Round One, I think, went to Obama, in what was decidedly his least favorable debate topic. By all rights, McCain should have wiped the floor with him on foreign policy and national security -- but anyone who watched has to admit, at the very least, that the junior senator held his own against his white-haired adversary. Of course, we all hear what we want to hear in this sort of thing, but I feel McCain lost his last opportunity to paint Obama as unprepared for the presidency. Despite his repeated reminders that he's been around for a while and his insistence that Obama "doesn't understand," it seemed clear that Obama could match him on foreign policy knowledge and understanding. What he lacks in years of experience, he seems to have compensated for in education and vision -- neither seemed less equipped than the other for the Oval Office, which I count as a sharp defeat for McCain's campaign.
It also seemed clear that McCain is a man with a record but without a plan. When Obama answered the lead questions, I felt I had a strong sense of what he was saying and what he was about. As for McCain, if questions about the future weren't answered entirely by exaggerated reference to his past, they were at least deeply prefaced by them, to the point where viewers might have walked away with only two pieces of information: that McCain was no Miss Congeniality, and that he racked up a lot of frequent flier miles. My mother is reading this thinking, what's wrong with that? We have no respect for age or experience in this country! Unfortunately, I think experience alone just isn't enough, and McCain lacks what is among the most vital characteristics of strong leadership: vision. We saw nothing of his vision in the debate, and that's cause for concern, particularly in a man running on a hijacked platform of reform.
I'll give McCain credit, though: it did take him a full 42 minutes to call himself a maverick, so that was refreshing.
I was also surprised at McCain's overall tone and demeanor. Nothing about him suggested "reach across the aisle" when he couldn't even bring himself to look across the podium. Oh well. Just over a month until we see how this all plays out. In the meantime, I'll content myself with watching the polls -- and, of course, the vice presidential throw-down this Thursday.
(And the SNL skit that's almost sure to be born of it.)
COURIC: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?
PALIN:
That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign
country, Russia, and on our other side, the land -- boundary that we
have with -- Canada. It -- it's funny that a comment like that was -- kind
of made to -- cari -- I don't know, you know? Reporters --
COURIC: Mock?
PALIN: Yeah, mocked, I guess that's the word, yeah.
COURIC: Explain to me why that enhances your foreign policy credentials.
PALIN:
Well, it certainly does because our -- our next door neighbors are
foreign countries. They're in the state that I am the executive of. And
there in Russia --
COURIC: Have you ever been involved with any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?
PALIN:
We have trade missions back and forth. We -- we do -- it's very important
when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin
rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of
America, where-- where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over
the border. It is -- from Alaska that we send those out to make sure
that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because
they are right there. They are right next to -- to our state.
THE MORE I LISTEN TO AND READ ABOUT “the
most liberal member of the U.S. Senate,” the more I like him. Barack
Obama strikes a chord with me like no political figure since Ronald
Reagan. To explain why, I need to explain why I am a conservative and
what it means to me.
In 1964, at the age of 16, I organized the Dallas County Youth for
Goldwater. My senior thesis at the University of Texas was on the
conservative intellectual revival in America. Twenty years later, I was
invited by William F. Buckley Jr. to join the board of National Review. I later became its publisher.
Conservatism to me is less a political philosophy than a stance, a
recognition of the fallibility of man and of man’s institutions.
Conservatives respect the past not for its antiquity but because it
represents, as G.K. Chesterton said, the democracy of the dead; it
gives the benefit of the doubt to customs and laws tried and tested in
the crucible of time. Conservatives are skeptical of abstract theories
and utopian schemes, doubtful that government is wiser than its
citizens, and always ready to test any political program against actual
results.
Recent Comments