Skip to content

Iran, Palin and Friendly Fire

September 24, 2008

Yesterday, both Senator Hillary Clinton and Gov. Sarah Palin were scheduled to speak at the protest event outside of the U.N. against the visiting anti-Semitic, homosexual-stoning, end-of-the-world-loving, nukes-grasping Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran.  Clinton protested Palin’s presence as being “partisan”, a left-right war opened up within the Jewish coalition running the protest, and at the end of the day Clinton took her marbles home and Palin was “disinvited.”  

The Left faction within the coalition actually celebrated this embarassment (since they drove away Palin, who, oy vey, might have been helped politically by the speech).  Thus, as Dennis Prager so aptly summarized it, they demonstrated that they hate Palin more than they hate Ahmadinejad.  And again, this is a man who tangibly threatens the very existence of Israel.   This demonstates again that Leftist activists (not your average lay democrat or liberal) can be deeply morally deranged.

The speech that Gov. Palin would have given can be found here at the website for Israel’s “newspaper of record,” Haaretz.  Note her call for unity against this evil, dangerous regime, as well as her compliment towards and agreement with Senator Clinton to back it up.  It’s not just persona with Palin, it’s her values that I dig.   She knows who the enemy is and who it is not.   And she knows that, as it says in the old Army manual, “‘friendly fire’ isn’t.”

20 Comments leave one →
  1. David permalink
    September 25, 2008 11:31 am


    Nobody should dislike Palin more than they dislike Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad is a very dangerous man who fronts a dangerous religious theocracy, no doubt about it, and much of what Palin’s speech was about is correct.

    However, over the last few days, Palin’s foreign leader immersion 101 should have us all concerned. The debacle of the photo ops with foreign leaders, but shutting out the press shows us that, very much like Bush, she doesn’t go unscripted. Her meetings with these people are purely for convenience to try to reassure us, not diplomatic or policy oriented. Staged to make us feel better about her lack of foreign policy know-how and experience.

    The McCain campaign has closely guarded her; but this is not the royal family. All questions should be tough, to all candidates, and all candidates should be pushed to answer them as succinctly and truthfully as possible.

    Also, like Bush, who had the means to travel around the world but was not inclined to do so, Palin understands neither our friends or our foes. She understand little of what connects our country to the rest of the world, and that is frightening. We’ve had eight years of cowboy diplomacy, she would give us another four (I understand that its McCain that would be president, but she is only a heartbeat away). So let’s get past the ‘pigs with lipstick’, Liberals hate America, deranged etc. We deserve more from our leaders (not hidden away) and we deserve to have the tough questions asked from our media, instead of the ‘People Magazine’ style interview we got from Gibson, and the fireside chat with Hannity (or as The Daily Show put it, an interview ‘Hannitized for your protection’.

  2. Duke of Ray permalink
    September 25, 2008 12:58 pm

    So, you agree with much of Palin’s speech, but “she understands neither our friends no our foes.” I’m missing the logic, as well as the evidence.

  3. David permalink
    September 25, 2008 4:58 pm

    Palin said nothing new about Ahmadinejad. Even Ralph Nader would have said those things. Many of us recognize despots and dictators; agreeing with her statements on the Iranian president does not make me want her as VP. I could write a speech like that (not that she wrote her own speech).

    As far as evidence that she is not qualified, show me the evidence that she is! The burden of proof of experience is more important. We need to know that she can talk to foreign leaders, not just wave at them from her home state.

    She served 4 years on a city council and 6 years as mayor in a town that has a smaller population than the one I live in (7,000 compared to 29,000) and only 20 months as governor
    (that’s less than two years). I’m sorry, that doesn’t qualify her to become the country’s second highest ranking executive and next in line behind a man in his eighth decade.

  4. Duke of Ray permalink
    September 25, 2008 5:19 pm

    Sorry, nice try, but the person who makes the statement is the person who needs to back it up with facts.

    So, you’re so concerned about Palin’s inexperience because she *may* become No.1,, but Obama, who has less experience in leadership (and has never had an executive position), you’re going to vote for to *definitely* become No. 1.
    I’ve never understood the logic of this argument. If one scares you, so should the other, at the very least. Maybe we should be scared of both, but let’s be consistent.

  5. September 25, 2008 11:50 pm

    As I recall, Obama also had a photo-op tour of Europe. Not many reporters around there either.

    Obama’s reaction to the Georgia crisis? Calling for a meeting of the UN Security Council. Did he realize Russia has a veto on that council? Does he care? Does anybody?

    How about when he called for a united Jerusalem… for a day. He didn’t understand the implications of what he had just said.

