This is going to get like Bushisms. But obviously, we've got to stand with our North Korean allies – we're bound to by treaty. —Sarah Palin, qtd. in Adams I mean, yeah, we know, this was just one of those slips. Still, with the media determined to play up a 2012 presidential run, the next couple years of Sarah Palin might well keep the comedians snorting. In the broader view of the Korea issue, though, Richard Adams, of The Guardian's DC bureau, suggests: Aside from the North Korea mistake, Palin's full response to the question was foreign policy boilerplate: stand by South Korea and try to put pressure on China. Hardly maverick stuff – and almost certainly what the White House is already doing.____________________ Notes: Adams, Richard. "Sarah Palin: 'We've got to stand with our North Korean allies'". Richard Adams's Blog. November 24, 2010. Guardian.co.uk. November 25, 2010. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/nov/24/sarah-palin-north-korea-allies See Also: "Palintology". Sciforums.com. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=86108 Note: Let us leave the old thread, from the 2008 campaign, as it is, and begin anew here.
Is this thread an apprpriate place to discuss her new TV show. Yes, I watched it. I also watch Jersey Shore and occasionally the Karsashians and the Girls Next Door. I lump them in a category: "TV Horror Shows" (or "Whore Shows", depending). It's actually amusing, on many levels. Amusing because, well, the Palin family is just funny sometimes; but more often it's amusing because of the show's obvious attempt to let us know the "real" Palin, thus softening the electorate up for her run in '12 (which, I now believe she will do, despite my earlier predictions to the contrary). ~String
Why not? I don't see why not. I will go so far as to say that if Mrs. Palin does, in fact, warrant a presidential run in 2012, then we will have to pause to reconsider news and, ultimately, our political structure itself in the contexts of infotainment and arena sport. Maybe people don't remember the old days when there was the NWA, AWA, and WWF. (Did you know Bob Mould wrote for AWA?) But that's what it reminds me of. Tony Schiavone or "Mean" Gene Okerlund standing by pretending to be shocked as the grudge matches developed. And Sarah Palin reminds me of Jimmy "The Mouth of the South" Hart. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And he even has a video game, sort of: Jimmy Hart, depicted in WWE Legends of Wrestlemania. (via ESPN.com) I'm past loathing her. This whole spectacle is simply appalling and mystifying. I mean, I get the whole "people are fed up" thing, but this is ... well, it is certainly a phenomenon.
Palin, according to the book Game Changer, famously was unable to understand how the Korean peninsula was divided in the first place. She also had no notion of what the Bush doctrine was, though she often said she supported it. Most Americans would struggle with both, but then, most Americans aren't running for president -- and shouldn't.
I remember the "Bush Doctrine" question. In truth, there isn't a specific definition. Is it pre-emtive strikes when the safety of the US is in danger? Or is it some idiotic nonsense about making the world a more democratic place? ~String
Sure there is. And anyone taking an intro-level IA class knows it. So should she. Or at least the people around her should -- and they should tell her. I mean, if she's going to support it, know what the fuck it is...
So, what is it? Is it the pre-emptive strike business? Is it the "you're with us or against us" terrorism business? Is it the goal of spreading democracy to the Islamic world? ~String
National Security Strategy, Sept., 2002 The Bush Doctrine, technically, refers to a National Security Strategy released in 2002. Some critics have asserted that President Clinton rejected virtually the same NSS outlook ten years prior as being barbaric. Some critics have likened the Bush Doctrine to the plan espoused by the now-defunct Project for a New American Century, which would see the United States either creating or seizing thin pretexts for war throughout the middle easy in order to use our military influence to unilaterally democratize or, at the very least, hegemonize the region. Those criticisms focus, I believe, on Paul Wolfowitz, who presented the plan to Clinton in 1992, and spent the next decade fine-tuning it. (Maybe it was Richard Perle.) Other criticisms focus on the appearance of hypocrisy about the plan, as many noticed that the GOP criticized President Clinton for using our military as "the world's policeman", yet that is essentially what the NSS prescribes; also, conservatives asserted to disdain "nation building", yet some saw such endeavors as natural outcomes of the NSS. And, of course, some critics read in its text the suggestion of perpetual war. But it all tracks back to that National Security Strategy offered up in September, 2002. ____________________ Notes: National Security Council. The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. September 20, 2002. GeorgeWBush-WhiteGouse.Archives.gov. November 28, 2010. http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/nsc/nss/2002/index.html
I think if Palin would have been a plain looking women and said non-controversial stuff, media would have dropped her long ago.
