jay pettitt on 15/9/2008 at 04:45
Vague thoughts on Palin.
I wouldn't be confident that she is a competent personnel manager. I don't know how much of the stuff in that New York Times article and elsewhere is a fair reflection, but even if only a fraction of it is then she's bad at people management. If it's largely true she is terrible at people management. Employees are an asset, you want to look after them. Wasilla is small; it may be Alaska's third largest city, but in England we call that a large village. It would be worrying to sack/lose so many staff anywhere, to do it in a small, close-knit community is staggering.
After watching her interview with Gibson, her eyes light up and she's bright and animated when she's talking about being a life long member of the NRA and what being a pro-lifer means to her. If those things are a priority to you then I suspect Palin will be pushing your buttons. She's also good when she talks about creating a sports centre while Mayor, but there is a problem there. If I've got this straight the people of Wasilla wanted some community leisure facilities, the City Council had a look and decided it was something they could do; which I think is perfectly acceptable, and a sports complex was built. It's not small government though, it's big government. It increased spending, scope, debt, staff numbers and services by a significant amount. Now, I don't mind that stuff and it sounds as though it's something Palin is proud to have been involved with - but it doesn't fit with the small government mantra and it's a worry that she doesn't seem to get that. In her defence I think the small government mantra is a pretty dumb over simplification - I think government should be the right size and shape for the job in hand. The trouble is that deciding the appropriate size and shape is complex and you need to understand that complexity if you're going to be able make wise size and shape decisions reliably and be able to defend them - I don't think she's twigged that yet. -- edit -- also, the idea that you can rescue the economy and pay for McCain's tax cuts by trimming a bit of waste off Washington expense accounts has got to be, umm, questionable.
That was the good bit. When the conversation moved on to big politics she struggled. Badly. Really badly. There's not really much else I can say about her sort of thinking out loud and making stuff up and trying to sound kinda conservativy about foreign policy and invading countries. Compare that performance with Obama on O'Reilly. If the interview is anything to go by Palin shouldn't be making international policy decisions and I wouldn't want her negotiating on behalf of the US on the international stage.
Things didn't improve much when the conversation went outside. Apparently she had until recently refused to accept the scientific evidence for Global Warming and the case for doing something about it; it would seem she's been told to get on board - but she's hardly strong on the issue. 'It's something we need to do something about' is about as pathetic an answer as it's possible to give. I don't think you can look to Palin to provide leadership on global warming.
Personally I don't think her view on drilling for oil in the ANWR sits credibly with her claim of standing up to the oil companies. There's a lot of oil there in terms of quite a big number of barrels, but it's miniscule in comparison to consumption in the US - drilling in the ANWR will have negligible effect on security of energy supply or the national economy. It's not significant enough to be a crucial or even particularly notable part of energy policy. It may however be profitable (and taxable); especially if the infrastructure (you'd have to build roads and residences for example) is subsidised. It would worry me that Palin refers to a potential drilling site as being only 2000 acres among 20 million without considering the impact of associated access and infrastructure or noting that the wildlife reserve is in fact only 8 million acres of the total ANWR area. I think I'd want the Governor of Alaska to know about that and to be upfront about the whole story rather than just doing the sell by neglecting to mention arguments that don't work so well in favour of drilling. If the response to the Exxon Valdez misshap is anything to go by then I suspect most people in the US probably think that the value of having the ANWR intact as a public good, even if few people actually physically visit it, exceeds it's commercial value.
On the evidence so far I don't think she's president or vice president material (that's not to do her down - but president is just about the biggest job in the country) and I'm very surprised she was picked - but you don't need me to tell you that.
paloalto90 on 15/9/2008 at 14:11
My choice would have been Colin Powell but they don't see eye to eye on Iraq so that would not happen.
BEAR on 15/9/2008 at 14:20
I used to like Powell, but it would be hard after him being in the administration. It might not have been his fault, but he was the one to really sell the war, and I'm not sure I can respect him after that. Maybe he didn't believe in it, but he was the one with the vial of anthrax a tthe security council, coming clean after letting the shit hits the fan is no excuse.
