09/12/2008 (9:01 am)
Professional Governor, Unprofessional Journalist
It took me a few hours this morning to digest Gov. Palin’s interview with Charlie Gibson on ABC last night and the internet reactions to it. The reactions are a bit frightening; so many can see only what they want to see, and not what was there.
The take from the interview is that Gov. Palin succeeds because she has a natural skill at focusing on high-level principles and goals rather than getting lost in details. This characteristic dominates the themes of the interview.
1) Gov Palin had obviously not thought through the details of our relationship with Pakistan, she offered no specifics on how we might impress Putin not to gulp down any more satellite nations, and she did not recognize Gibson’s reference to “the Bush doctrine.” However, her answers to the questions Gibson threw at her requiring that level of detail were sound, general policy positions — which is the most important detail for a high official to know. From her answers, some of which she repeated three times or more because Gibson would not stop digging for details that just weren’t there, we derive the following:
- We intend to work with foreign governments, not against them;
- We will be developing new relationships rather than merely taking old ones for granted;
- War is a last option, not a first one;
- We do not intend to allow Russia to return to Cold War boundaries, and do not accept Putin’s refusal of the Caucasus to NATO;
- We have a right to defend ourselves against an immanent terrorist strike, even if it requires violating a national border.
- We’re not going to second-guess Israel’s decisions on its own defense.
This is all sensible, conservative foreign policy at a very high level. The specifics are missing. At this stage in the process (both the election process and Gov. Palin’s learning process,) that’s appropriate. It’s the right place for an election debate, and the right place to start learning foreign policy.
Of course, if Palin were not a neophyte in the world of international politics, we would not assume that her lack of specifics was due to ignorance. Diplomats are wise to make their goals clear and their tactics obscure; it’s how diplomacy works. It’s likely that Palin is taking this approach because she does not know the details, but it’s not certain.
The Left, of course, is jumping all over the blank she drew on the Bush Doctrine, but not for any good reason. She was Mayor of Wasilla, AK at the time “the Bush doctrine” was being tossed around as a catchphrase, not a Washington policy wonk, so it’s no surprise she didn’t immediately associate that phrase with pre-emptive attacks. Her answer correctly encapsulated Bush’s broad policy strategy for the War on Terror. I would have preferred that she simply say, “Remind me what you mean by ‘the Bush Doctrine,’ Charlie,” but the course she took was good enough.
2) Gov. Palin’s grasp of how policy gets formed is a lot better than Charlie Gibson’s. This showed up twice:
Gibson: “This is not just reforming a government, it’s running a government.”
Palin: “But it is about reform, and about putting the government back on the side of the people, and that has much to do with foreign policy…”
And here:
Gibson: “National security is a lot more than energy.”
Palin “It is, but I do not want you to lose sight of the fact that energy is a foundation of national security.”
Policies arise from principles. Domestic priorities drive foreign policy objectives. Gibson wanted to emphasize her lack of experience, but Palin correctly pointed out that what creates good policy is the stuff she already knows about and focuses on — domestic priorities.
3) Gov. Palin obviously possesses the right personality to lead, and the Left truly does not understand this. This became apparent in the opening minute of the interview. Gibson seemed nonplussed that Palin did not hesitate to accept the nomination as Vice President when McCain offered it to her, but her reason was the right one. It was her “Game Face” attitude:
You can’t blink.You have to be wired in a way that you’re so committed to the mission…
Gibson was incredulous that Palin did not hesitate, but this is why Palin succeeds at everything she does. She most likely learned it, appropriately enough, playing sports: heart determines everything. She wins because she’s wired to win. She figures out where the goal is, and goes directly toward it.
This is not just a good trait, it’s an essential one; it’s the difference between success and disaster. Barack Obama does not have it, and that’s one of the things that makes him so dangerous. He’s an academic; his carefully thought-out answers to policy questions have withstood the test of other academics hurling questions but not of reality. They have the virtue of sounding erudite in a discussion, or in a classroom. They’re like Monopoly money; they cost him nothing, therefore they’re worth nothing. He’s never, in his entire life, had to make decisions that would actually affect the lives of real people in practice, aside from his own family decisions. Put him into a genuine policy crisis, and he’ll have to change his underwear three times in the first hour, and if he manages to keep from panicking, eventually will come to a decision that seems sensible from some academic standpoint but will have no relation to the reality in front of him. Putting the nation into the hands of a theorist is senseless.