And that is the thing. She should not be running for President. Being popular and folksy is not, nor should it be, the only qualification. On the issue with her latest gaffe: And Palin's small but passionate group of supporters will undoubtedly argue that Palin made an honest slip of the tongue, something that could happen to any of us. Her supporters are right. Saying "North" instead of "South" is something that any of us could easily do. But here's the thing: Any of us did not stand up two years ago and claim we were qualified to fill a job that is a heartbeat away from the American presidency. We haven't written books, made speeches, endorsed candidates and spoken to the (mostly right-wing) media as if we were policy experts. And we haven't been scouting office space in Iowa for a 2012 presidential run. In short, more should be expected of Sarah Palin than any of us, based on how she has portrayed herself, and how she is treated by the media. The real story, though, isn't that Palin said "North" instead of "South." Let's be honest: Vice President Joe Biden could have just as easily blown a line like that. No, the real story is that Palin was discussing a complex, precarious, highly dangerous issue as if she were an expert, even though she clearly isn't. Does anyone outside of Palin's relatively small group of smitten followers honestly believe that she is competent to act as an expert on Korean policy? That she knows the intricacies and risks of engaging with the North Koreans? That she understands the possible leadership struggle going on there? Do you think she has the first clue about the history of Korea over the last century? Do you think she's ever heard of Syngman Rhee, the Bodo League massacre, the Battle of Inchon, or National Security Council Report 68, or that she knows about the decades of Japanese rule in Korea? Do you think she's ever read about the role the propaganda efforts of the post-Stalin Soviet government played in the eventual armistice that ended the fighting? --------------------------------------------------- The real damning Palin quote in the Beck interview is the one in which she worries if "the White House is gonna come out with a strong enough policy to sanction what it is that North Korea's gonna do." Putting aside her usual butchering of the English language, she takes a complicated problem facing the United States (and the world) and reduces it to a talking-point political attack on the president. Her comment reveals that she has no understanding that we are dealing with a North Korean leadership that may not be rational and may even be self-destructive. And one with the firepower to kill legions of South Korean civilians. To her simplistic, politics-driven approach, it's only about how the Democratic president isn't tough enough. (As an aside, she is talking about a president who has increased troops in Afghanistan, stepped up drone attacks on the enemy, and taken out more Taliban and al Qaeda leaders than George W. Bush ever did, but I digress... ) She recklessly portrays the North Korea crisis as one that is simple and only requires American strength, when, in reality, it is a difficult-to-solve issue fraught with danger. It is complicated and nuanced, and one wrong move could lead to an attack on Seoul. I wonder if Palin would be so cavalier in her approach if North Korea's missiles could reach Anchorage, Dallas or some other city in Real America? (Source) Her gaffes may be amusing. But the possible consequences of such gaffes are not. We all recognise the dangers of North Korea. Lets face it, the leadership is insane. It's not a matter of how much military might the US and her allies can show to NK. It is the simple fact that acting against NK could result in China becoming involved. And China has a difficult enough time trying to keep NK from reaching the brink of insanity. What would Palin do if she were President? Delicate negotiations or flex military might that could and would result in the deaths of millions of people? Is she capable of understanding why delicate negotiations are necessary and essential in this case? We can all stuff up a line or a name. But when you do that and then show how little you understand the situation, the consequences may be deadly.
Considering the implications, or, at least, the reason why I think that is an important consideration. Part of the problem with Bushisms, or people's general view of George W. Bush was that they often focused on the plot detail of any particular statement instead of the larger themes. I mean, sure, the "can't get fooled" Bushism is hilarious because he wanted so badly to sound all folksy and wise. And the one about how his administration was working hard to hurt the American people was just astounding. But the first real Bushism I remember noticing—I saw it on the news, and then later in the day (or, perhaps, the next day) it hit The Daily Show—was the one about, "Now watch this drive." It was dumb, clumsy, goofy, whatever. But it also reveals, all these years later, something fundamental and observable in Bush's approach to his presidency and the whole War on Terror. Even if we give him as much credit as we can about all the things I might normally complain of Bush, there is still this pervading sensation that he never fully understood the gravity of what he was doing. As a result, he looked graceless, very much the cowboy in an unflattering context; it was like watching a bad movie. And in Mrs. Palin, we see some of the same. For instance, her latest Twitter gaffe: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! (via Slog) Paul Constant, of The Stranger, makes the obvious point: The interesting thing here is the use of the word "treason," which means that either Palin believes that Julian Assange is a U.S. citizen (he's Australian) or that Sweden (where WikiLeaks is hosted) is part of the United States. I mean, sure, the literary critic is the one who's going to make the point about the definition of words, but if nothing else, Palin's tweet reminds us of the whole infotainment phenomenon, as if one can ride to the White House purely on media celebrity. In that context, it doesn't really matter that a word is applied wrongly according to its definition. What really matters is that it's a tough and unforgiving condemnation, and that shows us all how serious she is about—and how hard she will be on—the enemies. Sarah Palin is not alone in this particular manipulation. It is common in politics, sales, and even legal argument. In sales, though, one must tread carefully for fear of fraud charges. In court, one must tread carefully for fear of a contempt finding. But in politics, this sort of thing sells. At least, it does in the United States. ____________________ Notes: Constant, Paul. "Twittering to the White House: Sarah Palin Thinks Sweden Is Part of the United States". Slog. November 29, 2010. Slog.TheStranger.com. November 29, 2010. http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/ar...in-thinks-sweden-is-part-of-the-united-states
Palin isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. Maybe she should visit the Grecians with Bush and then travel the 57 states with Obama to learn more about the world. :shrug:
He just might have that very same outfit... Only his would me made by a tent maker..Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