    Obama is green and he has stupid ideas. Sarah Palin has earned more votes than Joe Biden did in his presidential run.

    Whatever. After Aqua Velva Jhad, Bush is the worst and then DEFINITELY John McCain and Sarah Palin. Praise be Obama!@!!!!!

  6. David permalink
    September 26, 2008 1:58 pm

    If you guys don’t believe me about Palin, just watch the Katie Couric interview. It is starting to get play in the news media. When she was asked about the bail-out plan, she responded with such incoherence. She waffled with standard talking points, not in any order. It was frightening to see a person, who would be a heartbeat away from being president, struggle with this most important topic. Go youtube it. See for yourself. They replayed it on CNN and Jim Cafferty and Wolf Blitzer both commented how lost she looked with her answer.

    Then check out this article, written by a conservative journalist who originally supported Palin (there are others that I will post for you), now saying why Palin needs to step down.

    More conservative pundits are very concerned about her. Just read around, it won’t take long, unless you just can’t face it.

  7. David permalink
    September 26, 2008 3:09 pm

    I’ll keep posting as I find stuff

  8. David permalink
    September 26, 2008 3:18 pm

    NY Magazine has brokered a list of responses to her interview which you can find in this link

    The GOP are getting concerned about her, no wonder the McCain campaign are hiding her from the press.

  9. Timmy C. permalink
    September 26, 2008 4:28 pm

    Hi Duke:

    You write:

    “I’ve never understood the logic of this argument. If one scares you, so should the other, at the very least. Maybe we should be scared of both, but let’s be consistent.”

    Here is a well formed version of this exact argument perhaps in a more clear way. And it is based on looking at Lincoln someone with comparable “experience” as Barack when he became President.

    “I would have to agree with the comments that on the question of evaluating experience in candidates for high national office, Lincoln is a much more appropriate comparison than either Reagan or Thatcher who both had considerable experience before becoming chief executive. However, there is a dimension to Lincoln that is almost always overlooked and that can be used productively to unpack the arguments of whether Governor Palin, Senator Obama, or perhaps neither one are prepared for the offices they now seek. Lincoln’s office resume was thin, but nevertheless there were reasons to think he might be a seriously qualified national executive.

    As I am very interested in this question, I have just finished reading Roy Morris’s excellent book The Long Pursuit. It chronicles the thirty-year rivalry between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas, and it reveals what the lines of Lincoln’s resume would not – namely, that Lincoln spent most of that time as an opinion-maker and leading thinker on the most important national issue then facing America.

    First as a Whig and later as a Republican, as a newspaper editorialist, a constant correspondent, and a party meeting regular, Lincoln was active in debating the foreign policy and domestic policy implications of the Democratic party’s growing commitment to the extension of slavery…

    The point is that Lincoln did not hold office during much of his political career, but he was actively engaged in and widely recognized for his thoughts on the major issue of the day. This is, in itself, a type of experience and one that should not be slighted. To offer another example, Reagan’s signature issue – the stakes in the global fight against communism – was one he spoke about and pursued for years, even in his editorials on GE Theater, long before he even became Governor of California.

    In this regard, Barack Obama’s often-cited but rarely read 2002 speech on why not to go to war in Iraq deserves attention, even now. It accurately predicts most of what then came to pass at a time when “experienced” Republicans (including Bush, Cheney, and McCain) were confidently predicting a quick and easy victory with little cost in American lives and money. Perhaps more importantly, it outlines a different idea about the possibilities of American foreign policy that is not anti-war per se but that urges us to consider carefully the consequences of military action before taking it.

    The speech contains the germ of the policy that he now stands on as a presidential candidate. Even as a Chicago law professor, recent reporting suggests that Obama was holding seminars in which he was working out a constitutional and policy framework for the type of government and governance that he favors. You can disagree with the philosophy, but you cannot credibly argue that it was cracked up in less than two years for the express purpose of conniving to win a presidential election.

    Does Sarah Palin have such a record of thoughtful engagement with the issues of national importance, conceived and discussed in national fora? I don’t know. I don’t know anyone who does know. But I think that we need to find out whether she does.

    That type of thoughtful engagement with national and international issues would matter more to me than the time spent in “executive” positions as Governor of Alaska, Mayor of Wasilla, and President of the PTA.

    I want to know that she understands what she might do if she became President, that she has considered critically the problems that she might face, and that she can articulate some vision of governance beyond parochial Alaskan issues and borrowed party platforms. She may be able to demonstrate these things, but she has not done so yet.

