Thursday, September 11, 2008

Fair Questions

Here's a simple test: Read these 20 reasonable questions that the press would like to ask potential President Sarah Palin. Ask yourself if she has the knowledge and wisdom to actually be able to answer them. Ask yourself if you want this woman as president of your country. Ask yourself if you want this woman thrown into a face-to-face situation with a hostile, cunning or lubricious world leader.

  1. In a broad and long-term sense, would you have responded differently to the attacks of 9/11?
  2. Is Iraq a democracy?
  3. What’s the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite?
  4. What is your preferred plan for peace between Israel and Palestine? A two state solution? What about Jerusalem?
  5. How do you feel about French President Nicolas Sarkozy's recent visit to Syria? Do you believe the United States should negotiate with leaders like President Bashar al-Assad?
  6. Nearly 40 percent of the world's population lives in China and India. Who are those countries' leaders?
  7. Do you support the U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Agreement, which would lift restrictions on sales of nuclear technology and fuel to India, a country which hasn’t signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty?
  8. Other than more drilling, what steps do you suggest the U.S. take in order to move toward energy independence? Do you believe more investment is needed in alternative energy research? If so, how would you recommend this funding be allocated?
  9. How would you balance concerns over human rights and freedom in China with the United States' growing economic interdependence with that country?
  10. What's more important: securing Russia's cooperation on nuclear proliferation and Iran, or supporting Georgia's NATO bid? If Vladimir Putin called you on the phone and said, "It's one or the other," what would you tell him?
  11. Critique the foreign policy of the last administration. Name its single greatest success, and its most critical failure.
  12. What do you think will be the most defining foreign-policy issue in the next five years?
  13. What role should the United States play in the global effort to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS? Should it support contraception, or abstinence only?
  14. You've said that the federal government spends too much money. What, in your view, is the appropriate level of spending as a percentage of GDP?
  15. You're an advocate of reducing environmental restrictions on drilling. How much oil needs to be found in the United States before the country achieves energy independence?
  16. What are your picks for the three most enlightening books written on foreign policy in the last five years?
  17. Who among the world's leaders can be listed as the top three friends of the United States and why?
  18. In your opinion, which U.S. president was the most successful world leader and why?
  19. Which U.S. political thinkers, writers, and politicians would you enlist to advise you on matters of foreign policy and why?
  20. Who is the first world leader you'd like to meet with and why?
Ask yourself honestly if you think Joe Biden or Barack Obama (or John McCain) haven't spent a fair portion of their years pondering these questions (and many others) and how to answer them. Ask yourself if you believe Sarah Palin has. It's a fair question.

By the way: It looks like Charlie Gibson, being the first to interview Sarah Palin, may not be tossing her the softball biopic questions that everybody thought he would. Check out this video teaser of the interview. Two questions: First, what does she think of the Bush Doctrine (which gives America the right of anticipatory self defense)? (Summary of the answer: She has no idea what it is, and grasps about in vague generalities until Mr. Gibson pushes her in the right direction.) Second, does she support unilateral American sorties into Waziristan without Pakistani permission or support? (Summary of the answer: She uses general campaign talking points and sound bites in vague generalities that could be used to answer any question regarding specifities and tactics of the war on terror in any country anywhere on the planet.)

7 comments:

Chief said...

Jil

Don't know if I would consider all those questions "fair" but I would like to hear her answers on many of them. Palin has stated she is ready to be the VP and if necessary to step up and run the country. IMO that is not a job you can grow into or learn on the fly....you have to be prepared to led our nation on day one. I personally think Palin is a lightweight and it makes me nervous to think she could be that close to the Presidency. With a 72 year old McCain it is conceivable that at some point she could be thrust into the west wing - god help us if she is not prepared.

But to be fair Obama worries me also. I think he is a lightweight with foreign policy. You seem to believe he has spent a lot of time contemplating all these events and what he would do when he is leading this nation. But I believe his foreign policy experience is as sparse as Palin's. Well, he did do that whirlwind tour of Europe few months ago. But he was treated more like a rock star then politician on that trip. I will admit I think Obama has a good grasp/plan for many domestic issues...I particularly like what he is saying about energy and how we as a nation need to go forward.

"Ask yourself honestly if you think Joe Biden or Barack Obama (or John McCain) haven't spent a fair portion of their years pondering these questions (and many others) and how to answer them. Ask yourself if you believe Sarah Palin has. It's a fair question."

Why, in your analysis/question, do you include Obama with Biden and McCain? The two heavy weights (for foreign Policy) are obviously Biden and McCain (Biden with over 30 years and McCain with 25 years in congress). The two lightweights for foreign policy are Palin and Obama (I already stated Obama's domestic agenda sounds solid and I would count him as a heavyweight on that front).

You are right…these are fair questions (for the most part), but only if asked to all of them. First, Obama and McCain (since they are on the top of the ticket) and then Palin and Biden.

But another important issue that should be addressed is the fact that no man (or woman) can be an expert in all areas…therefore the President has advisors to assist him (or her). I would like to hear who Obama and McCain will use as their advisors. That is wear Bush really f*&^ed up….with the people who he surrounded himself with. Lets hope the next President does not make that same mistake.


Chief

Jil Wrinkle said...

Well, to answer your first question, I think that Obama has spent what time he has been in the Senate focused on lots of issues. He obviously has done work on nuclear proliferation, AIDS and The Congo as a Senator. I'm sure that most other issues that the Senate took up for debate he probably was at least briefed on.

Additionally I would imagine that one doesn't make it as far as editor of the Harvard Law Review without having more than a passing familiarity with most of the issues mentioned.

