. Any Democrats or independents formerly for Hillary Clinton, who presumably would vote for Palin on the pure basis of physical plumbing, would be gravy but are likely to be few.
It shows that McCain, like Bush et al before him, is not serious at all about governing. It is also clear by contrast that, whatever his limitations, Obama is serious about governing. It is also probative if not dispositive that Obama has consistently argued in favor of, indeed demanded, increased citizen involvement in the government and has manifest that in his campaign.
Perhaps worse is the false presumption that McCain’s POW experience and years in the Senate qualify him on foreign policy to any meaningful extent. His opinions and depth of knowledge on matters such as Russia/Georgia, Iraq, Iran etc. are kneejerk and laugable. Following up the wonderful surge with a 100-year occupation is not going to happen… instead we see no agreement, and the Shiite, Iran-aligned government more and more ready to throw us out, cut oil deals with the Chinese (!), and settle their scores with the Sunnis under Iranian advice starting in 2010 at the latest, perhaps as soon as next year.
MEANWHILE, OSAMA BIN LADEN IS ALIVE AND FREE…
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: I am astonished at the enthusuasm for the marketing aspects of McCain’s VP pick. Apparently it is not just the media that consider the campaign as merely a “horse race” — and who wins the only important thing. So far as I can see, the majority of the blog, news media, and pundit discussion is about “who she is” and not “what can she do for us.”
This is like some mad version of the sophmore philosophy class discussion about the relative importance of being and doing.
Comment by Greg Panfile — 30 August 2008 @ 1:51 pm
FM, your comment reminds me of words of wisdom from the men’s room of the music building at Douglass College, 1972… I have lived by them since:
To do is to be – Descartes
To be is to do – Sartre
Do be do be do – Sinatra
;-)
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: I was thinking of this doggerel when I wrote that!
Comment by Greg Panfile — 30 August 2008 @ 3:36 pm
Unqualified? Let’s see now, who was qualified to be president in the last fifty years or so:
*Truman — low popularity, whumped for re-election.
*Eisenhower– mostly played golf
*Kennedy –Bay of Pigs, Vietnam
*Johnson –more Vietnam, disgraced
*Nixon –still more Vietnam, resigned in scandal
*Ford — unpopular
*Carter — ineffective
*Reagan –an actor
*Bush I — unpopular
*Clinton — impeached
*Bush II –a disaster
I don’t think that the bar is that high, do you? Is there anyone out there that doesn’t think that he/she could do a better job than any of these clowns? Not having been subverted by years as a politician is an advantage and Palin will make the most of it. Watch her.
Eighty percent of the American people think that the US is going in the wrong direction. Who can dispute that. And who took us in the wrong direction — the experienced politicians. Obama/Biden/McCain are going (and will go) in that same wrong direction. Why? They’ve been bought and paid for. Who do you think paid for that recent DLC extravaganza, the tooth fairy?
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: This seems to reflect a several misconceptions.
(1) You are conflating results — performance at one of the world’s most difficult jobs — with preparation/qualifications. Consider an analogy with the Olympics. Look at the lowest-scoring contestants, those in the lowest 2%. Are they unqualified? Would their teams have been better off picking people from local sports clubs?
(2) “Is there anyone out there that doesn’t think that he/she could do a better job than any of these clowns?”
This is a common fallacy. Like fans watching errors made by pro players and saying “I could do better.” Probably not.
(3) You consider popularity during the time in office as a measure of success. That seems a poor metric in my opinion, and I believe most historians agree. Popularity is highly correlated with the short-term performance of the economy during the Presidents’ time in office, something over which they have little control (this is also by far the largest factor in most re-election campaigns). For example, I believe Truman did a fine job as President, despite not being re-elected.
(4) Misrepresentations
“Eisenhower– mostly played golf” — Not true, even absurd. I believe he will be considered a fine or even great President. Look at his handling of the Vietnam Crisis following the fall of Dien Bien Phu”, how skillfully he kept us out while avoiding political blame for the “loss” of Vietnam.
“Reagan –an actor” — That’s like saying Washington was a “real estate speculator.” True, but hardly a comprehensive description. Two terms as governor of California (larger than most nations), plus extensive union, business, and political experience prior to election as President.
“Clinton — impeached” — True, but that was hardly the only event during his term. IMO it is too soon to evaluate his performance.
Comment by Don Bacon — 30 August 2008 @ 4:28 pm
Oh please. We could have endless academic discussions about the relative experience of Obama or Palin and how either might match up with those Lincoln brought to the White House.
All those would prove is how you have made up your mind for other, unstated reasons anyway.
What is more to the point is that McCain has made an important decision about someone who he personally barely knows. And this action strongly suggests that McCain himself is unqualified – regardless of his resume or lack thereof.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: It is a long-standing oddity, going back to the mid-1800’s or more, that Presidents often do not personally know their choices for VP. Consider it like a CEO highing a VP. Do they need to “personally know” this person? Does that even help (many studies show that short-term personal impressions are not reliable guides, despite people often having great confidence in them).
The VP is seldom a member of the President’s team (Cheney is an exception). The VP’s primary role is to take over if McCain dies, so their personal chemistry is almost irrelevant.
“All those would prove is how you have made up your mind for other, unstated reasons anyway.”
You know this how? Perhaps telepathy.
Such a broad statement seems to imply that any rational discussion of the candidates is only a pretense, because we actually decide on the basis of hidden, deeper factors. Perhaps true (who can say?), but I doubt it.
Please excuse us if we continue with the conversation, pretending to be somewhat rational beings.
Comment by Duncan Kinder — 30 August 2008 @ 4:42 pm
Pro-life was a requirement; Romney was actually a bit weak on the Christian culture-war issue. Huckabee was the best (IMO), but yeah, I quite like Gov. Palin. Who has decided on many budgets.
She is, however, grossly unqualified to be President of the United States.
Getting elected mayor — and being successful, vs. Obama’s “community organizing”, whatever that was. Fighting against her own Republican Party incumbents for Gov, without using technical rules to get them ballot disqualified — she won. Obama won but with the same policies as the prior Dems. When has he ever changed politics?
She already has, in Alaska, as a new Rep. against incumbent Reps.
Almost nobody else of either party is more qualified, based on successful prior experience, at fighting incumbents and making real change in a real gov’t. I don’t think Mark Warner (my guess as the best Dem) really challenged and beat the incumbent powers-that-be inside his own party as much as Gov. Palin.
When has Obama successfully run anything? Harvard Law Review — first black editor. First year where there were no articles by the the editor. One of the least cited Review years. State Senator–perhaps a record of “present” votes, to avoid holding any principled positions. The decision not to decide.
When has he ever fought against Dem power brokers? A tiny, but public, bit against the Iraq war in 2002. Anything domestic or economic?
Palin is certainly MORE qualified for any executive position, on experience, than Obama. I’d say claiming she’s unqualified but he’s not can only be elitism — his colleges are better than her college.
And getting elected now will give her 4 years to get WH experience before she runs for President. (Is that something you’re really afraid of?)
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: I find it astonishing how often discussions ignore scale. As in this case.
Time in office seems irrelevant. Size of the organization seems irrelevant. Deciding many budgets is the important thing — as if $5 million is the same as tens of billions. This is like putting someone who builds cabin cruisers in charge of building our next super-carrier.
She was a part-time mayor, and has been Gov for only 21 months. Most of those accomplishments — which I consider grossly exaggerated — represent a very small period of time. Why is it not equally significant that she during her brief time as Gov she has sparked a very nasty scandal about abuse of power?
It’s not that her record proves that she would be a bad President. Rather, the record is too brief to prove her ability to be a good President.
I do not understand your comparison with Obama. What does this decision tell us about McCain’s judgement. Do Obama’s lack of qualifications and experience justify McCain’s actions? As if he said “Democratic primary voters are irresponsible, so I too will be irresponsible.”
Comment by Tom Grey — 30 August 2008 @ 5:13 pm
Long-time experience can be a disadvantage at times. To join a rotten club as vice chairman might be a very good jump start to fix problems. Conservatives aren’t well-known for a drive to reform, but this still needs to be considered.
A CV also only points at the inputs (experience), not really at the result. A Vice position is not an entirely isolated position – still lots of checks and advisers there.
A small “experience” does not equal being unqualified. Being unable to prove that someone will be a good president doesn’t equal being unqualified either.
It’s generally very hard to tell whether someone is able enough or not if (s)he didn’t fail badly in the past. That’s why I would ask questions about policy promises, not much about CV.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: I know of no field other than politics about which people say such things. Would you choose a docter on the basis of “promises”, with little regard for training, experience, and past performance? How do businesses select CEO’s? Football teams their coaches and quarterbacks? Selecting members of Olympic teams?
“Long-time experience can be a disadvantage at times.”
Agreed that after some minimal point, additional experience might be of diminishing utility. I think we this means years, not months.
“A CV also only points at the inputs (experience), not really at the result.”
True, but not relevant here. Palin’s results are a matter of public record. But she has held office so briefly that she has generated few results.
Comment by Sven Ortmann — 30 August 2008 @ 6:09 pm
Question
Note the many references to Palin as a “bold” choice by McCain (e.g., Thomas Barnett). Why is it “bold” to pick someone with so little relevant training and experience?
Comment by Fabius Maximus — 30 August 2008 @ 6:24 pm
(1) 70 y.o. doctors are often much worse than 30 y.o. doctors BECAUSE OF their long experience. Their university education is 45 y.o. and mostly outdated.
(2) Lots of family-owned multinational corporations in Europe are being led by younger people than Palin.
(3) Many of the best soccer teams in Europe have players who are in the 17-21 years range. Very unexperienced, but good – and they trust them. Germany went to the last world championship with a national trainer who hadn’t trained a single team before and did well. China’s gymnasts of the Olympics weren’t known for their long experience, and the same applies to thousands of other athletes.
FM, you are making some mistakes here:
(a) you wrote an article about Palin mostly, but your opinion was pre-defined by your opinion about McCain.
(b) you write about a person whom you don’t really know, but assume to be able to judge her
(c) you dare to call her unqualified although you can only show that her qualification is not visible (not the same)
(d) you don’t look 360°. Politics isn’t the only field with inexperienced people getting a chance; it’s rather comparably uncommon to happen in politics because success in a political career depends much more on time-consuming networking and power games than in many other areas.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: Great specificity here! Let’s take them sequentially.
(1) Agreed, but not relevant to Palin. As I said in a previous comment, above some minimal level (years, not months), additional experience often has incremental value.
(2) Yes, but seldom do they hop to the top job after 21 months experience. They usually have more time working in the business. Also, choosing leaders by blood probably accounts for the small and decreasing number of family-led businesses. As a rule they seem to have a competitive disadvantage to more meritocratic organizations (much the same to some extent accounts for the disappearance of monarchs who actually rule).
(3) Is this relevant? Many great gymnists are 14-year old girls. Would you want a 14 year old President? Sports requires physical skills, which puts it at the opposite end of the spectrum to statesmanship.
(a) And you know this how? Telepathy?
(b) Agreed. We call a system of electing people we do not “really know” a representative democracy. In an oligarchy small groups choose leaders from among the people they know.
(c) I do not understand your point. All judgements are made on the basis of the visible data. What else can we use?
(d) Examples, please, of other important “fields with inexperienced people getting a chance” at the top job with little prior training or experience. We’re talking about leadership of the world’s major nation, with nukes and the world’s largest military machine. Not the foreman for a crew of field hands.
Comment by Sven Ortmann — 30 August 2008 @ 6:42 pm
Such a broad statement seems to imply that any rational discussion of the candidates is only a pretense,
No, it is a narrow statement that this “discussion” of how Palin’s “credentials” assertedly offset Obama’s is disingenuous. This is true – based not only upon the inherently vacuous nature of the subject matter – but more particularly because Obama has been in the public limelight for well over a year while Palin lept into the limelight yesterday.
As for McCain’s vetting process. Anyone who seriously thinks that that was adequate is too far away from me for us to talk. And if their real reason for continuing to support McCain is – say – his tax policy, then they should say so – so we can proceed to the real issue at hand.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies:
“this ‘discussion’ of how Palin’s ‘credentials’ assertedly offset Obama’s is disingenuous.”
I am not sure what this means. I do not believe that her lack of qualification justifies Obama’s similar lack. Or vice versa.
“Anyone who seriously thinks that that was adequate is too far away from me for us to talk.”
I disagreed at the start of these comments, believing that this c/b talked though. But experience so far suggests that you are correct.
Comment by Duncan Kinder — 30 August 2008 @ 6:55 pm
The main job of the President is to reassure or inspire the American people (be a good salesman), reassure or cajole our allies, and make enemies think twice before acting against us. On these counts, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton were successful, and “qualified”. The real work of the chief executive — shaping and executing economic and trade policy, and foreign relations — is done by others.
Generally, cabinet secretaries and their deputies execute policies devised by persons and institutions outside of the government. The Iraq occupation is a good example of the process: The Project for a New American Century, a collaborative attempt to shape a national geo-political strategy, evolved over many years, and involved people inside and outside government — even foreign nationals. The plan was imported under Bush II by persons at several levels and several departments of government, including Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Wurmser, Feith, Libby, etc. The president’s role in all this was that of spokesman or puppet.