    Experience in office is important, but it constitutes at best half of the experience we need to consider in our candidates for high office. We need to know whether candidates understand the issues they will face, whether they have demonstrated thoughtfulness, thoroughness, and good judgment in determining their positions on those issues. Maybe someone can memorize a briefing book of answers in a few weeks, but that would be little help in dealing with evolving and metastasizing issues when confronted with them in office.

    Senator Obama has persuaded many people, perhaps not yet enough, that he is ready for that challenge.

    Governor Palin has yet to do so.”

    I was written politically centuries ago (Sept 3th.)…but I’d say we still don’t know…but the evidence, including the recent rambling interviews aren’t giving me much reassurance, and if polls are to be believed, less and less people think so every day.

    The full argument is here…


    Timmy C.

  10. Duke of Ray permalink
    September 26, 2008 5:34 pm

    Hey, David. Got it, you can save your time — Palin gave a horrible interview w/ Couric, and all the pundits agree. I can take it, my friend.

    Timmy, I’ve been hopeful but agnostic about her foreign policy knowledge. Hopeful that, as the piece you quote discusses, there was thoughtfulness about the subject. Many in the press were unduly prejudiced to think the worst of her right off the bat for no good reason. I think the Kathleen Parker NRO piece states that correctly. Having just seen more of the Couric interview, however, I also hear Parker’s (and yours and David’s) fear that the Governor is out of her league. While I’m not ready to throw her overboard based on one interview, it must be said…

    Wow, that was one awful interview. Just saw more clips. She seemed so much more flustered and almost fuzzy-headed than she was with Gibson, even though Couric seemed more respectful (if not exactly Obama-bedazzled-warm) in her approach. Very disappointing, no doubt… Palin’s gotta prove that she has more to her than these talking points that have clearly been drilled into her. When she’s off the cuff, she seems in her element, real and appealing; so, if there’s some “there” there, she’s gotta shake off the handlers and show us what she’s really got going on intellectually.

  11. Duke of Ray permalink
    September 26, 2008 5:36 pm

    Now, where’s the commentary on the substantive issue of the day — which is the better Dramatic Prairie Dog video?

  12. Duke of Ray permalink
    September 26, 2008 5:48 pm

    Sorry, I can’t resist linking this compilation showing Joe Biden’s “knowledge” on economic matters while we’re on the subject of VP picks:

    But he does SOUND like he knows what he’s talking about, I must admit. Have a great weekend, everybody, I’ll be away from here for the duration.

  13. September 26, 2008 8:41 pm

    Why we investing so much time arguing about Sarah Palin?

    I pointed out a long time ago that by the Democratic 2004 logic, McCain was the hands-down winner of “most qualified” in this election. I used the term “judgement” I believe, but the thrust of the argument is the same.

    Sarah Palin may have been a sugar high. I think she’s governed competently and admirably and has values I share, even if she can’t smoothly express them in the lawyerly fashion the democratic party has grown addicted to. I’m far more comfortable with that than someone who is committed to bad ideas like Obama.

    As far as I’m concerned this whole debate about Palin is a smokescreen to deflect from Obama’s manifest shallowness in the resumé and accomplishments department. You want to gin up anxiety about McCains health, go for it, his 95 year old mother looked pretty spry to me. The real issue is going to be McCain vs Obama, something you guys have been frankly to chicken to wade into so far.

    I smell fear. Cold FEAR!!! Bwa haaa haahahaaaa ….

  14. Timmy C. permalink
    September 27, 2008 4:59 pm

    Hi Dave:

    You wrote: “You want to gin up anxiety about McCains health, go for it, his 95 year old mother looked pretty spry to me.”

    If McCain wins, let’s hope he got most of his genes from her, and not from his Dad who died of a heart attack at 70, or his Grandfather who died at 61.

  15. September 30, 2008 7:33 pm

    Oh, my, i finally watched this just now:

    You can’t tell me you watched this through without getting a sick feeling in the pit of your stomach. Cmon, be honest! Would you really want this person piloting us through a recession? What about protecting you from terrorism? I may think Romney is a cynical, opportunist jerk and and I may disagree with Huckabee’s reckless populism and anti-science beliefs (althought he seems like a nice guy), but neither of those guys (or Giuliani) would have frightened me like this. This woman is scary dumb.

    Who would would be running things if she had to step up? Cause it wouldn’t be her.

    I would never argue that McCain isn’t *highly* qualified to be President. He’s the best candidate the GOP has put forward since Nixon (I’m not joking, I respect Nixon).

    But for this VP pick, McCain deserves to lose. I don’t trust him anymore.