Leftists are going to express incredulity and accuse me of pandering and spinning for this observation. I’m neither pandering nor spinning; this truly is the crucial personality trait of a successful leader. Palin has it. Obama does not. (I think both McCain and Biden would do well enough making decisions in a crisis; they’re both experienced enough to understand that any decision is better than no decision.)
Of course, what the public is going to take from the interview is a lot different from what I discuss here.
The hard-lefties are already screeching about how insanely stupid she is. Let’s recall, though, that they also assure us that Ronald Reagan and Dwight Eisenhower were stupid, and that Newt Gingrich, George W. Bush, Condoleeza Rice, and Clarence Thomas are stupid. No surprise here; they see what they want to see.
The same is true of the Palin fanatics on the right, who can’t bring themselves to admit that she really didn’t know what “the Bush doctrine” referred to. They see what they want to see. Neither of these groups was moved by the interview.
Those not infected with partisan diseases, however, saw a dismissive and disrespectful journalist assaulting a capable, professional woman who just happens to be new to international politics outside her state’s purview (she handled relations with Canada as governor, and did so very well). Gibson’s disdain was evident in the opening seconds of his introduction; he could not even speak her name without sounding smug. He looked as though he had to force himself to keep a straight face just to sit and talk with her. He horribly distorted a quote from a prayer she offered in a service in Wasilla, even after she correctly paraphrased Lincoln and explained how her comment was parallel to his. He repeated some questions as many as five times, by my count, even though she’d clearly given him as much detail as she was going to.
I also should mention that the editing of the interview was the most unprofessional job I’ve ever seen on a national news broadcast; it was painfully obvious where they clipped the tape, and sometimes it was clear that they’d excised relevant discussion.
ABC came off looking pretty bad last night. Palin held her own, and that can only help her.
On a side note, the Washington Post this morning positioned itself alongside the New York Times as the next major newspaper to disintegrate due to partisan bias. Anne Kornblut lied outright in her opening paragraphs about Palin’s performance, and the editors put it on the front page. They got called on it immediately by better journalists. They should fire Kornblut, but probably won’t; if they repeat this enough times, they’ll hit the skids and disappear into the ocean.
« « Remember | Main | I Don’t Hate To Say “I Told You So…” » »
13 Comments »
Comment by Zanzibar
Expectations were extremely low for her in this interview, and she didn’t even meet those.
She’s a puppet, Phil. She’s not ready. McCain called Obama ‘naive’ when Obama claimed that the US has a preemptive right to use actionable intelligence and attack within Pakistani borders if Pakistan’s leaders would not. Yet Palin said the same damn thing yesterday. Who is ‘naive’?
And calling Gibson’s performance as ‘dismissive and disrespectful’…where do I start? When she fumbles through answers that were obviously rehearsed on 3×5 cards and so her main objective for the interview was to interpret questions and figure out which preprogrammed response to say, should that instill ‘respect’ from a political journalist with decades of experience?
Gibson’s been tough on Obama, and he was tough on Palin. He didn’t let her get away with much. Are you upset because he questioned “You can see Russia from an island in Alaska”…as a response to Russian incursions into Georgia? Really, Phil? Really?
Comment by Phil
McCain called Obama ‘naive’ when Obama claimed that the US has a preemptive right to use actionable intelligence and attack within Pakistani borders… Yet Palin said the same damn thing yesterday. Who is ‘naive’?
Obama and Palin. If they said the same thing, they’re equally naive.
One’s running for President, one for Vice President. Given that somebody naive is going to get into the White House, which job would you rather they be responsible for?
And calling Gibson’s performance as ‘dismissive and disrespectful’…where do I start?
You should start with the first 30 seconds of tape, Gibson alone on the screen introducing his interview. It was obvious from the first sentence that he did not regard Palin as his equal. This certainly came across clearly, so clearly that the content of the individual questions don’t really matter.