It’s often suggested that had Gore been elected, we wouldnt have launched this war. The premiss is that Gore’s greater experience with foreign affairs, greater ability to understand complex processes, possibly sounder moral sense, would have stopped him from such a foolish action. I’m not sure about that. Although the neocons took the lead in bringing the PNAC into official policy, their positions are not that different from the main lines of America’s long-standing bi-partisan imperal agenda.
My observation above that America is now a one-party government, with which FM strongly disagrees, was meant to apply to foreign policy, more than domestic, although in some areas (like welfare reform and the domestic side of trade policy) it’s true there as well.
Comment by plato's cave — 30 August 2008 @ 7:14 pm
2) Family-owned corporations are the most successful breed of German corporations, and their quantity might decline, but probably only because it’s not yet clear how many corporations with one dominant owner will switch to such family-controlled model.
3) You need to answer the question about relevance yourself. You brought that sports thing up.
a) It’s very obvious. Let’s call it “text interpretation”.
c) You can very well call her “unproved to be qualified”, but you cannot prove your “unqualified”.
d) Your “of other important” is a bit unfair here because I miss the “important” in “I know of no field other than politics about which people say such things.”.
It’s much easier to make a career if that does not include to advance through an establishment (most of whom want to climb up the ladder as well). A career in a fast-growing company is easier than a career in a large and stable company.
Arts, science and sports (less hierarchy) offer great opportunities for quick careers. A mobilized wartime military offers great opportunities to have very large responsibilities with little experience.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies:
(2) Interesting point about family businesses in Germany, about which I know zip. How much experience do family CEO’s usually have before taking over large companies?
(3) I was talking about how they select candidates in sports. Your comment was about age, a factor I had did not mention. My response to that was an error; I should have said that youth does not seem to be a concern about Obama or Palin (but is about McCain).
(a) OK!
(c) Agreed. These things are subjective. I suspect most of the folks reading this understand that.
(d) OK. I was just re-iterating that we are not talking about qualifications as an abstract question, but in regards to someone who might become President of the United States.
Your last point is IMO the most important observation in my post or on this thread, going to the heart of this discussion. Art, sports, war, science — people can advance in these fields based on objective accomplishments. In politics this also can be true. The DA who breaks a crime syndicate. The Mayor who revitalizes a major city. The legislator who brokers a major compromise or advances important but controversial legislation.
Do either Obama or Palin have such accomplishments? IMO, no. Since they have become major candidates (for reasons somewhat mysterious to me), we must decide on the basis of what we do know. Which is their record of training and experience. Other than that, we might use a ouija board or Magic 8 Ball.
Comment by Sven Ortmann — 30 August 2008 @ 7:23 pm
One is loath to disagree with anyone even self-named Plato but it is ludicrous to think the neocons and PNAC, without occupying major offices in the federal government, would have drawn Gore into the Mesopotamian swamp. Far more likely Gore would have gone after bin Laden harder and dealt more brusquely with Musharraf and Pakistani issues.
What I hope gets more attention in the next two months is the idiocy of McCain when it comes to foreign policy. It is unpresidential and bordering on inhuman to sing about bombing Iran or anywhere. It is ludicrous to think that a nuclear Iran will be any more irrational than our current nuclear mates Russia, China, Israel, India, and Pakistan. Iran has no history of aggression. The ayatollahs, not the loudmouthed president, have control over the armed forces. They know that Allah is not going to intervene in their favor, having experienced a long war and many casualties without divine intervention. They no more will allow Qom and Tehran to become wastelands of nuclear slag than we or the Soviets would our respective cities and monuments, which is the primary reason the Cold War never got really hot. Listening to the paranoid whispers of the craven Lieberman and attempting to otherize the Iranians into somehow being inhuman is not only crass, it has no basis at all in fact, and acting upon it would be an unmitigated worldwide disaster.
In that context, the choice of that woman as VP is consistent and ridiculous, and disqualifies him from being President, period. That is worse than Obama, who may or may not be unqualified; but even if he is, there is a chance he might do well. With McCain, if you add his lack of anything at all happening domestically and economically, there is no such chance.
Comment by Greg Panfile — 30 August 2008 @ 7:40 pm
@Don Bacon:
The e-mail address given on your website does not work.
Comment by Sven Ortmann — 30 August 2008 @ 8:09 pm
Greg: “Far more likely Gore would have gone after bin Laden harder and dealt more brusquely with Musharraf and Pakistani issues.”
Agreed! But would he have succeeded? It was Clinton who declared regime change in Iraq as official US policy. And not a single Democrat in Congress dissented from recent bellicose resolutions against Iran. The whole crescent from Afghanistan to Iran seems to be a tar-baby we can’t let go of.
Comment by plato's cave — 30 August 2008 @ 9:49 pm
Well, perhaps McCain’s object was to get everyone to join him in enless arguing about “experience” qualifications to be President (as if any other job is even remotely comparable and could serve as “qualifying experience).” If so, he has succeeded. As far as I could tell, his own “qualifying experience” (other than being just another Senator) was that he managed to get his plane shot down 30 years ago. Now my big problem with McCain (other than that he seems to be way too desperate to be a “War President” and the usual dishonest politician stuff) is that his VP pick is the ONLY “presidential” decision he has made, and with so many well-known competent and interesting male and female Republicans (both conservative and moderate) to choose from, he decides on a nobody from nowhere at the last minute. I’m going to be very scared if he is elected (and even more scared if he dies in office).
Comment by Michael — 30 August 2008 @ 10:10 pm
Update: Palin giggles as radio hosts mock a cancer-surviving legislator as a ‘bitch’ and ‘cancer’.”
Here is a Youtube recording of an interview with Sarah Palin, “Bob and Mark” show, Bob Lester and Mark Colavecchio, broadcast on radio station KWHL, 15 January 2008. The shock jocks crudely mock Lyda Green, President of the Alaska, State Senate. Governor Palin giggles in response.
This must be heard to be believed, as interviews with Governors go. Esp bizarre are her giggles. If McCain-Palin wins, we will have an interesting time ahead. If McCain dies or become incapacitated, we’ll have quite a ride ahead of us. We will have no excuses, no basis to complain.
The only report I can find from the time of the incident: “Palin’s responses on radio talk show very unbecoming“, Anchorage Daily News, 27 January 2008.
Comment by Fabius Maximus — 30 August 2008 @ 10:21 pm
FM, regarding your prior arguments:
(1) First you claim there is no connection between qualifications and results, and then you claim there is, using sports as an example. There is a huge difference between using one’s mind to make sensible decisions and using one’s legs and lungs to win a race. Regarding qualifications (and not physical skills) Obama, and Clinton before him, made the point that judgment trumps experience, which is true.
(2) Could any of us do a better job then, say, Bush? You say probably not, because sports fans can’t play pro sports. Again, apples and oranges. I claim that any of us could do a better job than Bush.
(3) You say that a politician’s popularity has nothing to do with his success. IOW what the people think doesn’t matter, which is undemocratic.
(4) You say Eisenhower “skillfully” kept us out of Vietnam. What skills does it require to not do something? You praise Reagan’s experience but make no claims on how this experience translated into performance. Can you defend Reagan’s presidency?
Comment by Don Bacon — 30 August 2008 @ 11:36 pm
Greg: it is ludicrous to think the neocons and PNAC, without occupying major offices in the federal government, would have drawn Gore into the Mesopotamian swamp.
Gore speech at CFR Feb 12, 2002
In the immediate aftermath [of 9/11], I expressed full support for our Commander-in-Chief, President George W. Bush. . . . As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government [Iraq] should be on the table. To my way of thinking, the real question is not the principle of the thing, but of making sure that this time we will finish the matter on our terms. . . In 1991, I crossed party lines and supported the use of force against Saddam Hussein, but he was allowed to survive his defeat as the result of a calculation we all had reason to deeply regret for the ensuing decade. And we still do. So this time, if we resort to force, we must absolutely get it right. It must be an action set up carefully and on the basis of the most realistic concepts.
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore021202.html
Comment by Don Bacon — 30 August 2008 @ 11:40 pm
Thanks for the quote, Don. Readers should note that what you rendered as “…” was actually this:
“But finishing it on our terms means more than a change of regime in Iraq. It means thinking through the consequences of action there on our other vital interests, including the survival in office of Pakistan’s leader; avoiding a huge escalation of violence in the Middle East; provision for the security and interests of Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the Gulf States; having a workable plan for preventing the disintegration of Iraq into chaos; and sustaining critically important support within the present coalition.”
The material quoted is also followed by this:
“And wishful thinking based on best-case scenarios or excessively literal transfers of recent experience to different conditions would be a recipe for disaster.”
Now let’s recall the Wolfowitz Plan as stated to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:
1. We’ll be out in six months
2. We’ll install Chalabi instantly.
3. It’ll pay for itself.
4. Oil prices will go down.
5. Everyone gets a pony.
I don’t think Gore would have done it. YMMV.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: In #5 Greg refers (very aptly!) to the following:
“If Wishes Were Horses, Beggars Would Ride — A Pony!“, John & Belle Have a Blog (6 March 2004) — Excerpt:
You see, wishes are totally free. It’s like when you can’t decide whether to daydream about being a famous Hollywood star or having amazing magical powers. Why not — be a famous Hollywood star with amazing magical powers! Along these lines, John has developed an infallible way to improve any public policy wishes. You just wish for the thing, plus, wish that everyone would have their own pony! So, in Chafetz’ case, he should not only wish that Bush would say a lot of good things about democracy-building and fighting terrorism in a speech written for him by a smart person, he should also wish that Bush should actually mean the things he says and enact policies which reflect this, and he should wish that everyone gets a pony. See?
… John got the idea from a Calvin and Hobbes strip in which little Susie first wishes that Calvin was nicer, then realizes she might just as well wish for a pony while she’s at it. So, thank that Calvin and Hobbes guy, or something. Here is the original ‘might as well wish for a pony‘ strip.
Comment by Greg Panfile — 31 August 2008 @ 1:45 am
Greg,
What you “think” is divorced from the fact that Al Gore told us in Feb 2002 that he would invade Iraq, as long as there was a “thinking through the consequences.” Here’s some more, from later in 2002 when the big decisions were being made — “we should organize an international coalition . . .should we decide to proceed, that action can be justified.”
“Iraq and the War on Terrorism“, Former Vice President Al Gore, Commonwealth Club of California, San Francisco, California, 23 September 2002 — Excerpt:
“Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction … should we decide to proceed, that action can be justified within the framework of international law rather than outside it. In fact, though a new UN resolution may be helpful in building international consensus, the existing resolutions from 1991 are sufficient from a legal standpoint. “
Comment by Don Bacon — 31 August 2008 @ 3:52 am
Perhaps it is just me, but the whole experience argument is a distraction. I see all four having the right experience, because it is the experience of life, not career in politics or otherwise, that prepares one for President.
Presidents do not make budgets or even fine grain policy, they make yes and no decisions weighing all the factors built into presentations of very smart people on staffs. I don’t know who is pushing the theory of executive or elected experience is a major criteria, but its long been proven a fallacy. By that theory Bush/Chaney should have been the best ticket ever.
The career experience argument is a distraction, because for example, I don’t think Obama’s experience as a US Senator significantly contributes towards his ability as President when compared to Obama’s experience as a father, which does significantly contribute.
The only place experience in politics matters is in a campaign, the least relevant aspect from the citizens perspective. In every other aspect of the Presidents and Vice Presidents job, it is about judgment and leadership, not experience. I don’t know about you guys, but the last place I go looking for judgment or leadership is among the elected politicians.
Comment by Galrahn — 31 August 2008 @ 5:10 am
Oh and for the record, that is why General Clark had it dead wrong about McCain. POW as a life experience does matter for being President. Biden is very similar, anyone who suggests that his wife dieing isn’t a major experience that significantly enhances his resume towards being President is missing the point, because those life experiences matter towards the ends of judgment than any daily duty as a Senator either man has ever experienced.
Comment by Galrahn — 31 August 2008 @ 5:16 am
Gilrahn,
From the standpoint of getting their policies carried out — employing the machinery of government — the Bush / Cheney team has been extraordinarily successful. To a large extent, they have even succeeded in reengineering the machinery of government itself away from a triad of roughly co-equal centers of power to a system dominated by a strong executive.
They were able to do this because they knew what they were doing. Bush was governor of one of the largest states in the union for 6 years and Cheney had run a large multinational corporation for about the same period, in addition to his extensive government service in both legislative and executive branches.
Everybody alive has “life experience.”
Comment by Chet — 31 August 2008 @ 10:35 am
Jonah Goldberg made the best point: having McCain as POTUS with a questionable VP might not be ideal, but if McCain doesn’t get elected than his pick for VP doesn’t matter in the slightest.
FM sees this as lacking principle. But FM hasn’t suggested a better pick that would also boost the chances of the McCain ticket. Clearly the public is seeking youth and outsider-ness this time around. Youth and outsiderness are usually coupled with inexperience.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: I did not question the marketing aspects of his choice. That might be brilliant. But hardly in accord with his campaign slogan of “Country First.”
