Sarah Palin’s National Security Experience: Gutting Fish?
I noted below that Sarah Palin is, inexplicably, the top choice for 2012 among Republicans who say their top concern is national security. Conservative blogger Michael Goldfarb takes a stab at explaining why:
In a perfect world national security conservatives would probably choose Cheney as the 2012 nominee, but he wasn’t on the Rasmussen list, and folks shouldn’t be terribly surprised that Palin comes out on top in this breakdown. Mitt did wave the white flag on Iraq, and Huckabee isn’t exactly a foreign policy titan. National security conservatives mostly went with McCain in ‘08, and Romney will have to court them aggressively (which to his credit, he is doing) if he wants to gain their support for a run in 2012.
Maybe, but I think commenter Kathleen Hussein in Maine hits closer to the mark: “She’s a take-no-prisoners type who knows how to shoot wolves and gut fish, so why not national security?”
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
And most recently, don’t forget, she was spying on Obama at the Kremlin from her driveway.
what is the point? what is Obama’s experience? Joe’s been wrong about everything he’s ever bloviated about.
She’s governor of a very large, sparsely populated state. They’re strange – that’s why they live in Alaska.
No coverage of gitmo? Evidently ‘due-process” is just campaign rhetoric. No coverage of the big Russia trip?
Did you catch Jon Stewart mocking the stimulus? Or lack there of? – you lose Stewy.. you may have a problem.
uuummmm…Greg you mention nothing about moose hunting. You ever tried to track and kill a moose? Rest my case.
Talk about a double standard. Why does everyone focus so heavily on the foreign policy and national defense experience of the person in the #2 slot for the republicans while ignoring the complete lack of foreign policy, national defense or executive experience of the #1 democrat. If someone can honestly answer that question I’d be shocked.
I just came home from driving teenagers on errands. Color me blushing.
If the Era of Obama has taught us anything, it’s that the blatant lack of real-world experience in foreign policy or national security issues is irrelevant in becoming president.
Given a choice between two candidates without deep foreign policy experience, being A. a brilliant, thoughtful, well-read, well-educated zen master and B. a charismatic, reactionary, no-nothing, lying quitter, I’ll take A.
Go ahead and project sanity, wisdom and expertise on Palin’s comely figure. There’s no there there.
Stop obsessing about Palin. There are much more important things to worry about – like the administration wanting to keep some Guantanamo prisoners locked up EVEN IF THEY ARE ACQUITTED. Glen Greenwald at Salon.com is covering this story,but few others seem concerned. Sounds like Soviet-style show trials to me.
Kathleen, the choice isn’t quite correct. I know what you’re getting at and completely agree, but you’re leaving McCain out of the picture altogether.
I think the logical response to that is going to mention “Bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb, bomb Iran.”, but there are other ways to go about it, too.
For me, that McCain selected Palin as his VP was a disqualifier all by itself.
oddjob, absolutely. but somehow barack vs. sarah became the comparison last year, because they were the ones who stirred people. Somebody here yesterday mentioned (maybe Tena?) that McCain should be run out of town in disgrace for choosing Palin. How is it that McNamara was shamed, but Kissinger rides high, as does Cheney, as does McCain?
Meanwhile, the righteous right wingers create Sarah in their own image. Defender of life, liberty and special needs children. A hottie Margaret Thatcher in waders. With the out of the wilderness honesty of Abe Lincoln and the plainspokenness of Harry Truman. All that makes her qualified to run the country, correct? The myth-making is fascinating.
I think “national security” in the circles she frequents translates into (white) Christian Dominionism or more simply what used to be called crusading.
If there is a candidate most likely to approve of killing the others and letting God sort them out, I would guess it is her.
Romney has been talking the talk (e.g. double Gitmo!), but he doesn’t understand that in the Crusading world of foriegn policy, Mormons fall somewhere between Muslims and Cathars in the firing line.
I agree with flounder – the people who like Sarah and think she’s the perfect choice for a leader are the Dominionists and when they talk about national security, they don’t mean the same thing that normal, sane people mean.
But the real story here, Greg, is the shift to the Democrats on National Security. Man, that was the Repugs Ace in the Hole for years and years and years and George W killed it – he pulled 6 aces out in one hand and people finally got it.
@Kevin: No double standard. I freely admit Pres. Obama didn’t have a long list of foreign policy credentials on his resume. The difference between the two was that during the campaign, he actually showed an ability to grasp the subject and articulate a coherent line of thought about why he would or wouldn’t do thing as regards to foreign policy. Palin couldn’t – she showed absolutely ZERO aptitude for the subject. There’s no double standard at play on this issue. They both had to prove they knew what they were talking about…Pres. Obama obviously did, and Palin obviously did not (at least to most people).
@John G: I agree. In fact, if you’ve noticed…the last several Presidents were people who didn’t serve and were elected over those that did. Clinton over Bush HW, Bush over Kerry, and now Obama over McCain. But that’s an entirely different debate to be having.
@GregS: The reason she scores high is simple – and it’s basically the comment you posted. I’d boil it down simpler than that: Swagger. It’s a different form of swagger than Bush’s “American Cowboy”…instead it’s an “Alaskan Outdoorsman/Hunter”. Either way, it shows this sort of puffed up machoism that’s like catnip for Republicans on National Security issues.
@BernieO: What happened to “Change you can believe in”? How can this be happening?
That take-no-prisoners phrase is what got us into the messes we are in.
1: security; 2: frayed international alliances; 3: Iraq