Gotcha!

Ever since Katie Couric asked Sarah Palin what newspapers she read to keep informed, Palin has complained that the "lame-stream" media is always trying to trip up politicians with such "gotcha" questions. For my part, Couric's question seemed quite straight-forward. How difficult could it be to name a newspaper or journal or two? Surely Palin read The Weekly Standard, the conservative magazine founded by one of her most ardent supporters at the time, William Kristol. Maybe she occasionally read Foreign Affairs or Foreign Policy? I mean, she was the running mate of a man who wanted to lead the most powerful country in the nation.  Were he to become president, she would be, as they say,  a heart-beat away from the presidency. Or, really, how difficult would it be to pucker one's lips to say The New York Times or Washington Post? She could have started locally, with the Anchorage Daily News or the Wasilla Frontiersman. I mean, she was governor of Alaska then, and it would make sense to us voters that she kept up with state news and politics. In short, there was nothing "gotcha" in that question that Sarah Palin herself didn't provide in her answer.

Ever since the Couric interview, Palin has again and again accused the media of focusing on "gotcha" questions. Certainly, there are people and organizations who long for and aggressively look for that "gotcha" moment. The group following Congressman Anthony Weiner's Tweets is an example. Andrew Breitbart is an example.  Writers for The Enquirer may be further examples. But these aren't--usually, I guess I should add here--providers of news for mainstream and authoritative news organizations.

Now Dan Amira, with New York magazine, has put together a slide show of Palin's complaints about these "gotcha" questions--all of which seem quite legitimate questions to me posed to people who were or are running for the highest offices in the land.

Judge for yourself: "A History of Sarah Palin Complaining about 'Gotcha' Questions," Dan Amira, New York Magazine, News and Features, 8 June 2011.

Competency over Ideology

One of the most interesting results of these last weeks of the presidential campaign is the number of Republicans publicly announcing their support of Barack Obama. The right-wing base isn't happy, of course, and some from that base are metaphorically frothing at the mouth, promising ex-communication or defenestration or something like that. An article in the UK Telegraph quotes Jim Nuzzo, a White House aide to the first President Bush:

There's going to be a bloodbath. A lot of people are going to be excommunicated. David Brooks and David Frum and Peggy Noonan are dead people in the Republican Party. The litmus test will be: where did you stand on Palin?

I, however, an American citizen who cares for her country, am encouraged to see these public criticisms turn into public support of Barack Obama. After eight years of disastrous Republican leadership that promised unity yet delivered partisan poison, that touted morals while torturing prisoners of war, that promised prosperity (and lots of happy shopping days) yet delivered a world-wide financial crisis, I'm happy to see real conservatives who are truly trying to put their country first. I don't expect them to abandon their conservative ideals. What I do hope, however, is for a real dialogue in this country rather than the debased tattle of talk radio, the tittle of the 24-hour news cycle, and the malicious stupidity of viral e-mails. And electing another Republican who has tacked far to the right in his choice of vice-presidential running mate and who has not repudiated the mistakes of the recent Bush past is not the way to get that conversation going.

So, yes, I am encouraged when I read Ken Adelman's post on why he, a conservative ideologue, is voting for Barack Obama:

But I've learned over this Bush era to value competence along with ideology.Otherwise, our ideology gets discredited, as it has so disastrously over the past eight years.

McCain's temperament -- leading him to bizarre behavior during the week the economic crisis broke -- and his judgment -- leading him to Wasilla -- depressed me into thinking that "our guy" would be a(nother) lousy conservative president. Been there, done that.

Thank God! While I will probably disagree with many of Adelman's ideals, I can certainly agree with this: the importance of competence in running a country (or anything, for that matter). This is an issue I have written about since I first created my blog, the terrible consequences of incompetence. Of course, one wants a competency linked with values (compassion, mercy, morals) and democratic ideals.

And so Republicans around the country--and traditionally Republican-leaning newspapers--are supporting Barack Obama because they realize that the country needs a true change, not a cosmetic change, a break with partisanship long enough to re-evaluate the directions we've been led the past eight years. Nicholas Kristof writes about the News-Register of McMinnville, Oregon, which has traditionally supported conservative politicians yet which recently came out in support of Barack Obama. The editors of that newspaper bemoan the actions of the Bush-Cheney administration in leading the country into a war in Iraq and in torturing and "spiriting away" prisoners from that war.