Are you upset because he questioned “You can see Russia from an island in Alaska”…as a response to Russian incursions into Georgia?
Note my comment on the editing job. It was obvious that there was a cut in the tape immediately following that remark. We don’t know what she said following that, and given ABC’s hostility to Republicans generally, it matters. The only possible reason that particular comment was left in was so folks like you could point to it and say “See? See how vapid?” I want to see what was cut. If there’s no content there, fine, it was a dumb response. I’ll bet some $$ they cut relevant content, though.
Gibson’s been tough on Obama…
Got some video to back this up? I’ll bet you a great deal of money that Gibson’s interview did not mention Rezko, Khalidi, Ayers, or Emil Jones, did not delve into Obama’s legislative record in the Illinois legislature, did not demand Obama to detail a pattern of producing bipartisan action, did not ask for a description of Obama’s legal work for ACORN, and focused entirely on things Obama has said since the beginning of 2007.
Comment by Zanzibar
I still do not understand your hesitance in admitting that the bare minimum requirement for a Vice President is to step in AT ANY MOMENT and assume the office of President. We are talking about a 72-year-old-man with a history of cancer. Yes, 96-year-old mother, blah blah. You said yourself that we’re in trouble if he takes after his father.
As far as Gibson’s concerned, here’s his interview with Obama during the Israel/European tour:
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Politics/Story?id=5433416&page=1
Granted, he didn’t ask about the scandals, but then he didn’t ask about Palin’s scandals, either. But I’ll save you the trouble of reading it by showing you just the questions that Gibson asked – and you tell me if they are ’softball’ questions:
Gibson: Senator, let’s talk about the trip as a whole. The polls indicate that a considerably larger percentage of the people in the United States think John McCain would make a good commander in chief than you. So is the trip principally designed to narrow that gap?
Gibson: But can you do that in a trip that’s this hectic, I mean it’s eight countries in seven days. Doesn’t it become just a series of photo ops?
Gibson: But do you sense that when I mentioned in the polls earlier, because it shows up continually in the polls that if people have a reservation about you, it is that you are young, you are inexperienced and that you are very new to the international stage.
Gibson: John McCain has been critical of you for, in his words, “making up your mind, before you travel” on the issues that you’ll consider while you travel. Is there one thing that you can tell me, on which you’ve changed your mind as a result of this trip? Changed your mind?
Gibson: That’s your position stated before you came here.
Gibson: So let’s talk about the Israelis and the Palestinians. And you’ve said it would be a top priority to get the peace process going again here, so let’s explore how you get to a two-state solution. To begin with, would you commit yourself to, to regular Israeli-Palestinian-US summits?
Gibson: To truly be effective, wouldn’t it require your inclusion?
Gibson: How can you even start without the inclusion of Hamas? Gibson: But would not Hamas have to be brought in?
Gibson: Well you have a blockade of Gaza. It’s awfully difficult to get them to participate.
Gibson: You’ve said the Israelis, you’ve said in the past the Israelis would have to make difficult concessions to make the peace process going again. What?
Gibson: And then there’s the issue of Jerusalem. You’ve said in the speech, to AIPAC, Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel. And it must remain undivided. When you said that did you not realize the significance that that has for so many people in this region?
Gibson: You said “must remain undivided,” (crosstalk) those are code words.
Gibson: But Senator, it was a very simple, declarative statement. It must remain, and you started the paragraph by saying, “Let me be clear”—
Gibson: Rookie mistake?
Gibson: So when you come down to it, what’s your feeling? Jerusalem, undivided, as the capital, or re-divided?
Gibson: In the two states, what do you envision as the capital then, of Palestine?
Gibson: If you were president would you move the US embassy to Jerusalem?
Gibson: Aren’t these things that you’ve thought through in your head?
Gibson: Do you sense that there’s a considerable portion of Israelis, and even American Jewry, who are very reserved and even distrusting of your commitment to Israel?
Gibson: Because there are people who point to very sympathetic remarks you made towards Palestinians, particularly when you were a state senator, your expressed willingness to deal with Iran, which is a flash point for people here. They’re worried about you.