As for your second question regarding advisors: That's easy. Obviously, in times of crisis and the need for expert advice in a pinch, President Obama is going to be turning to Joe Biden. President McCain, apparently, is going to be turning to Sarah Palin.

Steve Loeding said...

I don't know if Obama could answer all 20 questions either - let's be fair - give all 4 the questions and see what their answers are. I realize you lean Liberal and are in Obama's corner, but in my opinion, McCain and Biden would easily answer most of the questions and defer the ones they could not. However, Biden is not running for president and most likely will not be president in the next 4 years. I think that good leaders surround themselves with good people - so I'd also like to see who these guys would pick in their cabinet, etc

Jil Wrinkle said...

Ding: I'm hardly a liberal. When it was just McCain running on the Republican ticket, I wouldn't really have complained for too long if he had won, as long as he didn't start any more wars and ends the ones we are in. I support Obama because I believe that his rock star image would "sell more records" around the world... get the world back to liking America again, which is good for the American economy. Yes: Obama is more likely to bring peace where John McCain would bring war (Russia and Iran both now, based on recent comments). Obama's more stringent focus on peace compared to McCain is part and parcel to the "liking America" plank that I'm focused on.

Both candidates would do great on the environment, and I think McCain will be a proper conservative when it comes to domestic issues without being a Jesus Freak when it comes to moral and social issues (unless he listens to Sarah Palin). While Obama will be totally liberal in his plans, both candidates are liberal when it comes to handling government debt. I don't pay taxes, so I could care less about either of their tax plans.

However, when McCain selected Sarah Palin, who is nothing more than a blatant attempt to get the anti-abortion and anti-environment and anti-everything portion of the Republican party excited about this election... without a single thought on the possibility that this lady — who measures her political experience in months the way John McCain measures his in years — could actually become President of the United States next year... he lost my respect as a politician, and he lost any support I would have given him if he were elected President.

It's not a matter of whether the other 3 executive candidates could or could not answer the foreign policy questions that this post covers (although I believe they can); it is that Sarah Palin certainly could not answer a good portion of them, and (I believe) lacks the requisite intelligence and, quite simply, the haecceity (other than making the Religious Right swoon) for being President of America.

We had 8 years of one of the least intelligent men ever to occupy the White House in George Bush. However, I don't think anyone would argue the fact that Sarah Palin is a fair amount less intelligent than he... and a Fundie inter alia. (Ding, you talk about how "good leaders surround themselves with good people". What kind of religious nutjobs do you think President Palin is going to surround herself with? Can you say Armegeddon?)

I'm 100% against John McCain now because his first executive decision as President of America is to risk the country's future and leaderhip package on this comparatively average, and yet wholly dangerous woman.

Chief said...

Jil

I agree with you that McCain's decision to pick Palin was a totally political choice and he is risking allot by putting her on his ticket...if she does someday become President. As long as McCain was healthy I can only believe that in his administration although she would be in the crisis room…she would be sitting at the children’s table (with no talking privileges) and the adults (cabinet advisors) would be at the adult table. But with McCain so old….she could be thrust into a position that she is neither qualified nor capable of performing. But, even I have to admit some of your comments are so over the top I can understand why Ding was calling you out as a liberal.

"However, I don't think anyone would argue the fact that Sarah Palin is a fair amount less intelligent than he (Bush)"

"What kind of religious nutjobs do you think President Palin is going to surround herself with? Can you say Armegeddon?)"

Although you may be right on those comments...I have not seen or heard enough from Palin to determine any of that...and I think most fair people would agree with me.

"he lost my respect as a politician,"

Good, I'm glad. Now if I could just get you to see that the Democrats are no better and to used that sharp, critical mind of yours on seeing Repubs and Dems for what they are worth...nothing. We need a total shake up of elected officials...that means finding Independents and third party candidates to send to congress.
For to long we have allowed the Democrats/Republicans (with the full support of the lap-dog main stream media) claim we have a two party system. We do not. There are other candidates out there...we need to find them and support them. Until we do that it makes no difference. Oh....I already now that will not happen...yes, I am dreaming.

Maybe I am missing something but I think Obama does not sound like the Peacenik you claim. He wants us to go into Afghanistan with more troops and his phased withdrawal of Iraq plan....I assure you will get longer and longer. I have been to Iraq several times we did not build up temporary bases there...the bases are permanent. I believe after 8 years of Obama we will still be in Iraq (not at the same troop levels though) and Afghanistan.

"Fundie inter alia"
"haecceity"

LOL, an impressive use of Latin and the English language...you even used them properly.

Chief

Jil Wrinkle said...

Chief,

I'll just address your desire for me to be "seeing the Repubs and Dems for what they are worth...nothing."

The first candidate I supported was Ron Paul, who was as close to a genuine third-party candidate as we got this election. You certainly won't find me voting for Bob Barr simply because he wants legal marijuana, or the rather spastic and laughable McKinney. (And excuse my paraleipsis, but I won't even mention Nader.)

So yes, while there are third party candidates, none of them (this time around, especially) has anything remotely described as "a winning combination" of platform and personality. That having been said, those who represent third parties are always the first candidates I consider, always hoping and always waiting.

Issarat said...

I agree with Jil; the bottom line is Palin is a weak choice for VP and seems to just cater to the female (bitter) voter pool.
The 'opressed' US females will choose anyone that is not male to sit in that seat, just to prove a point.
A MAYOR from Alaska on the world stage? joke.
Although, what experience did that lady from England have years back? I wonder how Palin and her would compare?