And so Charles Fried, a professor at Harvard Law School, former supporter of John McCain, and Solicitor General of the United States under President Ronald Reagan, reveals that he voted for Barack Obama by absentee ballot:

I admire Senator McCain and was glad to help in his campaign, and to be listed as doing so; but when I concluded that I must vote for Obama for the reason stated in my letter, I felt it wrong to appear to be recommending to others a vote that I was not prepared to cast myself. So it was more of an erasure than a public affirmation--although obviously my vote meant that I thought that Obama was preferable to McCain-Palin. I do not consider abstention a proper option. (quoted from The Plank, a blog of the staff of The New Republic)

And so Matthew Dowd, chief GOP strategist for President George Bush's reelection. . . . and so Scott McClellan, George Bush's former press secretary. . .And so, well, just read the list on the Republicans for Obama website or read this "Republicans for Obama" article on the CBS website

Will these endorsements sway far-right voters? Of course not (especially not the paranoid and racist). But they give me hope that competence can return to the White House. And maybe remain there no matter which party wins in future elections--or at least as long as principled people demand it.

Sarah Palin's Republican Convention Speech

Just minutes ago, Sarah Palin finished her acceptance speech as John McCain's VP choice on the floor of the Xcel Energy Center in St. Paul, Minnesota. She was poised and forceful; she gave a great delivery. Most of her speech was a recommendation of John McCain for president of the United States, and over and over she invoked the spirit of small-town America. The Republican crowd loved her.

I was not as charmed--but that's because nothing I have read about the woman convinces me that she is ready to lead this country. She continued to repeat the lie that she was against the "bridge to nowhere"--even though there's clear evidence that she was all for the "bridge to nowhere" until public opinion indicated it WASN'T going anywhere with the rest of the country. Of course, she kept the money for other projects in Alaska. I'm guessing that the speech writers are gambling (just as John McCain gambled with his choice of VP) that most citizens will take these claims at face value. But what does this tell us of Sarah Palin? The Republican playbook of the past eight years has been to repeat lies over and over again until they are accepted as truth by too many people. So Sarah Palin is a reformer? So Sarah Palin will stand up to big government, to party insiders? The claims sound great. Now she's on a bigger stage, with more at stake. The actions do not follow.

Clearly, this was the night to go after Barak Obama. Okay--that's politics. But Palin's belittling of Obama's community organizing--community service--seemed particularly partisan and demeaning:

I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities.

The sneering italics around "community organizer" could be heard in her voice. The delegates laughed. Isn't community organizing a good thing, an honorable thing?

Sarah Palin came roaring out of her corner, and the Republican crowd roared back, happy and relieved to see that she can pack a punch. Well, now she's out of her corner and into the public arena. I hope that reporters won't be so intimidated by the McCain campaign's petulance that they fail to investigate as thoroughly as they should the background and ideas of this person who could become the leader of the most powerful nation in the world. I saw Campbell Brown's interview with John McCain's spokesperson, Tucker Bounds, on CNN, and I thought Brown did just what a reporter should do when a political operative tries stonewalling--keep asking the question, keep going for a real answer. The American people deserve real answers; the American people deserve the truth.

Update

Okay, I've now taken a few minutes to read what some of my favorite bloggers/journalists are writing about the speech, and I think James Fallows' analysis is a good one because he discusses some things that had struck me, as well. Now that Sarah Palin has given a biting, sarcastic speech at the convention, the Democrats can take off their gloves, too. And those who call foul because Palin is a woman, shame on them. Also, I'm already tired of the Palin family. Every politician parades his or her family across the stage for the obligatory smiles, but Palin has done so incessantly in a really short time. Some Republicans have been yelling that the Palin family should be off limits to the media, yet they trot out the pregnant daughter and her boyfriend who has promised to marry her, and little Trig has become a particularly important prop.