Comment by LM — 31 August 2008 @ 12:06 pm
First of all, your dates are off on Obama. He started serving in January ‘05 in the US Senate, not ‘04. What other facts did you get wrong?
Palin is more qualified than Obama. And she is the number two, not the number one.
The Presidency is an executive office. Palin has executive experience, being a two term mayor and a Governor running a state for 21 months. Obama has never run anything. Surely 21 months as Governor running a state trumps the 143 days Obama spent in session in the US Senate before he started running for President. As Bill Clinton said, once you start running for President that’s all you basically do, so the time he’s spent not doing his job while he’s been out campaigning for two years should hardly count as his experience. How many days has Obama been in the Senate since he started campaigning?
Likewise, I’d take two terms running a mayor over 8 years in the State Legislature of Illinois any day, especially since Obama spent that time often voting “present” and outright switching his vote once it had been cast OVER 100 TIMES.
Palin also has shown a real ability to take on her own party and reform corruption, whereas Obama spent his time in Chicago politics doing absolutely nothing about the legendary corruption in that city other than going along to get along. Unlike Palin, Obama was firmly entrenched in the corrupt machine politics of his own party, rubbing shoulders with the likes of Tony Rezko and Bill Ayers.
Yes, I’d much rather have a true reforming Governor with executive experience over a “present”-voting go along get along type who has never run anything in his life.
And again, Obama would CERTAINLY have to assume the office from day one were he elected. It is extremely unlikely that Palin would have to do so, and she’s still more qualified.
.
.
Fabius Maxim replies: Thanks for catching the typo! Nobody but readers to catch these things in blogs.
I agree that Obama’s experience is low, perhaps less than Palin’s (as discussed in the previous comments, that is subjective). But how does our irresponsibility in choosing Obama justify McCain’s in choosing Palin?
Comment by David — 31 August 2008 @ 12:24 pm
What Galrahn said: it is about judgment and leadership, not experience. And character — “the complex of mental and ethical traits marking and often individualizing a person.” We’ve all met people, of all (mature) ages, of all walks of life, high and low, who were able to cut through the chaff and do the right thing while others were content to do what they thought other people might want, or what would make them look good.
Comment by Don Bacon — 31 August 2008 @ 12:34 pm
I am attracted to her for her reform creds. I like the fact that she was a Republican who rooted out other Republicans. I like the fact that her husband and son are registered Independents. I like her track record of reaching across party lines. I’m delighted that she sold the governor’s jet on e-bay. I want more people like her in my party, and I’d love to see her in Washington without a leash.
Comment by Lauderdale Conservative — 31 August 2008 @ 12:37 pm
Here are some of my talking points -
(1) Someone who manages a small state, with a small budget is not qualified to be the President. We are talking about Joe Biden from Delaware right? Alaska pop: ~700,000, Delaware pop: ~900,000
(2) One can argue Biden was chosen because he was a older wiser white man who can handle foreign policy and grab some blue collar workers.
(3) what does that say about Obama? That he needs the steady hand of a white man to hold his hand to reasure people? Will Biden be the one really calling the shots then? Will he be the Democrat Dick Cheney to the Black George Bush? That shows a lack of confidence to me.
(4) And getting someone to attract “blue collar voters from Pennsylvania, because Biden was born working class in Scranton – is that not desperate identity politics as well? geting a white male to get white male votes is different how….?
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: By the numbers…
(1) I agree that her 20+ months as Gov of California is legitimate and relevant experience. Being Mayor of a tiny village, less so. But a US Senator’s experience has nothing to do with the size of the State he or she represents. They all cast one equal vote; they all do similar things in the Senate.
(2) One can argue anything, esp about marketing aspects. This thread is about the qualifications of the candidates.
(3) I do not understand what you are saying here.
(4) Why is this desperate? Biden is a qualified guy, as American traditions go.
Comment by Milo R. — 31 August 2008 @ 12:50 pm
I am disturbed that her detractors are listing her non-ivy-league education as one of the points that disqualify her. That is an Ad Hominem argument.
The truth is, she does have executive experience. And she has experience in bucking the system and fighting her own party. She isn’t afraid to make a stand.
Obama is! In the Illinois legislature his most frequent vote was “present”.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: As for the relevance of the schools, I agree with you that this should have little weight. As we all know however, in real life the college on your bio has a large effect on your career. Which is why folks work so hard for entrance into “elite” schools.
This whole “executive experience” thing is odd, IMO. As if scale has no meaning, both in the time spent governing and the size of the organization she ran. Is this like Homeopathic medicine: Executive experience has an effect irrelevant to its concentration? One drop, one molecule, is all it takes?
Comment by Mama73 — 31 August 2008 @ 1:11 pm
I was dissapointed to see that you failed to provide enough content in your comparison and contrast…permit me…
Obama has been in the senate for 56 months? that’s four years and 8 months (I guess simple math is not a strong suit here) for you. Obama began his term in January 2005, and announced his candidacy for president in January 2007. He did essentially NOTHING while in the US Senate. While in the Illinois senate, he managed to vote “present” 140 times. How about some legislative accomplishments squared off versus what palin did as Mayor and governor…
and scandals, what about Obama getting money for low income housing for Rezko in exchange for the land deal on his house? (I guess you can include this in legislative accomplishments…how does this square with abusing power to get a guy who beat your little sister and tasered your 11 year old nephew fired?
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: All excellent points! Thank for mentioning them.
* I have corrected the total of months (and enrolled in a basic arithmetic course).
* The post did mention that Obama has spent aprox half his career campaigning, but will add a link to more about this.
* Not mentioning the rumored Obama scandals was a material omission; now fixed.
Comment by Mr. K — 31 August 2008 @ 1:22 pm
“Electing unqualified people with good marketing worked for us in the 19th century, it might prove disastrous in the 21st”
Dude, if you believe this you should so all over Obama it would be no comparison to your great efforts to honk on about Palin. Are you? Were you? Show me the money.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: I do not understand what you are saying. This is not an advocacy site. The subject is geopolitics, and we discuss the strengths and weaknesses of both candidates from this narrow perspective. Many important aspects of the race, such as domestic policy, are outside this site’s scope.
Comment by paul a'barge — 31 August 2008 @ 1:39 pm
Five points:
1) If you’re not careful here, the conclusion is going to be that the only persom qualified to be president or vice president is either a past president or vice president or at minimum a three term senator.
2)History as I know it would seem to indicate that selection of running mates has everything to do with “getting elected” and little to do with what happens afterward. How involved have VPs been? Correct me if I’m wrong but President Truman had little or no knowledge of the Manhatten Project; why did JFK pick LBJ? He certainly didn’t like him or involve him that much. Dan Quayle? Obama picked Biden to deal with the experience issue – his weakness, no? McCain picks a real conservative and an outsider “read not caught up in DC baggage/change issue” to broaden his appeal. Both seem very appropriate decisions. You don’t get “to be” unless “you do” at the voting booths.
3)On the job training for the heart-beat-away issue – not really part of the agenda now is it? The only noted exception is our current situation. Like it or not, the VP has been involved, had no intension for running himself and therefore “worked” issues for his boss, free of personal motive. Again, no matter your view of the administaration, there has probably never been a more in sync VP if situation called. The heart-beat-away issue, while obviously very important has two very time dependent aspects. To consider it one issue misses history.
4) If one must ask if McCain considers us stupid, then in due regard, the question must be asked, if Obama considers us so stupid as to believe that a Thursday night Hollywoodish pep rally / half time speach dusting off every Democratic pet rock with declaration to change it/fix it all answers all our prayers and therefore mandates our vote.
5) John McCain just went through the OODA loop and created a different context, different narrative, different imagination – a Snowmobile – like it/him/her or not. Nothing is written.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: By the numbers…
(1) Or governor. Or executive experience in the private sector (union or business). Or non-profit sector. Also, because two years seems insufficient, that does not mean 18 years is required. Four years would be nice (a “full-term”). Eight would be better.
(2) McCain’s age and health make the VP selection unsually important. Our past foolishness in choosing VP’s does not require us to continue this tradition. Imagine if FDR had died in January 1945 and Henry Wallace become President?
I do not understand your other comparisons. Truman, LBJ, and Quayle all had extensive experience in Congress (IMO Quayle’s bad rep is largely a media creation). The extent to which Truman had been briefed on war secrets seems irrelevant here.
(3) I do not understand what you are saying here.
(4) Obama is running, as is every citizen’s right. It’s is our job to decide his fitness to serve, not his. Few of us can judge our own qualifications, so it is just as well we are seldom required to do so.
(5) I agree that McCain did so. But that does not make it a good thing. He made what might be a brilliant marketing move, but IMO trashed his campaign slogan of “Country First.” Putting the needs of his campaign first is natural, but not commendable.
Comment by Ed Beakley (Project White Horse) — 31 August 2008 @ 1:40 pm
There are three Americas. Two of them are not listening to each other. The third America does not vote. I hate cynicism, but one must wonder if any of this matters.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: I am confident that this matters. This process, taking place here and throughout America, is how we process information and make decisions. As an analogy, it is like how your neurons discuss important matters inside your brain.
Comment by David Halliday — 31 August 2008 @ 2:03 pm
No one is qualified to be US President. The main pre-requisite is the ability to inspire in the right direction. Obama can inspire to a greater sense of entitlement, but given the burgeoning budget deficit, that is not a particularly helpful inspiration. The US needs someone who will inspire citizens to work and achieve–and have more babies!
Palin is a “can-do” individual living on the American frontier. She is a stark reminder of the Americans who built the country. She is what the strongest and toughest of feminists would have become, had they been willing to accept their womanhood.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: This goes to an important question, about which we have different opinions. I would rather have a competent President who adequately executes the nation’s business. I can find inspiration elsewhere. Someone has to mind the store.
Your second paragraph describes her has a symbol. We tried this approach when electing Carter as a prop in the bicentennial, forgetting that the President must do more than project virtue. That story did not end well.
Comment by Lissa Delacourte — 31 August 2008 @ 2:19 pm
There’s too much Gramsci, and more Alinsky than Locke or Jefferson about Obama. His Americanism appears not intrinsic nor organic but affected and learned so that he must be reminded when to salute the flag and anthem rather than have it be a willful and eager response. He stands apart and views Americans as an anthropologist (e.g. his mother) might examine a tribe (e.g. of “clingers”) — but does not seem to have internalized the self-evident truths that cohere realized Americans. Palin is a bold and refreshing contrast.
That McCain has created an opening for a young American conservative woman to make and end-run around the “glass ceiling” is a gutsy — thus risky — move. It bodes well for hopes to undo, at long last, some of the ossified big-government excesses of The New Deal and The Great Society. There now appears an opening for a new generation of politics, and those of us who care to do so can day-dream a bit more realistically about something like a Palin-Jindal ticket in 2012 or 2016. It’s a lead I choose to follow, and as for the risk – nothing ventured, nothing gained.
And by the way, this title: “McCain believes we are stupid…” You know this how? Telepathy?
.
.
Fabous Maximus replies: There is a long tradition on this site of over the top titles (I regret to say that this is not the worst of them). The text is more reasonable (usually).
BTW, great response – considering how many times I have directed that line at others!
Comment by Ralph Thayer — 31 August 2008 @ 2:20 pm
Just watched the YouTube regarding the ‘giggles’. It isn’t what you people said it was; you’ve distorted the context enormously. I don’t generally like politicians, but I’m beginning to like this lady! Now if only Obama and McCain (and Biden) weren’t so loathsome.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: Please explain “distored the context enormously”. The description given matches both news accounts at the time and what I heard. Note that Gov Palin apologized afterwards.
Comment by HomeBoy — 31 August 2008 @ 2:39 pm
Don’t kid yourself, Ralph Thayer. How can you possibly say that Obama was looking at America from an anthropological perspective when he was down in the trenches as a community organizer? McCain was trying to pick up disgruntled Hillary supporters and make himself look at once conservative and progressive by signing on a right-wing extremist woman.
Republicans need only ply a few tricks to win an election. Democrats must sweat, toil and implore the American public to see through the mists. “McCain believes we are stupid. Is he correct?” I have weighed this question many times myself. I would say that Americans demonstrated GARGANTUAN stupidity in 2004 by voting in Bush. It was pathetic. People interviewed said that they supported him because he opposed gay marriage and abortion. So, homophobia and anti-choice won out over mass murder in Iraq. Some might call what I said at the time ‘elitist’: “The people who voted in Bush would rather imbibe on junk food, junk TV, junk culture, and Republican deception than think for themselves.” Elitist? No, I am acknowledging their capacity to think for themselves, but they do not show themselves nor the country nor the world such respect. Pathetic.
Now I fear that they’ll fall for another ruse. “Well, looks good enough to me! I’m sold…” Palin and McCain will drive the nation to rack and ruin. You watch. (Of course, I’m sure that by then you’ll have another rationalization for why (a) it wasn’t the conservatives fault or (b) the conservatives can do a better job of cleaning up the mess they made, no matter how much that contention has been confuted.)
Comment by streetlegalplay — 31 August 2008 @ 2:41 pm
This is so dumb. You obviously edited the radio show to get rid of any comments she had about the hosts remarks. The “giggle” came across as a sound of surprise.