Gibson: Let me turn to Iran in just a moment, but before I leave this Israeli-Palestinian issue– we spent last night in a series of Palestinian cafes and restaurants talking to people about this, needless to say they talk about it a great deal, and if I can characterize what they said to me in a general nature, we had hoped that Obama might be different, but American politicians let us down so often, and he is someone falling in line with the Israeli position in order to get votes in America. We understand that, but it disappoints us. What do you say to them?
Gibson: I’m curious that you say that they have to be realistic about what’s possible. Do they have to be realistic about the fact that American political candidates have to follow the Israeli line?
Gibson: Let me turn to Iran. John McCain has said that the only thing worse than war with Iran would be a nuclear Iran. John Abizaid was one of the top military leaders in the United States has said, well we may have to live with a nuclear Iran. I know it’s a choice that you don’t want to make, who’s right?
Gibson: But you said in that speech to the Israeli lobby, you said, I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. But just because you put the word tough in front of the word diplomacy doesn’t necessarily mean that you get anywhere. So what if Israel decides in the name of its own security that it needs to make strikes on Iran?
Gibson: But you also said in that speech, I will always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself. That seems to me, it puts you in the position of saying, if the Israelis feel in order to defend themselves, they need to attack those sites that you would be on board.
Gibson: A former US ambassador to Israel that we talked to before coming over here said that there’s an existential threat to the Israelis now, in a way that there hasn’t been perhaps in 30 years and that the one thing they’ll be listening for from candidate Obama, is: does he get it? Is he in the trenches with them? How does he reassure them? How do you?
Gibson: Final question: so many presidents, many more experienced in this area than you, have tried to find peace in the Middle East and have failed. What makes you think you can do better?
Comment by Phil
I still do not understand your hesitance in admitting that the bare minimum requirement for a Vice President is to step in AT ANY MOMENT and assume the office of President.
I’ve never denied it. I simply keep pointing out that the minimum requirement for PRESIDENT is to step in on day one, and that Barack Obama is, if anything, LESS qualified than Sarah Palin to do it. And so far, you’ve ignored that, arguably because there’s no answer. If the Democrats’ candidate for President is less qualified to hold the office than the Republicans’ candidate for Vice President, what else remains but the formalities?
Let’s put it this way:
Probability that Sarah Palin will be required to act as President before she’s qualified to do it: 5%.
Probability that Barack Obama will be required to act as President before he’s qualified to do it: 100%.
See the problem?
Comment by Zanzibar
Except that Obama has been working towards becoming President for YEARS, has run a successful primary campaign, has been thrown into firing squad after firing squad of journalists and opposing candidates.
Palin was a surprise choice, three weeks ago, she probably didn’t know she was on the short list.
If you look at the depths of the answers that Obama routinely provides with EVERY interview, and then compare those answers with the ones Palin provided to Gibson, only the most biased of supporters can say that Palin is MORE qualified than Obama.
Answer me this, Phil, do you think Palin is more intelligent than Obama? Yes or no will do.
Comment by darkhorse
Zanzibar / Phil,
This is a very good discussion, especially Zanzibar posting Gibson’s demeaning questions to Obama.
I think there is a fatal issue to Phil’s argument:
Probability that Sarah Palin will be required to act as President before she’s qualified to do it: 5%.
Probability that Barack Obama will be required to act as President before he’s qualified to do it: 100%.
Here is the issue: If Obama is unqualified to be president, he appointed a Vice President who is far MORE than qualified to help him. And Biden can help him from day one.
If Palin becomes president, her very capable running mate will NOT be there to help her, barring the use of a seance.
Comment by Phil
If you look at the depths of the answers that Obama routinely provides with EVERY interview, and then compare those answers with the ones Palin provided to Gibson, only the most biased of supporters can say that Palin is MORE qualified than Obama.
I already addressed this in the article, and in several previous articles. You should go back and read the section beginning with the number 3, above.
Sarah Palin is a woman who has succeeded at everything she’s ever put her hand to, from sports to news-casting to politics. Her tenure as Mayor was marked by positive achievement; her tenure as Governor was likewise marked with significant achievement. This is a highly competent woman who makes hard decisions and knows how to get things done. Wherever she goes, she fires cronies, cuts budgets, builds stuff that’s needed, solves problems that others could not solve.
By contrast, I cannot discern from Obama’s resume any project on which he’s ever worked that he performed better than just average, except for his time as a student at Harvard. Making the law review is a major achievement of which I would be proud. After that, he’s mediocre at just about everything. No major legislation; no major achievements; no major litigation. No major decisions, either. My assessment is, he’d be a very good instructor.
Intelligent? I would guess that Obama’s IQ might be a little higher than Palin’s. So? Take it from me, a guy with an IQ approaching 150, but one who has only once received a promotion to a leadership position — IQ is no way to pick a leader. The Left routinely overrates it. The question isn’t how intelligent one is, but what one does with it, and that’s determined by character.
I would follow Gov. Palin before I would follow Sen. Obama, any day of the week, in any situation, without the slightest hesitation. She’s by far the better leader.
Comment by Zanzibar
Then why won’t they fess up and admit that she’s not experienced? Why the charade of putting her in front of a seasoned political interviewer and claim that she IS experienced enough?
I mean, the more I hear the insinuations that she’s ‘experienced enough,’ the more I think that Obama is right – the McCain team really does think we’re stupid.
Comment by Phil
Here is the issue: If Obama is unqualified to be president, he appointed a Vice President who is far MORE than qualified to help him. And Biden can help him from day one.
If Palin becomes president, her very capable running mate will NOT be there to help her, barring the use of a seance.
Oh, please, Jim. Do you really think either of them would not be able to find experienced advisors to help them? By what bizarre calculus do you imagine that having a VICE PRESIDENT who’s got experience is any better than having a CHIEF OF STAFF or a NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR who has experience?
The point is, somebody needs to be at the helm setting direction and priorities, and making the final decision. I don’t trust Barack Obama to make sound decisions no matter how good his advisors are. I trust John McCain to make good decisions. And while I admit that Sarah Palin is inexperienced, I think she’d make better decisions than Obama.
Besides, this is really a stupid argument. McCain is running for President, not Palin, and he’s not going to die.
Comment by C. Bensing
Very happy I found your Blog. Exceptional writing and debating.
CB
(Author’s note: Thanks, CB)
Comment by dullhammer
Insightful article. Thanks.
Krauthammer at Townhall.com has an interesting take on the Bush doctrine question.
http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2008/09/13/charlie_gibsons_gaffee
I watched the Palin/Gibson interview only after hearing the hubbub about Palin’s supposedly horrifying embarrassment. It was nothing but a hiccup. If anything, I thought her response showed an ability to keep it a hiccup and not make it any worse. She is not looking like the type that will self-destruct. She strikes me as being amazingly poised, even comfortable, in what would be for most people a very intimidating situation. She is definitely not ‘most people’. Hockey-mom or not.
Comment by Phil
Thanks, dullhammer.
Krauthammer, as usual, knows more than any 3 of the rest of us put together, and knows it precisely. However, I think he’s wrong, this time because he’s so precise; most of us out here still associate “Bush Doctrine” with pre-emptive attack. I know I did. We’re all rubes compared to Krauthammer.
Of course, what this says, if that’s so, is that Charlie Gibson is as much a rube as Sarah Palin, and his arrogance in the interview that much less justified. I guess that was Krauthammer’s point.
Comment by Georg Felis
“Except that Obama has been working towards becoming President for YEARS, has run a successful primary campaign, has been thrown into firing squad after firing squad of journalists and opposing candidates.”
Well, yes, for the vast majority of Obama’s tenure in a state-wide elected Legislative office, he has been campaigning for President, leaving almost no time for his real elected job.
Where Gov. Palin has been in an Executive office as mayor, and afterwards won a statewide election for Governor against two former governors, and proceeded to do just exactly what she said when she ran for office.
So we have a Republican candidate for Vice-President who has more Executive branch experience than the Democratic candidate for President. The choice is fairly clear.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