Oh, and one last thing: Palin's speech went right to the folks there on the floor, but will it resonate with the rest of the country? Will she and John McCain continue the divisiveness of the Bush administration? At this convention, Bush gave a speech, by video link, comparing John McCain's torturers in Hanoi to "angry leftists." Now, that's presidential for you. Palin's speech doesn't promise much more. I was particularly appalled by the following excerpt. I gasped at the sneering reference to the rule of law and human rights. And Palin's appeals to fear certainly don't indicate change:

I've noticed a pattern with our opponent.

Maybe you have, too.

We've all heard his dramatic speeches before devoted followers.

And there is much to like and admire about our opponent.

But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state senate.

This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word "victory" except when he's talking about his own campaign. But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed ... when the roar of the crowd fades away ... when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot - what exactly is our opponent's plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make government bigger ... take more of your money ... give you more orders from Washington ... and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world. America needs more energy ... our opponent is against producing it.

Victory in Iraq is finally in sight ... he wants to forfeit.

Terrorist states are seeking nuclear weapons without delay ... he wants to meet them without preconditions.

Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America ... he's worried that someone won't read them their rights?

More of the Same

In the first year after Baghdad fell to American forces, the American Coalition Provisional Authority set up its offices in Saddam Hussein's Republican Palace. The Bush administration chose young, inexperienced Republicans to put together the shattered Iraqi nation. George Packer describes the group in his book The Assassin's Gate: America in Iraq:

Most of them seemed to be Republicans, and more than a few were party loyalists who had come to Iraq as political appointees on ninety-day tours. They were astonishingly young. Many had never worked abroad, few knew anything about the Middle East, and that first summer only three or four of the Americans spoke Arabic. Some were simply unqualified for their responsibilities. A twenty-five-year-old oversaw the creation of the Baghdad stock market, and another twenty-five-year-old, from the Office of Special Plans, helped write the interim constitution while filling out his law school application. (184)

While these young people were enthusiastic and devoted Republicans, they were unprepared for the seriously important work at hand. They were chosen because they were ideologically correct.

Again and again over the past eight years the Bush administration has put ideology over competence and experience, from the members of the Coalition Provisional Authority to the director of FEMA to the selection of District Attorneys.

In his choice of Sarah Palin as running mate, John McCain is illustrating this same kind of governing. The problem is not particularly with Sarah Palin herself, who may be a wonderful person. The problem is with what her choice tells us about John McCain. All the pundits on television who are heralding this choice as an indication that John McCain is a maverick have blank slates for minds.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Raining on the Democratic Parade

I had such mixed feelings when I learned of the announcement of Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, as McCain's running mate. The country hadn't fully processed the final speech of the Democratic convention when it was awarded with the historical announcement of a woman as vice-president on the Republican ticket. My first thought was that the choice was just too cynical, an attempt to woo all those die-hard Hillary Clinton supporters who don't think the party behind the person is important. And I also thought that the choice was evidently meant to make John McCain look like a maverick again in order to woo independent voters. And, who knows, it might work.

I would have a lot more respect for John McCain's choice of a woman as a running mate if he had chosen someone like Olympia Snowe. In short, my pithy and immediate response is WTF!

Over the past eight years, as I became increasingly angered and saddened by the decisions of the Bush administration, I also became more cynical. I have been worried that I would turn into a misanthrope. I've just been so distressed that too many people don't seem to care about the Bush administration's disregard of our privacy, of our constitution, of our national and democratic values. So we incarcerate people for years without giving them access to a lawyer? So we torture people now? So we eavesdrop on private conversations and troll e-mail and telephone conversations of millions of people? So we let millions of Americans live on the brink of disaster because they don't have access to healthcare? So we abandon a southern city in the middle of a devastating hurricane and then, finally, months and months later provide mobile homes that are health hazards? So we abandon diplomacy, bullying and blustering our way around the world?

Though I want a Democratic president, I would be a less worried citizen if John McCain were really a maverick and were planning to make major changes in the ways this country has been governed in the past eight years. But McCain's campaign choices and rhetoric have echoed that of the Bush administration. Choosing a little known woman as a dark horse running mate does nothing to alleviate my concerns.