As for “Troopergate,” I’m glad the governor made sure a drunk driving child abuser was fired from law enforcement. I’m glad she was concerned he was being protected by his superiors because of his connection to the Governor. Way to go, Governor Palin. No law breaking child abuser should be in law enforcement. If she were a democrat, this action would be hailed and praised.
As for Monegan, he should have lost his job for protecting a drunk driving child abuser. Another good move by the Governor.
Its obvious from your post that it isn’t McCain who thinks “we” are stupid. A little projection there, buddy.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies:
(1) Thank you for believing that I know how to edit a Youtube recording!
(2) This recording has appeared on many sites, including the Anchorage Daily News. I doubt all of them were edited. Reports are consistent about its content.
(3) The reports about the interview, such as the Daily News article, do not agree with your theory. Apparently neither does Gov Palin, who apologized for the incident.
(4) While it is difficult to determine the truth of these things until we have the report from the investigation, it does seem clear that most of the allegations against Monegan result from a bitter custody battle, in which the wife’s family has made a long series of accusations against him. The public record indicates that most were false, so far as I can tell.
(5) Whatever the merits, it is clearly not proper for the Governor to involve herself in an internal personnel in which she has such a personal interest. This is an obvious conflict of interest, irrespective of the merits of either case.
Comment by w3bgrrl — 31 August 2008 @ 2:59 pm
Not a very balanced comparison. Where are the lists of accomplishments? Palin has it over Obama hands down. And why the qualifier “part time” on her city council and mayoral experience? Based on his attendance and voting rcords as well as his long pursuit of the nomination, Obama was much more a part-timer then she was.
Obama has no executive experience, has not stood up to corruption in his party, avoids controversial positions by voting present, has a very questionable choice of a religious mentor in Wright and a political mentor named Ayers, tells people that we are our brothers’ keepers and allows his half-brother to live in squalor without any support… the list goes on.
My take is that the Democrats are whistling past the graveyard on this one.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: After writing 400+ posts on the FM site I have learned that no matter how long the analysis, someone always asks why it is not broader. At 1400+ words, it is longer and more detailed than 99% (guessing) of the articles on this topic. Ask the others writing to pick up more of the load! Perhaps you can research and write an article comparing their accomplishments.
The primary point of this post is what Palin’s nomination says about McCain’s judgement. This is not and does not purport to be a comprehensive analysis of the candidates. Time and space limitations prevent this. Also, this site is about geopolitics. Discussion of many aspects of their political careers, such as domestic policy, is beyond its scope.
Comment by livermoron — 31 August 2008 @ 2:59 pm
I’ll take a bootstrap woman out of the boonies over an affirmative action candidate any day of the week…
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: Everyone makes their choice. That’s what democracy is all about!
The theme of the discussions on this site about the election:
* This election is important.
* We all need to get involved.
* Vote! Work for your candidate, donating time and money.
* Talk to your fellow citizens. Write about your views.
Comment by johnmwilliams — 31 August 2008 @ 3:16 pm
Sorry for the multiple posting, but after reading more of FM’s responses to others here, I have to point out more intellectual dishonesty and ignorance:
FM: Senators, whether state or federal do not manage budgets. They frame legislation. Mayors and govenors have to pay for state emploees and services (like DMV, transportation, teachers, police, etc.) and they do it on a fixed income. They have to be sure the infrastructure works, that emergency services are prepared and in place, that day-to-day services like water, sewage, police, fire response, etc are being run effectively and within legal constraints. They need to work with (and sometimes against) their own state legislatures to get things done. They have veto power. And they have to answer to the people of their states every year in the state of the state messages and of course every election cycle.
Senators propose legislation and the good ones are able to actually accomplish getting it enacted. No budgets, no management.
If you do not understand the functions of our government you are unqualified to lead a political discussion.
I also find it interesting that some posters are characterizing the ‘giggle’ disingenuously and dishonestly. Is that your conception of cogent political discourse? Sounds like a heady mixture of partisanship and sexism.
BTW, Teddy Roosevelt was a second year govenor when Mckinley selected him. If you are unfamiliar with TR, a good likenesss of him is on Mt. Rushmore.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: No need to apologize for multiple posts. This is a discussion! I do find your comments quite harsh, however.
(1) “Senators, whether state or federal do not manage budgets.”
US Senators vote on the budget bills originated by the House. Much of Senator’s time is spent on budgets, discussing all the things you mention. Only after Senate approval do they go to the President.
(2) “I also find it interesting that some posters are characterizing the ‘giggle’ disingenuously and dishonestly.”
Please explain. As I have said in previous comments, the description matches both news reports at the time and Gov Palin’s apology.
(3) “Is that your conception of cogent political discourse?”
As they say on TV, “Just the facts, sir or ma’m.”
(4) “Teddy Roosevelt was a second year govenor when Mckinley selected him.”
I do not see any previous mention of T. Roosevelt in the post or the comments. To what are you referring?
Comment by livermoron — 31 August 2008 @ 3:33 pm
Re: Post 46
FM, you are arguing a strawman. I did not ask for length, I asked for accuracy and balance. Are you advocating or informing?
You can’t offer balance because you had already written enough? Interesting perspective.
BTW, to be responsive: This shows McCain to be a brilliant politician, an excellent judge of character (a skill I find in many ex-military) and someone who acts on his reformist beliefs and desire to institute change. What does the Biden selection say about Obama?
I do not mean to be overly harsh in my commentary. I see by some of your posts that you make an attempt at balance. Keep trying.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: I disagree. You were proposing to provide greater balance by expanding the coverage to include accomplishments, an area I did not discuss. While a reasonable request, that requires more length. Hence my reply. There are boundaries to any analysis, which the author sets on the basis of resources and interest. Readers, esp in free media, cannot not specify the boundaries (but you can ask for your money back).
Everything in your third paragraph might be correct. McCain’s marketing of his campaign, Palin’s character and accomplishments, McCain’s plans … all these are outside of this analysis.
The marketing might be brilliant, but IMO Palin’s contradicts his campaign slogan of “Country First.” Opinions will differ about this, as usual in politics.
The other things are inherently subjective. It’s an election, and the primary point of my posts about it are that we need to get involved. Vote. Donate time and money. Talk and write.
Comment by livermoron — 31 August 2008 @ 5:08 pm
Wow FM, are you being purposely obtuse> Senators may vote on budgets, they do not manage them. Your lack of understanding of the US political system is breathtaking.
Thg ‘giggle’ audio was clearly edited. A nervous giggle when someone says something stupid is a natural human response.
Not ‘just the facts’. more like a partial, unbalanced recitation of some information spun to elicit a particular conclusion. You should learn the difference.
Re TR. Please continue to whistle if it makes you feel better. You question her qualifications and then pretend that using a a similar historic precedent is somehow off topic or not germane? Intentionally obtuse or is it just a reaction to reasoned arguement? I could have also mentioned Woodrow Wilson and Grover Cleveland. I believe Cal Coolidge also became VP in his 2nd year as a governor.
Please name the president with fewer qualifications than Mr. Obama.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies:
“Senators may vote on budgets, they do not manage them. Your lack of understanding of the US political system is breathtaking.”
This is splitting hairs. Congressfolks are clearly involved in the budget. They even “manage” budgets in the literal senses of “be responsible for” (the President only executes) and “watch, supervise.”
I do not see the basis on which you so confidently say the audio was edited. If so, why do so many accounts at the time so describe the audio? Did anyone make this defense at the time, in January? As for the suitability of the response, everyone must judge for themselves.
“You should learn the difference.”
Pehaps the difference is that I believe opinions can differ on these things, esp as so many concern subjective matters. Your comments indicate a different view of life.
“Please continue to whistle if it makes you feel better.”
That is a very harsh response to the question “To what are you referring?” Are you seriously comparing Palin’s (or Obama’s) qualifications to Teddy R’s? From Wikipedia:
* Extensive foreign travel (1869-70, 1872-73)
* Businessman and rancher
* Famous historian, wrote two major books
* Colonel in Spainish-American War, Medal of Honor
* NY Assembly (length uncertain)
* Ast Secretary of Navy 1897-98
* NYC police commissioner
* President of NYC police commission (1895-96), instituted big reforms
* Member of US Civil Service Civil Service Commission
* Gov of NY for
two termsone term (1 Jan 1899 – 31 Dec 1900)I will consider your last question, which is an interesting one!
Comment by livermoron — 31 August 2008 @ 5:18 pm
I shall continue to be harsh, but hopefully not offensive, as long as you continue to be open enough to post my comments. To paraphrase Truman’s response to his rhetoric: ‘I don’t give them hell. I tell the truth and theythink it is hell’
I won’t say anything like your “And it shows the moral bankruptcy of the Republican party” comment and pretend that others are coarsening the discussion and that I am somehow offering a fair evaluation.
I will point out, as I have already, your hypocrisy, lack of knowledge and slanted perspective.
In fairness, I do applaud your courage in having this forum. Your critical thinking skills need honing and you suffer from framing error (to use a resesearch scientist’s term), but a willingness to be confronted with other perspectives indicates an intellect that is at least curious and that is a great place to start.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: These things are subjective. I do not consider the following two statements as equivalent in “coarseness”. I believe this it is obvious to most readers.
“And it shows the moral bankruptcy of the Republican party”
“I will point out, as I have already, your hypocrisy, lack of knowledge and slanted perspective.”
Comment by livermoron — 31 August 2008 @ 5:41 pm
You still do not seem to fairly present both arguments…interestingly, though, you have begun comparing Obama to Palin. This is what we will be seeing more and more of…
as an added improvement overall, I suggest you change the name of the blog to “incontinentiabuttox” until you are better capable of controlling what seems to be an effusive liberal bladder.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: I do not know what you mean by “fairness”. I have seldom seen a discussion about politics which both sides considered fair. Is this a mythical beast?
The discussions on this site characterize my posts as liberal or extreme left. Except when they denounce them as conservative or reactionary. I do not know what this means, but it is certainly true.
Comment by Mr. K — 31 August 2008 @ 5:45 pm
As far as executive experience scaling, why do you think her experience does not scale?
Think for a moment – the same argument could (and probably has) been used to say that the experience running a town of 8000 does not scale to running a whole state. Yet she managed that transition quite well, with an excellent approval rating and a lot of impressive things done as governor.
So why then would she not be qualified to step in even on day one as president and simply repeat what she did before? And we’re not even saying that’s what she would be doing, as VP she’d be stepping up in a supportive role where she could learn the ropes.
Also if you claim her “small” role as executive in charge does not leave her with the experience she needs to run the government, than how much worse must it be to vote in a legislator with no experience whatsoever? Using your argument you’d think Sarah would be more qualified than either McCain or Obama (and there are some, like myself and Jerry Pournelle, who would rather have Sarah at the top of the ticket but will make do).
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: This is an interesting theory, which I see used in no other aspects of life than politics. I suggest an experiement: find people running small businesses, and help them apply to run Fortune 500 companies in the same industry. You can explain scaling to the Directors. Good luck!
Comment by Kendall — 31 August 2008 @ 5:53 pm
I see your point. And yet. And yet, I gotta say, most of our fundamental problems derive from our physical realities, and, I think, our loss of confidence in dealing with otherwise surmountable problems. Deep managerial insight, and keen understanding of surfing large bureaucracies is not the key to our current problems. For example, gas is too expensive. Why? Well, our transportation economy along with the world’s, is predicated on liquid fuel. No matter who is in charge, this is not going to change quickly.
Our central government is the last place to look for solutions to this problem. Much more helpful is for government to stay out of it, and let markets adapt to price signals. I like Sarah Palin because I think she would be credible in saying,”Look, I don’t claim to have any central government solution to this problem, and that’s Ok. Let’s believe in ourselves and let the market solve the problem.”
The more we insist on some “Big Daddy”, to “Take charge”, and solve our problems…well, be careful what you wish for. To a great extent, we currently face problems we can make worse, but cannot easily make better quickly. “Experienced” leaders are poor performers in this environment.
.
.
Fabuis Maximus replies: Great comment! The two parties offer us a clear choice on this question. This is one reason I believe that this election is of greater than usual importance.
Comment by bc — 31 August 2008 @ 6:00 pm
You see FM, you take offense at being called a hypocrit, lacking in knowledge and being slanted in perspective and find that is a more harsh statement than calling someone morally bankrupt. Wow!
You choose to list education as a qualification and then beg lack of space (or willingness to use space) to list accomplishments. Yet it seems to me obvious that education is much less important than accomplishments. And you purport that this is an analysis instead of a thinly-veiled advocacy and spin document.
You also accuse me of ’splitting hairs’ on the budget point. Voting on and management of a budget are two wildly different responsibilities and your ignorance of the difference, whether willful or not, is gobsmacking.
Framing error was too kind on my part. You do know how to whistle don’t you? Just put your lips together and blow.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: Making broad and conceptual statements about large organization is typically considered less harsh than personal insults. This theory is easily (if hazardously) tested by debates in any bar. The FM site’s comment policy says that comments must be civil, because experience shows that discussions with personal insults rapidly degenerate. This is the only basis on which I have had to edit or moderate the 3200 comments posted to date on this site. I usually tolerate invective directed at me, as I do not reply in kind. Similar comments directed at others get edited.
“Yet it seems to me obvious that education is much less important than accomplishments.”