    She should step down. Personal reasons. The special needs baby, perhaps. Her nomination is a mockery.


    *wipes chin*
    *writes check to Obama*

  16. September 30, 2008 7:41 pm

    Just read previous comments and realized mine was redundant. Sorry. I don’t read this blog often enough.

  17. October 1, 2008 3:47 pm

    All I can say is the sick feeling you get watching Palin is somewhat like the feeling I get thinking of Barack Obama leading this country. He’s stupid in a way you can only be after getting a law degree and hanging out with a lot of old hippie radicals who’ve gone “mainstream”.

    You can google some older interviews and debates and you will see an intelligent capable woman.

    Unlike Obama, she hasn’t been plotting here presidential run since the late 80’s. And it’s true she will never speak like a lawyer. For some of us, that’s a good thing.

    Even though some of my best friends are lawyers.

    McCain is ready on day one. He’s ready today. Obama will never be ready- he’s been ruined. Palin may indeed need some time to become more up to speed on certain specifics, but she’s not running for the #1 spot.

    Just what gives you confidence in Obama? Still waiting.

  18. Timmy C. permalink
    October 1, 2008 5:50 pm

    This isn’t just “not speaking like a lawyer” ….

    It’s simply about ignorance of key Supreme Court rulings…other than Roe. And it’s not about not speaking all lawyer-ly and elite…

    Rather, it’s about this need I listed above:

    “I want to know that she understands what she might do if she became President, that she has considered critically the problems that she might face, and that she can articulate some vision of governance beyond parochial Alaskan issues and borrowed party platforms.”

    But actually i think the timing of her trainwrecks of interviews may help her in the debate tommorow.

    If she just shows up in the more structured short soundbite setting they negotiated for her and speaks in relatively complete sentences, she’ll be seen as outperforming expectations.

    I predict she’ll do fine. And we’ll see relatively the same amount of unstructured press interviews going forward to the election as we’ve seen so far…meaning almost none. As few as they can politically get away with.

  19. October 1, 2008 9:12 pm

    Tim, I came to this blog to link to the latest Palin fiasco, but you beat me to it. I think this longer version from the CBS website is even more instructive, both for the compare-and-contrast and for her complete answers to the questions about Roe v. Wade:

    Comments, Count? Seriously.

    This vid shows not only her igonorance of any case other than Roe v. Wade, but her ignorance of that case as well. She “opposes” it but has absolultely no idea what it’s about. There is actually a well-reasoned argument for why the case was wrong (enumerated rights vs inherent rights, which Biden seems to understand), but when asked whether she thought the Constitution contained a right to privacy (a so-called “inherent right” arising from the explicit rights listed in the 14th Amendment and other places), Palin answered:



    William F. Buckly turned over in his grave. No self-respecting conservative with a brain would ever utter that. The court-manufactured “right to privacy” is the lynchpin of Roe and the bane of conservative jurisprudence.

    This stuff is way over her head. And she could be picking a Supreme Court justice 6 months from now (Harriet Meyers is free).

    And Count, she didn’t have to answer the question all lawyerly, either. She could have just said:

    “The courts shouldn’t be makin’ up rights that aren’t in the constitoooshun.”

    That pretty much sums it up. But no. She doesn’t even know that’s what it was about. She just knows it should be “up to the states.”

    (But she doesn’t believe this. If it were up to the states, and Nevada made third-trimester abortions available on demand, she’d be clamoring for a consitutional amendment to outlaw it altogether.)

    I SO want Biden to look at her during the debate (after she answers a question like this) and say “Governor Palin, you’re running for Vice President of the United States. Do you even know what the term XXXXX means? The American people have a right to know”

    (Where XXXXX = Bush Doctrine, strict constructionism, judicial restraint, war powers doctrine, executive priviledge . . . . or any number of other tough concepts.)

    Count: I believe Obama will be a better president because, as a person who respects and reveres the important role of govenment in our society, and as a man who values education and expertise, he will not make appointments like this. I expect him to surround himself with academic superstars and captains of industry and public service, with people who *really* understand this stuff. These are the sort of people I want in charge.

    Based on McCain’s VP pick, I would expect him to appoint dunces, yes-men, and political hacks. People like Harriet Meyers and Roberto Gonzalez. (Christie Todd Whitman and Colin Powell need not apply.) Then he can “go with his gut” without anyone offering a cogent counter-argument.

    ‘Cause he’s a Maverick.


  1. Sarah Palin, Elitism vs Widsom and the Political Crisis of the 2008 Election « Strange Monkey Doll

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: