Palin's Foreign Policy: "No issue stance yet recorded"

By Cernig

Andrew Sullivan has this snippet:

An Ambers reader writes:

I thought you might like to know that under the heading of "Sarah Palin on Foreign Policy" at the On The Issues site for her, this is what's listed:

"No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org."

Sully is right about this - it's inconceivable for McCain to pick Palin and actually mean what he keeps saying about America being at war and he takes it more seriously than Obama does. This really does reveal all of the GOP's fearmongering for what it is - a cynical attempt to scare voters.

The first criterion for a veep - and I'm simply repeating a truism here - is that they are ready to take over at a moment's notice. That's especially true when you have a candidate as old as McCain. That's more than especially true when we are at war, in an era of astonishingly difficult challenges, when the next president could be grappling with war in the Middle East or a catastrophic terror attack at home. Under those circumstances, we could have a former Miss Alaska with two terms years under her belt as governor. Now compare McCain's pick with Obama's: a man with solid foreign policy experience, six terms in Washington and real relationships with leaders across the globe.

Palin as CinC? That's almost scarier than McCain as CinC. Almost.

Update: Via Kyle, comes the news that "Fox News’ Steve Doocey’s endorsement of Sarah Palin’s foreign policy bona fides stems from the fact that she’s the governor of Alaska, which, you know, is right next to Russia." That's really grasping at straws.

And Jon Soltz of VoteVets writes:

... over the course of the last few years, and the last year-and-a-half in particular, I've been able to soundly judge Senator Obama, and watch him grow into a readied potential Commander in Chief. In the Senate, serving on the Foreign Affairs committee, he's tackled some of the major issues of our time, asking probing and highly informed questions of military leaders and diplomatic leaders.

I've been able to watch his thought process in action, and have seen him been proven right on Iraq, right on Afghanistan, right on talking to Iran, and right on the war on terror. He's shown an incredible ability to think in much larger strategic terms than this president, to the point that I'm supremely confident he is ready to lead our Armed Forces.

Sarah Palin? God only knows.

I've never heard her even address any of those issues, or the veterans issues like the GI Bill, VA Funding, and care for those vets with PTSD, or those who are homeless. Senator Obama has shown an acute understanding of and deep record on each of those issues - cosponsoring the GI Bill, always supporting greater VA funding, backing the Webb-Hagel Dwell Time Amendment (unlike McCain) and writing the Homes for Our Heroes Act, which would take on veterans homelessness.

I have to assume with no real history of judgment of her own on war, Palin will back John McCain's dismal judgment on military and veterans matters - endless war in Iraq, inability or unwillingness to get Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, opposing education benefits and greater VA funding, continued overextension of our military, and a shoot-first/think-later mentality.

Maybe Palin could one day be someone who has the judgment and experience that would make me feel comfortable with her leading our Armed Forces. But not now.

Indeed.

Comments

[geoff]

I think she maybe a bit of "nut" Cernig, least from my point of view. Via http://www.desmogblog.com/:

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/08/mccains-vp-want.html

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/sarah_palin_vp/2008/08/29/126139.html

[sfHeath]

From McCain's website:

"... as the mother of a soldier herself, Governor Palin understands what it takes to lead our nation and she understands the importance of supporting our troops."

Doesn't that mean that Cindy Sheehan would have been just as good a pick? Actually, even better, because Gov. Palin's son hasn't had a tour of duty yet?

[Kyle E. Moore]

Dude...

You totally got it wrong. She has tons of foreign policy experience because she lives next to RUSSIA!

http://commentsfromleftfield.com/2008/08/like-a-good-neighbor

[sfHeath]

Oh, I forgot. She's the commander-in-chief of the Alaska National Guard. And that's relevant, since Alaska has successfully invaded 12 countries and quelled all those nasty insurrections in the last year-and-a-half.

Oh, wait...

[Obama's Foreign Policy Stance]

<>..]The most striking thing about the Democratic tradition is that it presided over the beginnings of the three great conflicts that defined the 20th century: Woodrow Wilson and World War I, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and World War II, and Harry S. Truman and the Cold War. (At this level of analysis, we will treat the episodes of the Cold War such as Korea, Vietnam or Grenada as simply subsets of one conflict.) This is most emphatically not to say that had Republicans won the presidency in 1916, 1940 or 1948, U.S. involvement in those wars could have been avoided.<>..]