This is my point. It seems obvious to you, but not necessarily to everyone. Education is a standard and relatively objective datum used on almost all bios; omiting this would be foolish.
I believe that both Palin have too short records on which to assess accomplishments. Also, accomplishments are highly subjective. Hence my decision to omit them. As the author, I make those choices.
Comment by livermoron — 31 August 2008 @ 6:02 pm
BTW: Yes, I was comparing here to TR. I also stated accurate facts and not inaccurate ones that you posted. TR was governor from Jan 1 1899 to Dec 31st 1900. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_New_York
Two term governor? You just make that up?
OT: Favorite TR quote: After his presidency he was in Berlin reviewing a parade. He was seated next to Kaiser Wilhelm. When a group of American soldiers marched by, the Kaiser turned to TR and chided him that the US flag ‘looks like a peppermint stick’. TR responded, “that may be true Your Highness, but you’ll never lick us”.
Gotta love TR.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: Corrected (I read Wiki too fast); thanks for catching that. One down. Now you just have to deal with the other nine things on the list for your analogy (about which I am still unclear) to work. After the fourth I suspect it will get very difficult.
By the way, you showed one item to be incorrect. “inaccurate ones” is plural. Does this numerical error discredit your comment as you seem to believe my numerical error did?
I agree with your last line. Too bad we do not have anyone like TR running.
Comment by livermoron — 31 August 2008 @ 6:18 pm
Education more important than accomplishments? You just listed a few of TR’s accomplishments to counter my arguement. Some of your points were actually accurate. I didn’t see his education listed there.
Not seeing your own hypocrisy when presented so clearly is, frankly, a character flaw. In psychology they may call it cognitive dissonance, a form of defense mechanism. I am degreed in psychology so my opinion should have considerable weight with you.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: I was not repeating the considerable effort put into my post, esp not in a comment. You made a specific comparison of their jobs (one-term Gov’s), I gave a more detailed one.
If you consider this to be list of accomplishments, than I also gave one in my post.
Comment by livermoron — 31 August 2008 @ 6:30 pm
do you not see that in terms of experience, she compares well against Obama? If not, I challenge you to contrast the experience of each as it relates to preparation for being POTUS.
I would argue that the best, most comparable experience would be as a military leader (many former presidents), CEO, governor (many former presidents were) or perhaps mayor (thinking Rudy, though NY is 1,000 times the size of Wasilla). But what about other life experiences and character issues? do these import? How do they compare and contrast in that regard?
I would also argue that an Ivy League education may be a liability…grads seem to have a tendency to disdain non-grads…or at least, think they cling to their guns and religion rather than make conscious, logical decisions…
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: The primary point of my post was what it tells us about McCain, not Obama vs. Palin. While I disagree with your assessment, both of their job histories are so brief that evaluation of relative weight is difficult and subjective.
As for value of an Ivy League education, you might be correct. However, it seems not to damage the carreers of their graduates.
Character issues and life experiences were outside the scope of this comparison, but are of course relevant. Doing so will require considerable research and analysis. For example, a quick look at public sources shows little about Palin’s role in her two family businesses — other than that she was co-owner. She might have been the prime decision-maker, or in effect a silent partner.
Comment by Mr. K — 31 August 2008 @ 6:31 pm
Sorry for the conflation of one to one’s. Noting that your list had such an obvious error, I fained to not fact check the rest. They may be there, but I shan’t spend ther time. You’ve already refuted your own argument vis a vis education/accomplishements. I need do no more.
I’d like to see others chime in regarding our discourse.
Comment by livermoron — 31 August 2008 @ 6:34 pm
I was planning to sit out this election, but after McCain’s pick of Gov. Palin, I’m voting the republican ticket. First time ever. I and my girls are thrilled about the possiblity of this feisty woman becoming vice president.
Comment by Barbi — 31 August 2008 @ 6:57 pm
Ultimately friends I think we tend to over estimate a person in Obama’s position because of there education and where they got it. To me it seems that the opposite must be true in that the farther away we get from Elitist’s factions maybe … just maybe we are better off.
She wasn’t at Harvard Law or Princeton; Missouri may actually be far enough away from all that hoopla to have shielded her from it. Maybe in the case of Governor Palin’s selection as a VP candidate we may finally have a chance at limiting the corruption and slogan bashing advertisements and environment and possibly even set a future aside for reform politics; as far as I’ve seen in the whole three days since her selection was reveled she hasn’t jumped up and started some mass celebrity run to prove her right to be there as recent Democratic nominee’s have done.
It’s true she hasn’t experienced enough of the cut and grind of Washington to know what to expect and that might just be the trump card she needs to change it. Lord knows we haven’t seen or accomplished what we’ve wanted with the bunch that’s been up there for forty years and quite honestly I don’t believe a political climber such as Barrack Obama is what we really need either. I don’t believe in the ideaology of the lesser of two evils.
Something you failed to touch on too that I noticed was Obama’s relation to Ayer’s aside from a friendly neighbor. His cocouncil in the funding group for Chicago students and his relation to the weatherman terrorist organization all so many years ago. Things that I believe Obama himself may think the lot of us stupid in that we wont question it if he tells us we shouldn’t. As for the rest of the dilemna’s that face us in the coming election time will tell.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: Interesting and thought-provoking comment. Thanks for posting it.
Comment by dj9194cr — 31 August 2008 @ 7:08 pm
You keep changing the discussion. Is accuracy and intellecutual honesty outside the scope of this discussion. Everytime you get pinned to the mat you call for a different game.
Look at your headline, look at your republican bashing, look at how you insert ‘part-time’ in describing her city council and mayoral positions. Tell me, who was Mayor and making the decisions when she wasn’t? Running businesses and being a mayor simultaneously means that you are part-time?
You compare and contrast Obama and Palin and then, when being hoisted on your own petard by responses that offer a different perspective, claim that was out of scope?
You conflate voting on a budget to the same as managing one? You show precious little understanding of how the executive branch at local, state, and federal levels function and ask to believe your ‘analysis’ represents some intellectual effort as opposed to biased spin? I know nothing of you. Are you not an American? Presidents, mayors, governors prepare and submit budgets to the relevant funding body. These executives have to manage that budget and find ways of balancing priorities when faced with unexpected challenges such as disasters, economic downturns and the like. Congress and the Hof R do not manage budgets in any sense…they vote on whether to provide the executive with monies requested by same in their budgets. You should take some classes in American civics.
Education is important and accomplishment is only relevant?? Apparently not relevant enough to actually include in your ‘analysis’
Harshness alert!!! Harshness alert!!: Your analysis is vacuous and risible.
Your pretext of civility and intellectual honesty serves only yourself and your ego.
What say you other posters?? Am I wrong??
Comment by livermoron — 31 August 2008 @ 7:17 pm
“in real life the college on your bio has a large effect on your career”
I call that a load of BS. Its horribly un-PC but its ambition/intelligence and depending on your vocation, social skills that make/break your career. (Go ahead and Google “Does an Ivy League Education Matter?”)
And yes, I believe executive experience matters a whole hell of a lot, and I’m pretty disappointed that we have two Senators at the top of the ticket and one in the secondary slot. Being the person in charge means you have to not be afraid to tick people off.
Sarah Palin has to ticked off her own party–for all the right reasons, and she’s not apologetic about it. That’s a good thing.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: We’ll just disagree on this. The intense scramble by parents and children to get into Ivy League schools suggest that this belief is widespread. That does not, of course, make it correct.
“ambition/intelligence and depending on your vocation, social skills that make/break your career.”
Agreed. Other factors have an effect, but these are the big factors IMO. As Theodore Roosevelt said:
“Character, in the long run, is the decisive factor in the life of an individual and of nations alike.”
Comment by Mama73 — 31 August 2008 @ 7:18 pm
Fabius Maximus replies: “The primary point of my post was what it tells us about McCain, not Obama vs. Palin. While I disagree with your assessment, both of their job histories are so brief that evaluation of relative weight is difficult and subjective.”
It tells us that McCain is a brilliant strategist, because voters are comparing Obama to Palin. And it seems that the argument that McCain wants to win more than he is concerned about the welfare of the country because he would put someone with what you deem so little experience “within a heartbeat” of the presidency is ludicrous…since Obama would require on the job training, as both Hill and Joe have said.
If Obama is qualified to be president, so is Sarah Palin, at least. I am sorry, but your argument is not convincing. I understand that she is in fact an inexperienced politician. But in the time she has been one, she seems to have been a very effective one. Obama is inexperienced as well, and I know of no accomplishments he has achieved as a politician, other than managing to get himself nominated. Name legislative accomplishments, if you can…
Is it the Ivy League education or the connections of the wealthy that help the “carreers” (spelling problem too…are you an Ivy Leaguer??) Ivy League graduates?
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: I have mentioned many times that the point of this is not whether Palin is more qualified than Obama (I mentioned that as an aside, which I regret). The point is why McCain picked someone with so few qualifications. That a sufficient number of Democratic Primary voters chose someone with little experience IMO neither forced nor justifies McCain also doing so.
“It tells us that McCain is a brilliant strategist,”
Perhaps so. We will see in the next two months if this is true. I have no opinion on this decision the marketing aspects of this decision.
“If Obama is qualified to be president, so is Sarah Palin, at least. I am sorry, but your argument is not convincing.”
Perhaps so. I believe the difference is relatively slight, and I can see why people would decide either way.
“Is it the Ivy League education or the connections of the wealthy that help the “carreers” (spelling problem too…are you an Ivy Leaguer??) Ivy League graduates?”
I am amazed at the comments on this. It is obviously a widespread belief, but not one that I share. My comments just noted this fact. Perhaps I am an Ivy graduate, or just someone who wished he was.
Either way, I consider being an Eagle Scout more significant. (The Girl Scouts have the equivalent Gold Award.
Comment by Mr. K — 31 August 2008 @ 7:34 pm
McCain’s a brilliant strategist? He picked as VP someone he has met once and talked with twice more on the phone, someone who he didn’t bother to have his campaign vet, because he was bullied away from the guy he actually wanted, Lieberman. But hey, he stopped people on TV from talking about Obama’s convention speech! Victory!
Strategy is about more than winning a news cycle (at the expense of your entire campaign’s argument of experience mattering uber alles).
“Conservative Ire Pushed McCain From Lieberman“, NY Times, 30 August 2008
Comment by Adrian — 31 August 2008 @ 7:57 pm
Since you appear to be avoiding responding to some of my points in previous posts, let me ask you a simple question: “If Obama were of his (McCain’s) party, would your headline be the same?”
If Biden were the top of the ticket and he selected Obama, would your headline state that Biden thinks we are stupid?
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: Do you mean if McCain selected Obama? If Biden selected Obama. Probably yes, in both cases. As the posts in my “America” and “About the Candidates” series show, I am bipartisan in my criticism on this site — and have been critical of Obama’s weaknesses as a potential President.
In the real world (vs. cyberspace) I am have 25 years of active involvement in the Republican Party.
Comment by livermoron — 31 August 2008 @ 8:11 pm
FM – I enjoyed the conversation. you take the ribbing in stride…therefore, I am also going to recommend you rename your blog Biggusdickus because it takes that to state an opinion and wither the punishment, either way.
Good luck to you
Comment by Mr. K — 31 August 2008 @ 8:19 pm
I second Mr. K’s statement. I also appreciate getting to win an argument. My wife won’t let me win any at home.
By the way, Adrian if you can put down the Kool-Aid ™ (keepin ya legal FM!), then read the following: “Palin Made an Impression From the Start“, Washington Post, 31 August 2008 — “Fellow Maverick Survived McCain’s Thorough Vetting Process, Aides Say”
The NY Times has not been a very reliable source of information for a while now.
Comment by livermoron — 31 August 2008 @ 8:38 pm
Here is a conservative’s (or “right-wing”) analysis of Palin — a minority viewpoint on the right.
Comments by David Frum, National Review Online, 30 August 2008 — Excerpt:
“I (and most NRO readers) will vote against Barack Obama because I oppose his ideas. … That said: Can we conservatives please stop kidding ourselves about Barack Obama’s “qualifications”? Yes, if I had been a Democratic donor back in 2006, I’d sure worry about whether Barack Obama had what it took to be president. That was before he took on the toughest political operation in America, before he beat Bill and Hillary Clinton, before he won 18 million primary votes.
“Obama’s nomination was not handed to him. He fought hard for it and won against the odds. “Qualifications” predict achievement. Once you have achieved, it doesn’t matter what your qualifications are. Who cares whether the guy who built a big company from nothing didn’t have much of a resume when he started? But if you are applying to run a big company built by somebody else, the resume matters.
“… And can we please stop this silly TR analogy? In 1900, Theodore Roosevelt had already
(1) established himself as one of the country’s leading experts on military affairs,
(2) served as Assistant Secretary of the Navy and worked ferociously to modernize the American fleet,
(3) taken on the then-overwhelming problem of corruption both as New York police commissioner and as a civil service commissioner (in the latter job he was so successful that he was re-appointed by a Democratic president),
(4) raised and led a regiment in war, and
(5) been elected governor of the nation’s largest state.
“Nobody said “Teddy WHO?” when the Republicans put him on the ticket.