If they had picked Powell (which I'm not at all sure he would have accepted after being fucked like he was), it would have been a criticism magnet (and rightly so), so he was a no-no for several reasons. Apparently they chose right with their real pick, right out of left field but then again, we always seem to over estimate the right.
heywood on 15/9/2008 at 18:16
I think Powell did exactly what he should have. That is, make his case against the war to the President privately and work within the administration to promote a multi-lateral strategy. But when the President makes a decision, it's the responsibility of everybody in the executive branch to follow it. His only real option was to resign prior to the start of the war, but it's likely his resigation would have made the situation worse. His presence in the cabinet provided at least some counter-balance against the DoD and Office of the VP. And he had to try to keep the State Department together while much of the diplomatic corps was in revolt.
It's unfortunate that he had to be the guy to present the intelligence. But that responsibility fell onto his shoulders because he was the one who insisted on working through the UN and building a coalition before going to war. Without him, I think we would have truly gone it alone. If it turned out that he knew the intelligence was wrong at the time, and therefore presented lies to the UN, I would feel differently about him. But based on what I know right now, I think he did what he could given the circumstances.
I don't really know that much about his views on economics and environmental issues, but I pretty much agree with him on everything else. Wish he was interested in politics.
BEAR on 15/9/2008 at 18:50
Yeah, I guess you are right. Regardless I think we can all agree he wouldn't be running. His career is stained, whether he himself did the right thing. I guess the best thing he could have done was to never join the bush administration to being with.
But, say that he refused to go along. Say he resigned in a big stink and made his views known then. It would have been harder at the time, but what might he have gotten done? He was so respected that when he said it, people believed it (not everyone, but a lot of people). That is an abuse of respect to me, and I can't see that he was really doing it for the greater good.
To think that he maybe was the 1 man who might could have stopped it before it began, that's a tough spot to be in and I think he's feeling it.
Starrfall on 15/9/2008 at 19:27
Quote Posted by BEAR
But, say that he refused to go along. Say he resigned in a big stink and made his views known then. It would have been harder at the time, but what might he have gotten done? .
Nothing. The country was still in full on OH GOD AN ATTACK ON AMERICAN SOIL QUICK LETS ABANDON ALL SENSE AND GIVE THIS IDIOT CARTE BLANCHE TO DO WHATEVER HE WANTS mode. I mean the attitude I got from college republicans at the time was "Well we don't know what other evidence they have so we just have to trust the president." I don't think Powell had enough respect to overcome that.
That and has there been one ex-Bush official who's come out against Bush's policies after leaving the administration and who
hasn't been immediately thrown under the bus?
BEAR on 15/9/2008 at 20:12
Maybe. Maybe not. We'll never know, sadly. I would not feel good in his position though.
I think the secretary of state and respected ex-general would be a little harder to step on than your press secretary. It might have broken some people out of their single-minded states, who knows, it might have been just what we needed. Given good fodder to the anti-war members of congress etc. Then again, he might have saved american lives by staying in and doing the best he could, so its probably useless speculation.
demagogue on 15/9/2008 at 20:35
Everything has been pretty well documented at this point, I think. Powell hasn't been particularly silent about his thinking at the time and since, and you can piece together all the personalities and decisions and mistakes if you read around the subject for a while.
One recent point that Powell made that I found sly.
Those irrational neocons never missed a chance to attack his decision in the first Gulf War, "why didn't you go into Baghdad and take out Saddam in '91?", and every time he'd give the same defense: It would just leave a power vacuum and throw the country into anarchy. And of course they never believed him and always ridiculed the idea.
And of course he gave the same argument to Cheney not to invade Baghdad this time, as well. But he said, after all the chaos of the last few years, one thing happened. Since 2003 nobody asks me why we didn't take out Saddam in '91 anymore. They're silent.
You don't reason with these irrational types; the best you can hope for is reducing them to silence.
Thief13x on 15/9/2008 at 20:55
Quote Posted by BEAR
Too bad he's not done that.
Quote:
So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
Whatever you call "That"... it's about as good as anything else that comes from the slums of Chicago... since we're in the mood here Barack
Starrfall on 15/9/2008 at 21:53
Chiming in to say I love that quote and think it's an accurate summary of a phenomenon of american politics!
The problem is that you want to take offense to it so you're making it personal. But for example you could say the same sort of thing about liberals whose knee-jerk reaction to gun crime is to clamor for universal gun bans or whatever. Don't you think it's just as applicable to the left?
edit: or the automatic "no nuclear power" thing
