Yesterday my friend David Brooks wrote a more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger op-ed for The New York Times explaining why, in his view, Sarah Palin is not qualified to be Vice-President. It comes down, he said, to “experience,” which he says she lacks.
As it happens, though, I chanced to stumble upon the uncensored version of David’s column. The beginning was garbled. But the ending was legible. This is what I found:
Barack Obama has many virtues. If you wanted someone to be a community organizer, he’d be your man. But the constructive act of governance is another matter. He has not been engaged in national issues, does not have a repertoire of historic patterns and, like President Bush, he seems to compensate for her lack of experience with brashness.
The idea that “the people” will take on and destroy “the establishment” is a utopian fantasy that corrupted the left before it corrupted the right. Surely the response to the current crisis of authority is not to throw away standards of experience and prudence, but to select leaders who have those qualities but not the smug condescension that has so marked the reaction to the Obama nomination in the first place.
I know that David’s copy got changed before it actually appeared in the Times. I have to say I prefer his original version. Why? Partly because I agree with him that experience matters–it’s not the only important thing, but it is one important thing. Leave aside for a moment the most serious questions about Obama: 1) the question of who he really and where his true allegiance lies, and 2) what he and his team would do to the country’s economy, civil liberties, and standing in the world–leave aside those momentous issues for a moment and just consider his stunning lack of experience. It’s not only that he is a first term Senator, it is also that he is a first-term Senator who has been ostentatiously hors de combat when it came to voting.
Joe Biden was correct when he said that the Presidency no place for “on-the-job training.” I for one am glad that John McCain brings a wealth of experience to the top of his ticket and that Sarah Palin brings her experience running a town and a state to her place on the ticket. Of course, character and talent are also important, and I am also glad that McCain and Palin exhibit such conspicuous probity and political talent. (Even Maureen Dowd, deep down, would have to admit that Sarah Palin is a talented politician: anyone who watched her convention speech would have to admit that.) Add to that the McCain platform on issues from taxes to foreign policy and you can see why David’s unexpurgated column was so skeptical about Barack Obama.
And people say that it is almost impossible for someone of conservative principles to work for the Times and emerge with his principle intact. Pshaw!
I read a version of Brooks’ column this morning in the Columbus Dispatch. Garbled wouldn’t describe it. If the presidency of G.W. Bush proved anything, it wouldn’t be that inexperience is risky, because G.W. Bush did not go into the White House from a log house.
The column’s focus on Palin was really inexcusable, since any argument against inexperience would also apply to Obama, and more urgently, since he and not Palin is actually running for president. I had to think Brooks’ column was a set-up for another column about Obama. But maybe I’m giving Brooks too much credit.
The “experience” issue is actually a red herring. What Palin has that Obama doesn’t is *maturity*. Experience can develop maturity but it isn’t essential, and sometimes–as in the case of Joe Biden–immaturity runs so deep that aging and experience have little effect on it.
a Freudian Slip? — “[Obama] seems to compensate for her [sic] lack of experience with brashness.”
I´m not the first to say this, but experience should really be defined in terms of achievements, not time served.
Sarah Palin set herself hard and risky political goals. She succeeded, on her own, against strong opposition from the corrupt powers that be. That´s achievement.
I have yet to come across anyone who can tell me what Barack Obama has done with his time, except steer money towards his cronies. Sorry, but it is what it is.
What Sarah Palin has is Spiritual Maturity.
John McCain is, of course, the Right Choice, but he lacks the Spiritual Maturity of Sarah Palin.
John McCain believes in the Noble Lie, which is a good thing. That’s why he embraced Pastor Hagee. But that’s probably the only reason he embraced the Good Pastor. Sadly, John McCain blinked when the Godless media heaped scorn upon the Innocent Hagee.
But Sarah has Spritual Maturity, and is a True Believer in God’s Plan! She knows that global warming is a hoax created by the Godless Left to weaken our economy. Like Pastor Hagee, she knows the Glory of God’s Plan.
Yes, the End of Days, even if it comes in the form of a nuclear conflagration, will not lead to the end of the world, but rather to God’s renewal of the Garden of Eden!
This is the Vision of all True Christian Warriors.
John McCain said “I am proud to have Pastor Hagee’s support.” But he blinked. Let us pray that with Sarah at his side, as guide and support, he will never blink in the face of Evil again!
John McCain was shot down in Vietnam and tortured by Godless Communists. He wasn’t given a fair trial by those unspeakable heathens. Sarah Palin has the Courage to stand up and do the same to Muslim terrorists! “Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America. . .[Obama's] worried that someone won’t read them their rights?” An Eye for an Eye!
Sarah Palin will bring God the Creator back into our schools! With a McCain/Palin Presidency we can even look forward (praise God) to the day when there will be no “public” (i.e. Communist) schools — only Christian schools producing Soldiers for Christ!
WE are the Party of Change!
“The column’s focus on Palin was really inexcusable, since any argument against inexperience would also apply to Obama, and more urgently, since he and not Palin is actually running for president.”
Yes; too many intelligent people on the Left have been dismissing the fact that Obama is at the top of his ticket – not Palin. This is intellectual dishonesty, not an innocent oversight. They spend a lot of time speculating about a HYPOTHETICAL (whether or not McCain will die in office) and fail to address a CERTAINTY (that if Obama wins an inexperienced candidate will be at the helm from day one). Even assuming for the sake of argument that something happens to McCain, how do they know it will be immediately after the election? If McCain is unable to serve out his term(s) Palin could simply select a more experienced vice president to play the role of an “experienced elder”, much as Obama has done with Biden. Not that Biden’s counsel can be considered wise, but you get the point.