“… She was plucked by John McCain because of an electoral calculus. She could be vice president of the United States in January 2009 – and president at any moment thereafter, abruptly thrust in supreme command of two wars in two different countries. And who knows how she’ll do? She does not know what she would do. Yes she might turn out to be a Harry Truman. Or she might be an Andrew Johnson. Wouldn’t you wish for some hint in advance of which it might be?”
Comment by Fabius Maximus — 31 August 2008 @ 8:39 pm
Wow, livermoron! McCain’s aides dispute the claim that their campaign is totally disorganized! I bet that was on the front page!
One interesting thing about this pick is that it’s highlighting a divide between the National Review types and the mega-church types. Obviously McCain has been walking a fine line between the two sides of the GOP party, the war wing and the crazy wing, but this seems like the first time where the war wing is the discontented party. Previously they would write off pandering to the crazies as pandering, but you can’t really take back a VP pick after election.
Comment by Adrian — 31 August 2008 @ 8:47 pm
Since you are citing NRO, here is a post and links that briefly expand on her foreign policy experience.
“Commander of the Alaskan National Guard, Cont’d“, Jonah Goldberg, posted at The Corner, National Review Online, 31 August 2008
Compare and contast this with Obama’s please.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: Perhaps in her 20+ months as AK Gov she has received substantial briefings — perhaps even involvement — in defense policy and treaties. Sounds like guessing IMO. Perhaps it is true, perhaps not. Much like her role in the family businesses. Could be substantial, could be near zero.
We can say much the same about Obama’s experience after 44 months in the Senate. Perhaps he has had many deep briefings on defense policy and foreign affairs, perhaps even involvement. Perhaps not so much.
In both cases there might be some sort of paper trail that could tell us more than these “might have happened” stories.
Comment by livermoron — 31 August 2008 @ 8:49 pm
Adrian:
{snip — too personal} Wow, “NY Times has something bad to say about McCain” would’ve been a thoughtful and reasoned response? I didn’t realize it was so easy!! I do hear a lot of whistling coming from your direction.
Comment by livermoron — 31 August 2008 @ 8:53 pm
Thanbks FM for cleaning up how I present the link. You do work at his. Respect.
Comment by livermoron — 31 August 2008 @ 8:54 pm
I do not often post outside material in the comments, as it clutters up the discussion. However Frum’s critique of Palin is exceptional, a conservative on a Republican. This seems IMO to make it more significant, as opposed to right slamming left and vice versa.
Also, I strongly agree with these excerpts.
“Palin the irresponsible choice?” David Frum, National Post, 29 August 2008 — Excerpt:
“Ms. Palin’s experience in government makes Barack Obama look like George C. Marshall. She served two terms on the city council of Wasilla, Alaska, population 9,000. She served two terms as mayor. In November, 2006, she was elected governor of the state, a job she has held for a little more than 18 months. She has zero foreign policy experience, and no record on national security issues.
“All this would matter less, but for this fact: The day that John McCain announced his selection of Sarah Palin was his birthday. His 72nd birthday. Seventy-two is not as old as it used to be, but Mr. McCain had a bout with melanoma seven years ago, and his experience in prison camp has uncertain implications for his future health.
“If anything were to happen to a President McCain, the destiny of the free world would be placed in the hands of a woman who until the day before Friday was a small-town mayor.
“Mr. McCain’s supporters argue that he is more serious about national security than Barack Obama. But the selection of Sarah Palin invites the question: How serious can he be if he would place such a neophyte second in line to the presidency? Barack Obama at least balanced his inexperience with Mr. Biden’s experience. What is Mr. McCain doing?”
Comment by Fabius Maximus — 31 August 2008 @ 9:07 pm
Another article for Adrian and his/her fellow travelers.
“The Gal That Got Away“, By The Prowler, American Spectator, 25 August 2008 — Excerpt:
“In selecting Sen. Joe Biden as his running mate, Sen. Barack Obama may have selected the safe pick, but according to several campaign insiders, Biden wasn’t necessarily his first or even his personal choice.
“‘He really wanted [Kansas Gov. Kathleen] Sebelius,’ says one Obama insider with knowledge of the Democrat candidate’s vetting process. ‘And if our European tour had played better here at home, she might have been the pick.’ “But, says the insider, the campaign’s internal polling indicated what the public polling indicated — that Obama failed in his European sojourn to build out his foreign policy credentials. ‘We needed the foreign policy on the bottom of the ticket more than we want to admit,” says the insider.’”
Sorry for my bad typing at times. Having lost some appendages in combat I have difficulties keeping my few fingers working harmoniously and fluidly with my brain.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: You have a better excuse than me. I just cannot spell well. WordPress has no spell checker for comments, unfortunately.
This article describes the usual process for choosing VP’s, selecting among the pool of available qualified people to find the match the works best politically. Sebelius has 20 years of political experience, both as legislator, regulator, and executive.
Comment by livermoron — 31 August 2008 @ 9:11 pm
Finally to the real issue – capability to command in crisis.
The sunday TV shows were all on top of this with references to commanding aircraft carriers vice just flying off the pointy end, making critical decisions. Unless I’ve badly misread history, those type decisions, from FDR after Dec 7th to the decisions to go to Afghanistan and Iraq have not been played out like being on “Let’s Make a Deal,” requiring a be-all end-all suitcase 5 or 11 decision with either one cent or one million dollars before the next commercial. No president makes those kinds of decisions on his own, lots of expertise is drawn on. Best example/reference I know is <em”Essence of Decision; Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis by Grahm Allison and Phillip Zelikow (see Wikipedia for a summary). “Thirteen days” of work by lots of people not an isolated decision, so to me One-heart-beat-away loses much.
Also in regard to foreign policy and decision making see “Foreign Policy and the President’s Irrelevance” by George Friedman on Stratfor, 5 Feb 2008 — Excerpt:
“In spite of the constitutional power of the U.S. president in foreign policy, in most cases, the president really doesn’t have a choice. Policies have institutionalized themselves over the decades, and shifting those policies has costs that presidents can’t absorb. There is a reason the United States behaves as it does toward Russia, China and Europe, and these reasons usually are powerful. Presidents do not simply make policy. Rather, they align themselves with existing reality. For example, since the American public doesn’t care about European unification, there is no point in debating the subject. There are no decisions to be made on such issues. There is only the illusion of decisions…
“It’s not that presidents don’t matter. It’s that they don’t matter nearly as much as we would like to think and they would have us believe. Mostly, they are trapped in realities not of their own making.”
Given the above, what Gov Palin brings in other areas far out weighs this issue. What does this say about McCain? He created a strength, rather than worrying about an issue that will play out under a set of protocols with ample opportunity to examine issues, whether the final decision maker is himself or his Vice President.
Comment by Ed Beakley (Project White Horse) — 31 August 2008 @ 9:21 pm
So where is the commentary from Dems on how disappointing the Biden pick is? How picking Biden negates Obama’s message of change. There is plenty of it out there. Perhaps you included it in your “Obama Thinks We Are Stupid” article? Can you point me at it please? Frum’s point is that Palin is as inexperienced as Obama. Seems awful weak as a reason to vote for Obama. Just confirms the right’s belief that experience is necessary. If it calls McCain’s judgement into question, what does that say about the judgement of the DNC and the ability of their nomination process to present a qualified candidate?
Good to see that NRO continues remains an open forum to all opinions and that they debate them in an adult, informed way. I recommend the site to all.
Comment by livermoron — 31 August 2008 @ 9:21 pm
FM, precisely the point about the process. Adrian {spoke of the} NYT article as if it proved something.
Comment by livermoron — 31 August 2008 @ 9:23 pm
I see you have started to respond to some of my earlier posts. Thanks for that. I take back nothing good or bad I’ve said, but I respect a stand-up guy.
She has had briefings and has responsibility for these important organizations. Don’t expect to find much of a paper trail for Obama…he seems to be missing a lot of documentation about his past.
BTW, TR did not serve one term as NY governor. He served one-half term.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: From the Wikipedia page on “Governors of NY” (the same page you cited earlier), discussing the Governor’s term of office:
“but the 1894 constitution again reduced it to two years.. The most recent constitution of 1938 extended the term to the current four years.”
Comment by livermoron — 31 August 2008 @ 9:33 pm
This is IMO a balance look at Palin’s record: “Palin touts stance on ‘Bridge to Nowhere,’ doesn’t note flip-flop“, Anchorage Daily News, 31 August 2008. Note, like many titles on this site, the headline has more fire than the article.
Comment by Fabius Maximus — 31 August 2008 @ 9:45 pm
hoist, meet petard. lol In fairness then wouldn’t 2 years be more accurate than one term when describing experience? Did you notice that Grover Cleveland served only about a year IIRC before becoming VP?
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: Yes; I changed it after your previous comment. Note that these comments are written in seconds.
When was Grover Cleveland VP of the US? I know zip about him, but a quick look at Wiki shows (if I have this correct) he was an attorney for 6 years, then active in politics (mostly in office) for the next 20 years before becoming President.
Comment by livermoron — 31 August 2008 @ 9:48 pm
In spite of the constitutional power of the U.S. president in foreign policy –quoted by Ed
There is no such power. The Constitution does not discern between law-making for domestic and foreign purposes — the Congress is responsible for both.
In regard to treaties: “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur . .”
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: We have two dimensions here. Don refers, correctly, to the litteral word of the US Consitution. However, the Consititution is a “living document.” Like a trout, which can be gutted and repackaged by a fisherman for his (or her, if Palin) convenience.
Ed referes to our world, in which the President has great powers. I recall a comment by Nikita Khrushchev after the Cuban Missile Crisis to the effect that President Kennedy had far broader prower than he, leader of the Soviet Union.
Consider Bush’s proposal to sign a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq. Not just is this functionally a treaty, but an important one governing our obligations and terms to fight a war. Bush explicity said that he will no submit this to Congress for approval.
Comment by Don Bacon — 31 August 2008 @ 10:18 pm
The Republicans #2 is more qualified than the Democrats #1. She had 5 years of executive experience before Obama had his first day in government period. You can try to downgrade her experience by saying it was as a mayor of a small town, but obviously the state of Alaska recognized her success on that level and on the councils and boards she served on in order to give her the job of running their state, which she has done extremely well. She has over an 80% approval rating and while Obama was voting present 136 times in the Illinois state senate, she was fighting corruption in her own party, taking corrupt politicians to task and actually doing something. If all you have to argue against her with is “troopergate” then you are reaching a little far. She has been interviewed on that issue and has released her story and the person responsible was suspended. If democrats want to go after that, it will only expose them to further scrutiny of Obama’s “Ayersgate” and “Rezcogate”. I love how you all are comparing your #1 candidate to our #2 and then saying the Country is not ready for someone with “no” experience to have to step in if something happened to John McCain, but Republicans share the argument, but in the sense that we cannot afford the inexperience of a newly elected President in Obama.
By the way I like that Palin has come from such humble roots and worked her way up from “hockey mom” to governor, because it shows she is a “peoples” candidate. She is not a Washington insider and she is the essence of what politics used to be, the average people who live life in this country rising to power to lead us in the right direction, but then again, she is not running for President, John McCain is and he has more experience than Obama and thats all thats going to matter.
Comment by ncarnes — 31 August 2008 @ 11:50 pm
Cleveland spent time as a sheriff, 5-6 years iirc. He was mayor of Buffalo for a single term and had one term as Governor of New York before being nominated for President. Was the term two or four years, lol??? Why I said Vice President can only be attributed to my medications. He was actually quite a reformer, and caused enmity within his own party by pointing out Democrat corruption. In very many ways he is like Sarah Palin. Cleveland was helped tremendously by the republicans, especially TR! (His spectre rises again)
I do not buy your 25 years/republican story. Until I see proof otherwise I think you are just shilling for the Democrats. Your timezone (per timestamp) calls into question your nationality as an American and I find the answer nowhere on your website explaining it. I have asked you earlier about this and you have not responded. Having lived in Europe for many years myself, I understand that ex-pats are a reality. Why the non-response? Workload? I ask it only to see whether you are ill-informed and would benefit from some education or whether you are just obtuse to cogent discussion and not worth the effort.
You seem to have a rather uninformed understanding of the roles of government and don’t understand the major difference between two of the three branches of the US Government. Perhaps all three, but we haven’t spoken about the judiciary yet.
Your moral compass sxeems a bit out of alignment as well when you believe being called a hypocrit is worse than being labeled ‘morally bankrupt’.
I am reluctant to look at your other ‘analyses’ as I am afraid that they will be as crudely couched and tragically flawed as this one. If you take that as an ad hominem attack, I do not mean it that way. You have just produced a poorly reasoned and poorly argued statement and I am calling you on it.
Do you have better work that you would point me too? Your openness to discussion is inviting but I as yet have learned nothing here except the Governor’s term in NY was once 2 years. I’d like to find a reason to add this to my favs list.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: All of those terrible things might be true. But at least I know that Cleveland was not VP of the US.
Your comment might be interesting and valuable. However, your own logic was so compelling that I have adopted it as my own: “Noting that your {comment} had such an obvious error, I fained to not fact check the rest. What other facts do you get wrong? The {insights} may be there, but I shan’t spend the time“ to read it.
