Palin's Favorability Ratings Begin to Falter

It was jsut a matter of time:


http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stum...n-s-favorability-ratings-begin-to-falter.aspx

 

The honeymoon is over.

I'd still like to bang her, though.

 

you know porn stars have been winning elections in other countries for decades.

 

wasn't there that chick in Italy?

 

She's been attacked without responding for a couple of weeks. She was overhyped after her speech in St. Paul so this coming down to earth is simply mean reversion.

 

Troopergate has hit the news, and her not knowing what the Bush Doctrine was during the interview with Charlie Gibson have knocked some of the wind out of her sails.

 

Think about every pretty woman you've ever met (and I'm not saying this to be sexist or judgmental about Palin's attractiveness. Although let's face it, I'd rather look at her than Joe Biden.) The first thing you think is that she's hot, so everything about her must be great. You fill in all the missing details with what you hope she might be. She must be totally cool with the dishes in your sink, the empty beer cans in your bed, the wretched stink of death and despair emittiing from your feet. And she has man hands. She goes and surprises you by not being as beautiful on the inside as she is on the outside. All those details you imagined would be great somehow aren't.

Obama went through the same love affair with America that Palin has had. Eventually people complain that the candidate is too this or too that. Poll numbers drop. People panic. The candidate "must be doing something wrong."

The reality is that politicians are just like hot women (and incidentally Portland Trail Blazers). You build them up so you can tear them down.

And then you blame them for being torn down.

 

In my view, the Bush Doctrine stands for the principle that the U.S. has the right to launch unilateral preemptive attacks for its own self-preservation. I believe that was Gibson's view as well. I don't understand what the big deal is, to tell you the truth. Israel does it. The U.S. has just been isolated throughout its history so that we haven't had to take such actions before (although maybe the Bay of Pigs invasion counts?)

I understand your viewpoint that the Bush Doctrine has "evolved" to include the concept of nation-building, but I don't agree with that--I think that is more of a "policy" and not a "doctrine." Regardless, it is just semantics.

 

well said, it's like imagining what someone sounds like before they speak for the first time.

 

how about something simple, like Wikipedia:

I don't believe that it HAS evolved, but you raised that argument in a different thread, I believe.

 

who the hell cares? Really? Why does this bug you so much? She obviously didnt know what he was talking about, but so what? Did you react the same way when Bush was asked who his favorite philosopher was, and he answered "Jesus Christ" because he didn't know the name of any philosophers? Or that he couldn't name the leaders of certain other countries? Again, who cares? Reagan didn't seem to mind being seen as an "amiable dunce," and as far as I can tell, no other republican minds, either. It just doesn't matter as much as you seem to think it does.

I see this as just more misdirection from the issues. Remember the issues? Why don't we spend some time discussion Palin's decision-making process, her demonstration of ethical behavior, her understanding of economics? etc.? Is it because no one knows?

 

I wouldn't describe it as "perfectly fine." It sounded a lot like a bluff to me (and to a lot of people). It sounded like I did back in high school when I had to write an essay I hadn't prepared for, but had read a little about.

That said, the truth is that the Bush Doctrine is a muddle, which is a reflection that he's changed it every time he tried to think of a good reason to be in Iraq. So Gibson was asking her to take one shot at multiple targets. I'd describe her response to that as barely adequate, maybe something I'd say were I in her shoes.

A response that is worthy of the Vice President of the United States would be something like, "Well, Charlie, I'm sure you know that there are several aspects to the Bush Doctrine. Pre-emptive war is one, building democracy is another, etc."

She didn't demonstrate that she grasped The Bush Doctrine any better than Gibson did. Considering this doctrine is a huge reflection of the last 8 years of her own party's foreign policy, I find that pretty disappointing.

I don't want her to be as smart as me or Charlie Gibson in foreign affairs, I want her to be an expert (like Biden is). Her interview clearly demonstrated that she was competent enough to maybe win a debate with me. But I expect a hell of a lot more than that.

 

I think Palin's understanding of her own president's last 8 years of foreign policy is a pretty big deal. It's the single biggest issue she'll have control over if McCain dies, especially considering she'll face a Democratic congress.

 

Maybe. But again, I'd blame Palin for putting herself in that position. Nobody put a gun to her head and told her she had to do this particular interview with this particular reporter with ABC getting to cut it as they so pleased.

She could have gone anywhere, and required that the interview be shown in its entirety. That's how Obama earned his chops. She could have spent an hour straight chatting with Charlie Rose if she wanted. She didn't.

Considering that a big criticism of her is a lack of gravitas, it really surprised me that she willingly went with an interview that played to this perceived weakness.

You can't decide to be interviewed in a forum custom-tailored for shallow questions and sound-bite responses, and then complain that all they took were sound bites of you.

 

If you think that is all that a president can do, you are sadly mistaken. Among other things, he directs the attention and the resources of the federal departments and executive agencies. Understanding a candidate's position on things like the environment and the endangered species act (for example) will give a sense of what the related agencies may seek to accomplish under his term in office. Bush, in particular, has kept a stronger hold on agency activity than any other president that I am aware of.

But I see you didn't bother to respond to whether we should have a sense of the process she uses to reach decisions, and to delve into her ethics.

If it is just entertainment that people want, than Sarah Palin is a shoo-in. What are you worried about?