Comment by livermoron — 1 September 2008 @ 12:12 am
Don, your points are well taken in that Gore as a DLC type and establishmentarian seems to have drunk some of the Likud and interventionist kool-aid with the rest of them. I take the qualifications he posited, and the fact that Bush ignored those, to be probative, but you are right that they may not be dispositive.
I think there is a very strong argument to be made for Obama’s experiences, overall, life and political, being far more relevant to the tasks of the Presidency than those of the Republican Vice Presidential nominee-designate. Merely on an economic level, as well as that of racial, religious, and tribal politics, it would seem to me that Obama’s resume, education, ability to articulate (one presumes he and Palin are peers when it comes to hygiene;-) are far more suited to the complex geopolitical situation in which we find ourselves. The issues raised by our institutions (national and otherwise) essentially being obsolete, unable to cope with the results of globalization, multipolarity, and instantaneous communications are going to require a combination of uncommon sense (which Palin may have, or not, but Obama seems to) and a wide and tolerant intellect (which Obama definitely has manifested and Palin clearly has not).
I see any solutions as having to be post-ideological, and requiring on the one hand true conservatism in the sense of maintaining what is valuable from the past but only when it is truly valuable, and true liberalism in the sense of being innovative but only when that is truly effective.
I also have to assert that any ad hominem attack on our host, any direct or indirect doubt as to his integrity, is in utter contradiction to all available evidence as well as being impolite and of no value in any argument of substance. This is a big election in a big time and should be about big things. The upside is how enjoyable it was to read his classic jujitsu riposte.
Comment by Greg Panfile — 1 September 2008 @ 1:18 am
Well I have my answer. Purposelu obtuse it is, You can’t even respond to the salient points and use a triviality as genesis of your retort. Advantage…me again. Do you ever speak on substance? And I do not mean medications.
You also are ignorant as to what a SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement is. It is most definitely not a treaty. No need to submit to Congress. Once again you proffer an opinion or analysis without having the knowledge to support it. In this country (America) that is a protected right. How about where you live?
Here is some information for you to ponder about SOFA’s: “Status-of-Forces Agreement [SOFA]“, Global Security
Anybody else enjoying this exchange as much as I am?
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: Although we do not have the text, so firm statements are not possible at this time. However, from what little we know from the conflicting leaks from all sides, this appears to go beyond the SOFA’s with Germany and such that the Global Security article describes:
“… they define the legal status of U.S. personnel and property in the territory of another nation. The purpose of such an agreement is to set forth rights and responsibilities between the United States and the host government on such matters as criminal and civil jurisdiction, the wearing of the uniform, the carrying of arms, tax and customs relief, entry and exit of personnel and property, and resolving damage claims.”
From what little we know, the SOFA under discussion appears to go far beyond that.
For a discussion of the relevant issues see “U.S.-Iraq Strategic Framework and Status of Forces Agreement: Congressional Response“, Congressional Research Service, 11 July 2008.
Comment by livermoron — 1 September 2008 @ 1:24 am
Panfile:
That’s right, he whupped me good. Lol. And look at all that unsupported name-calling I did. Why, I must be morally bankrupt! LOL.
Make your case for Obama based on your criteria. I think that our VP candidate’s experiences raising a family, running businesses in hardscrabble Alaska, making tough personal decisions, 13 years of executive experience, willingness to stand up to corruption, all trump Mr. Obama’s ‘racial, religious and tribal politics’.
I’ve made many good points in here that our host has avoided, pooh-poohed. trivialized and so on. For me to comment on that is not an hominem attack. It is an opinion fortified with support material.
Your comments are inane, in my opinion. But I bet you are a terrific guy.
Hey, was that verbal jujitsu? I await your judgement.
Comment by livermoron — 1 September 2008 @ 1:38 am
Panfile:
I revise my earlier post. Not all of your opinions are, imo, inane. Your penultimate paragraph I agree with whole-heartedly. My issue is that the left all-too-frequently refuses to learn the lessons of the past and insists on creating the same mistakes over and over.
I respect FM’s willingness to allow me to post. A discussion however actually requires responses to one another’s points. Intellectual honesty and support material are welcomed additions as well. The rebuttal to his very flawed and one-sided ‘analysis’ has been made here by others and by me. He may be a teriffic guy, and I do suspect he is, but his argumentation is weak, obfuscatory, only partially responsive, and ill-informed. One fact doesn’t preclude the possibility of another being true.
Comment by livermoron — 1 September 2008 @ 2:01 am
FM: Correct in your statement that we do not know what the actual agreement is, so witholding commentary may be most prudent. Too bad that wasn’t your original position. Thanks for link. I will read the document and comment as appropriate.
On the face of it, historically SOFA’s have been an executive matter. They already stipulate that an agreement has been reached between the two countries that US Forces are there. BTW, there are SOFA’s for foreign troops in the US. If you understood US civics more deeply, you would be aware that Congress has the power of the pocketbook and can always rescind funding for anything done by the executive branch. We call that ‘checks and balances’ here in the US.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: These are comments, not essays. The equivalent of talking over drinks.
Comment by livermoron — 1 September 2008 @ 2:26 am
Oh goodness SPic. When did you stop beating your wife?? Your site is full of that kind of statement. Once I got past the misogyny and dirty innuendo I found your purported Palin VP gaffe. Victory is our when a thoughtful and articulate response gets taken completely out of context in order to make a point. SPic, your site is vile and an insult to women.
For those who actually care about facts, here is her full quote when asked about being a VP:
Palin replied: “As for that VP talk all the time, I’ll tell you, I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day? I’m used to being very productive and working real hard in an administration. We want to make sure that that VP slot would be a fruitful type of position, especially for Alaskans and for the things that we’re trying to accomplish up here for the rest of the U.S., before I can even start addressing that question.”
Tell me SPic, do you know what the VP does everyday? Pathetic.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: I assume this is response to the pingback from the “She’s Pain in Comparison” (SPIC?) pingback from the “28th Ammendment” blog. You are talking to a computer-generated notification that another site has a post including the URL of this post. The author of the other site has not posted a comment here. Or necessarily even read any comments here. (I’m no technican, so this is a rough cut explanation).
Talk to him by posting at his website.
Comment by livermoron — 1 September 2008 @ 2:54 am
Let’s remember, the two guys who apparently really screwed the pooch on Iraq were Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld…two experienced as hell big brained insiders who damn near managed us into disastrous defeat and humiliation. And the guy who saved our bacon was Petreus, an energetic albeit untested field commander. And GWB deserves no special credit for great management of the war, but he deserves huge credit for not giving up, and for trying a genuinely new approach. Not giving up even under adversity, prevailing against long odds, making tough decisions and living with their consequences; who among the candidates does this remind you of?
Comment by bc — 1 September 2008 @ 3:22 am
livermoron: You also are ignorant as to what a SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement is. It is most definitely not a treaty.
You are wrong. A treaty is an international agreement.
Merriam-Webster:
treaty: a: an agreement or arrangement made by negotiation: (1): private treaty (2): a contract in writing between two or more political authorities (as states or sovereigns) formally signed by representatives duly authorized and usually ratified by the lawmaking authority of the state b: a document in which such a contract is set down
Gobal Security: The purpose of such an agreement [SOFA] is to set forth rights and responsibilities between the United States and the host government on such matters as criminal and civil jurisdiction, the wearing of the uniform, the carrying of arms, tax and customs relief, entry and exit of personnel and property, and resolving damage claims.
The Iraq SOFA is more, as it sets time limits on the US military occupation.
Iraq Prime Minister Maliki has stated, properly, that the SOFA would be considered by the Iraqi parliament. Bush has said the SOFA would not be submitted to the US Senate. Maliki is a democrat; Bush is a war criminal.
US Constitution: “He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur . .”
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: Yes, the question concerns the line over which a treaty requires Senate approval.
Comment by Don Bacon — 1 September 2008 @ 4:02 am
Fabius Maximus replies: Yes, the question concerns the line over which a treaty requires Senate approval.
All treaties require Senate approval, according to the US Constitution. Of course if the Constitution is just a trout then forget it.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: Not by the literal definition of treaty, as you stated. For example, a SOFA is literally a treaty, but is not submitted to the Senate. The reasons for this and their adequacy I will leave to experts in Constitutional law.
Which is why President Bush, according to many reports, wants to sign some form of defense agreement with Iraq and call it a SOFA.
Comment by Don Bacon — 1 September 2008 @ 4:53 am
Don: Webster’s definitions and definitions in practice of law are very different, as FM points out.
FM, why characterize it in the most pejorative way? No matter what it is called, Congress has final power to fund or not fund. What you call it makes no difference, the money for it comes from Congress. This is just fearmongering and innuendo.
I bid you adieu. I’ve made my case here and racked up the points. I’ve pulled the cover off your sham of intellectual honesty, purportedly reasoned thought, thinly veiled invective, and misstated and misrepresented facts. I’ve won the discourse just by dint of your failure to address and refute. By the rules of debate my side prevails. I harbor no delusion that you shall recognize it as such of course.
You would help yourself more if you would actually inform yourself of the American form of government before entering into your ‘analyses’. I wish you well, but I feel I’ve entered a Monty Python sketch about arguments. To answer in specific your headline: If you are voting for Obama, yes he is correct. Goodbye and God Bless
Comment by livermoron — 1 September 2008 @ 5:33 am
Update: an interesting perspective on the experience debate
“No Experience Necessary“, Michael Kinsley, Slate, 31 August 2008 — “How Sarah Palin made the GOP change its mind about presidential qualifications.” Excerpt:
“The whole ‘experience’ debate is silly. Under our system of government, there is only one job that gives you both executive and foreign policy experience, and that’s the one McCain and Obama are running for.
“Nevertheless, it’s a hardy perennial:
* If your opponent is a governor, you accuse him of lacking foreign policy experience.
* If he or she is a member of Congress, you say this person has never run anything.
* And if, by any chance, your opponent has done both, you say that he or she is a ‘professional politician.’
“When Republicans aren’t complaining about someone’s lack of experience, they are calling for term limits.”
“… In fact, it’s not about experience at all. It’s about honesty. The question should be whether McCain—and all the other Republicans who have been going on for months about Obama’s dangerous lack of foreign policy experience—ever meant a word of it.
“And the answer is apparently not. Many conservative pundits woke up this very morning fully prepared to harp on Obama’s alleged lack of experience for months more. Now they face the choice of either executing a Communist-style U-turn (”Experience? Feh! Who needs it?”) or trying to keep a straight face while touting the importance of having been mayor of a town of 9,000 if you later find yourself president of a nation of 300 million.”
Comment by Fabius Maximus — 1 September 2008 @ 6:34 am
Jesus christ,FM. 95 comments just on this post. You’re gonna need another counter soon, I believe. Just for Most Popular posts reviewed. Guess mine counts as post no. 96.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: Over 3200 comments since November. I have replied to most (if not always well or wisely).
Comment by Yours Truly — 1 September 2008 @ 7:26 am
FM: I will leave to experts in Constitutional law
One does not have to be an expert in Constitutional law to read and understand the Constitution, with the help of a dictionary.
There is a misconception in the land that some subjects are simply too complex for us common folk to understand, and we need experts to clarify these things for us. We require, under this scenario, foreign policy experts and Constitutional experts to tell us what to think. Horsepucky, I say.
The Constitution is written in plain English, and the part on treaties is no exception. The fact that people have routinely violated it does not serve to make it less clear, and that “experts” are needed, but it does illustrate that it (the Constitution) is not enforced.
Comment by Don Bacon — 1 September 2008 @ 3:18 pm
“… In fact, it’s not about experience at all. It’s about honesty.”
— Excerpt from an article by Michael Kinsley, posted by FM in comment #95.
Intended to move on but the end of #95 must be characterized under “DTJWH.”
Did you really mean to invoke the “honesty” card in regard to politicians, election tactics/strategies, election promises, and results delivered? Name me one politician who has delivered in office all the things he promised to get elected. Oh wait, Adolph Hitler delivered more… Oh, wrong there too, he promised a 1000 year Reich.
(What was that term again you introduced some time ago about calling up the “Hitler/Nazi card”? Godwin’s Law)
Do you honestly believe Thursday night’s promises can all be delivered? Real honesty is most important but introducing John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin as a question of honesty is a DTJWH.
(Dog that just won’t hunt)
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: I provide excerpts from a wide range of opinions and sources. Obviously I do not agree with all of them, or even most. Sometimes I will specifically mention that I agree. Sometimes, as with Kinsley’s article, I will draw attention to it by noting that it is interesting. Which it is, imo. Kinsley is a brilliant guy and an excellent writer, and his articles should be treated seriously IMO.
Comment by Ed Beakley (Project White Horse) — 1 September 2008 @ 3:38 pm
Another perspective: “Northern Underexposure“, E. J. Dionne jr., Washington Post op-ed, 1 September 2008 — Excerpt:
“By all rights, there should be a revolt at this week’s (now-delayed) Republican convention against John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate — for the same reasons so many Republicans opposed President Bush’s selection of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court. Palin is, if anything, less qualified for the vice presidency (and the presidency) than Miers was for the court.
“… How do Palin and Miers compare?
“Miers, at least, had been a lawyer for 35 years, the head of the state bar in Texas and White House counsel. Palin’s experience comes down to a couple of years as governor and six years as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, a town with fewer than 10,000 residents.
“Where Miers definitely tops Palin is on the question of whether her patron can vouch for her. Bush knew Miers well, worked with her closely, trusted her deeply. You can question Bush’s judgment in pushing her for the court — for the record, at the time I called the choice “too clever” and thus “dangerous” — but at least he had good reason to believe in the person he was asking others to count on.
“McCain, as far as anyone can tell, met Palin only once before considering her for vice president, and once more before settling on her, which is to say he barely knows her. For the purpose of courting disaffected Hillary Clinton voters and satisfying the social conservatives, McCain is willing to place someone he knows mostly from press clippings and, okay, what his staff insists was thorough vetting, in the direct line of succession to the presidency. There is a breathtaking recklessness about this choice.”
Comment by Fabius Maximus — 1 September 2008 @ 5:13 pm
Kinsley may be a brilliant guy and an excellent writer but under the flag of “experience” he labeled John McCain a liar because of his choice of Gov Palin!!???? Way over the top.
Since this post – your note – is about McCain, let’s reframe this “experience” context in terms of “character.” You ask for some indicators of how we might expect the candidates to act. Who has demonstrated “character” under duress?
First Senator Obama. No need to provide details since all know his response to the Reverend Wright situation. He had the opportunity to very quickly indicate he intended to be a president for all Americans, but he hedged, he couldn’t deal with coming out against a part of his baseline support. Not a stand-up measure of character was it?
Next Senator Bidden. Just don’t know one way or the other.
Gov Palin: At risk of her political career stood up to a senior senator from her state, her own party, the oil companies and the U.S.Congress. Not bad for a frontier woman.
John McCain: As a Plebe (1st year man) at the USNA, took on a 4th year who was verbally abusing a Phillipino steward. The rest of his lunch table must have seen real shock and awe – you don’t do that, ask anyone who ever went to a military academy. McCain was right and stood up no matter the personal result.
Everyone knows the story of his refusal to come home from Hanoi because he knew as the son of top military leader, NVN would exploit his acceptance of pardon to the hilt, but McCain was also a constant POW bad apple. Rather than sit quitely hoping to avoid guard attention, he put on “Monday Night at the Movies,” led Sunday services, was a major player in the badboys room in the “Hilton.”
He led in the most uncommon of ways, at his own risk, willing to do what was necessary to keep those in the most dire of situations hopeful and full of spirit. (all these stories varifiable from people who were there)
His maverick role as a politician needs no further discussion.
Bottom line, you can observe people for weeks, years, read their resumes, listen to their words, all signifying little of how they might respond in real crisis. See them in extremis, and you have your indicator of how they most likely will respond in future similar situations.
In the old WWI movie “The Blue Max,” George Peppard as a common soldier pulled from the trenches and taught to fly, completely inexperienced, joins a German Fighter Squadron, members alll aristrocrats. The commanding officer queries “Who will fly with Stachel?”
If character counts, I know on whose wing I choose to fly. Character counts.
Comment by Ed Beakley (Project White Horse) — 1 September 2008 @ 5:26 pm
We are all missing the most important qualification, the single most important thing required of any president without which all other attributes mean nothing, the first and last question we should always ask of any candidate for political office.
IS HE/SHE ON OUR SIDE?
The terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 were largely illegal immigrants, and they only pulled it off because John McCain and others like him fought so hard to avoid enforcing the laws against illegal immigration. Without driver’s licenses the terrorists could never have gotten on the planes! The amnesty bill that McCain authored with Ted Kennedy had effectively NO background checks, and explicitly included gang members! A policy that gives hardened MS13 gang members the same right to come here as a Nobel-Prizewinning physicist cannot be defended on the grounds of either national security or compassion. John McCain has put the interests of big business for cheap labor above the safety and security of the nation. On national security grounds alone John McCain is not fit to be president, i don’t care if he as a 200 IQ.
If we do not defend our borders we do not defend our nation. Indignation when caught lying is not straight talk. If you believe that a president McCain is actually going to start enforcing the laws against illegal immigration then I have a bridge in Manhattan to sell you. And consider McCain’s push to enable his wealthy campaign contributors to sell off our high-tech defense industries to China: even Adam Smith allowed as national defense trumps ‘free’ trade.
Loyalty is more important than experience. Benedict Arnold was a ‘war hero’, too…
Comment by Tim Gawne — 1 September 2008 @ 9:07 pm
Fabious,
OUTSTANDING POST, great summary. I could not agree more. But, why does politicans like McCain take such liberties with the American people? Because we are stupid, they keep voting for the same idiots! And, we are also tolerating a two party closed political system, which is turn is controlled by big money and special interests who also control the news media.
Do they really want a well informed and educated citizen? A citizen who follows the Constitution and is responsible for the government we have? Not really. It is not in the interest of the “establishment” to have a well informed and involved citizen. If we did, they would not be “strip mining” this country.
I watched last night the airways of all the news shows with two items, Hurricane Gustov and whether Palin’s daughter is pregnant (and how this reflects the family values that the Republicans tout as their own). Anyway, we have this going on, at a time our country faces major catastrophic issues. Well, why do the news media waste such time? Because they also consider the public stupid.
Don
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: I agree on all points! But – no matter what their opinion of us, we have an opportunity every four years to prove them wrong.
Comment by Don — 2 September 2008 @ 5:27 pm
Fabius
Do you believe there was a time when conservatives were concerned with policy over identity politics? If so, then seriously, when was that?
In my (admittedly brief) experience following politics, conservatives have been all about identity politics and emotional appeals.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: Everybody plays identify politics. Doing so to the exclusions of other factors — like having some relevant training and experience — is unusual for either party. Their excitement is about Palin as a totem, not a candidate. For what she is, not what she can do.
Contrast that with McCain, Obama, and Hillary. Both have strong identity politics themes (to be), but also are real candidates (to do).
Comment by atheist — 4 September 2008 @ 12:52 pm
Maybe the Bush II years have just made me really, really cynical.
Comment by atheist — 4 September 2008 @ 12:58 pm
Fair enough. Perhaps my view is clouded by the events of the past ten years or so.
Comment by atheist — 4 September 2008 @ 9:40 pm
A comment by livermoron posted at Classical Values on 1 September 2008:
“… By the way, I see that M. Simon and I have both pimp-slapped that phony Fabius Maximus at his website. i take him to task and flummox him in his ‘McCain Beleves We Are Stupid‘ posts’s comments section.
“He is not nearly the deep thinker he believes himself to be.“
Comment by Fabius Maximus — 5 September 2008 @ 1:13 am
“A comment by livermoron posted at Classical Values on 1 September 2008:”
What an {vulgarity deleted}.
I for one am sick to death of the word-twisters on both political wings. I suspect I am not alone.
How anyone who is as transparently partisan as livermoron can come onto a site like this, blather and diatribe at ridiculous length, and perceive that he has accomplished anything to further his cause, is just beyond me. I saw nothing more than a dishonest display of intellectual pomposity in his comments: Ad-hominem attacks, shifting definitions, intentional sidestepping, mudslinging, on and on. It seemed to me a case of accusing others of the crimes and vices that one knows best from his own heart.
I remind myself often that this site represents a conversation rather than a self-contained philosophical system that attempts to reconcile all realities. In the best cases we add our dissonant voices and learn from each other. Anyone who keeps score has already lost.
On the issue that started this conversation, I will say that the poorest judgment call I have heard was that McCain’s top choice would have been Joe Lieberman. I say that not because I don’t like Lieberman; on the contrary, I expect and want him to be in the cabinet should McCain win. But MCain-Lieberman would not be electable, in my opinion (age, religion, former Dem, dry as toast).
Maybe McCain used him has a straw-man to balance off some odious choice he expected the party hacks to foist on him. But I suspect it was just McCain leading with his heart, not his head. From that perspective Palin is a far better choice, despite inexperience.
And in closing, my heart believes that everyone who leaves their home and goes to Washington, and stays there, does, in their heart, after a time, believe we are stupid.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: “does, in their heart, after a time, believe we are stupid.”
The question is: are they correct in their belief that we are stupid?
Comment by Matt Brown — 5 September 2008 @ 5:29 pm
Like I’ve mentioned before a couple of months back, I don’t really give a f!@# who become’s POTUS. The US job market is at an all time low in 5 years. That’s ALOTTA people mot bein’ employed = unable to pay for their home loans = people sleepin’ in the streets & wonderin’ what the f!@# their politicians are doin’.
Hmmm #108, a no. representin’ good omen accordin’ to some Oriental beliefs.
Comment by Yours Truly — 6 September 2008 @ 12:40 pm
Re: KWHL interview –
The link you posted no longer works — it now shows a “content pulled at copyright owners request” header. I bit of searching did find what might be a second copy, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-2z2NAqpGI.
A couple of observations about the recording that I did find:
1. There’s almost no context – we have no idea why Palin is on the show or why Lynda Green is the subject of the discussion. It seems unlikely that they just decided to poke fun at a cancer survivor.
2. There are artifacts in the recording above 29-30 and 46-47 seconds that sound like something’s been cut out. Indeed, the Alaska Daily News _commentary_ (not news article) refers to comments that aren’t on the tape. The author of the commentary is also a radio talk show host, one who’d received many negative comments from his listeners — I assume after he replayed the recording providing his own context and interpretation for his listeners.
3. To my ears, anyway, her inappropriate giggles could just as easily be the nervous embarassment of a “hockey mom” listening to a couple of shock-jocks go way, WAY over the line. Indeed, ADN commentary points out that she called Green to apologize – but doesn’t say whether she did so before or after public response to her comments.
If she apologized before a ruckus was raised, then I’d tend to come down on the side of embarrassed mom stuck listening to things she’d never let her kids get away with. Regarding comments in the article about how she should have phrased things — perhaps that’s what happens when real people get involved in politics, instead of professional politicians and speechwriters?
4. I’ve also e-mailed KWHL and requested / suggested that they put the original, full interview and transcript on-line. Pulling a recording that sounds like it’s been “edited for effect” might make sense — but ’tis almost always better to get the raw data out so that we (the public) can make own judgments.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: This makes the whole affair needlessly complex. The whole incident was discussed extensively when it happened. We have the newspaper reports and the Gov’s apology from that time. Attributing this to an edited tape seems absurd. If so the Gov would have disproven this in a heartbeat, either then or now.
Comment by Doug Hoskins — 7 September 2008 @ 5:46 pm
I enjoy that #107 accuses me of all sorts of baloney, How about posting an example? Fabius got his name from the Roman who used avoidance to win a war. When confronted with actual data he avoids addressing the key points… you know, the passive-aggressive way.
He provides the court and the ball, but when a better player shows up, he just sits on the sideline. I stand by everything I said, and I challenge him (again) to actually refute my points and I challenge you to find an ad hominem attack in there. His ‘analyses’ are full of framing error, mistatements, and biased logic.
But hey. Whatever floats your boat.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: I responded at length to your earlier posts. You responded with nonsense and invective. That’s fine (unlike other sites, I do not censor or ban except for violations of the comment policy), but I have no obligation to respond. Life is short, and we all ration our time.
“but when a better player shows up, he just sits on the sideline.”
There have been 4,143 comment posted here this year (I respond within comments, so few are of these are mine). I have posted replies to the majority of them, sometimes in discussions going a dozen or more rounds — so I obviously comment where I consider it useful to do so.
“I challenge you to find an ad hominem attack in there’
Your statement (#106) “both pimp-slapped that phony Fabius Maximus” is an ad hominem attack. (That was easy) Now here is how it works. You get to comment on this site. Those reading this site draw their own conclusions. I believe people who write such things are best ignored, and so I will do so.
Comment by livermoron — 2 October 2008 @ 1:35 am
Well, this thread has become a hell of a lot more relevant vis a vis the economic happenings of late. No matter what, the new president will be sitting in some serious as a heart attack meetings soon. The number one requirement will be to run those meetings effectively, meaning in a way that gets us out ahead of the gathering storm, as you so ably advise. We are mostly screwed in this. As a day to day manager, Obama has been tested running CAC and produced little. McCain is a seasoned politician, but isn’t likely to grasp the “get ahead of events” concept. We aren’t likely to get Biden which leaves Palin. She could surprise her critics. I don’t know.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: IMO the “end of the post-WWI geopolitical regime was always relevent. Folks have just begin to realize it.
I am sure Palin will surprise somebody. I doubt it will be her critics. Her supporters have constructed a fantasy-Palin in their minds, only loosely similar to the actual.
Comment by bc — 4 October 2008 @ 10:55 pm
It wasn’t identity politics that got us here so much as a “country folk” vs. “city folk” tension fomented by the GOP, and tragically abetted by the Democrats by consistently running highly citified wonkish candidates. John Kerry never blew me away as a deep thinker. Same with Gore. Now we have real trouble, and both parties get caught playing the same old game. Palin is the logical choice for the GOP since their game plan was always to seek support from rural America. Obama has more credibility as a deep thinker, but is light on management chops. As with Truman, we better get surprised by someone or we’re in trouble.
Comment by bc — 5 October 2008 @ 6:25 am