Tale o' the Twister

I'd start out by saying that Robyn "Blumñata" Blumner continues to disgrace the editorial chair at The St. Petersburg Times, only there seems little indication that the Times regards fact-twisting leftist diatribes as anything other than exactly what it expects from its editorial staff.

We join Blumner on the springboard as she prepares to perform a triple-twist dive into the tank for the Democratic Party:

Women will decide this presidential election — so say the political experts. We vote in greater numbers than men and when we even marginally abandon our Democratic-leanings, Republicans win.

The big question is whether Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's two X chromosomes and morning-anchor mien will be the thing that drives women to the McCain-Palin ticket this November.

If women decide elections then the question really ought to be why Republicans win so many of them. That perspective would give us a rational basis for concluding what type of appeal would make Palin a difference maker in the 2008 election.

But those would be rational thoughts. Blumner is in her customary polemic mode where rational thought appears to routinely give way to political spin geared toward exalting Blumñata's herd of sacred cows. So let's just follow the spin and calculate the twists and turns.

In Palin's now well-dissected interview with Charlie Gibson of ABC News, her answers were shallow and at times barely cogent. On Iran's nuclear ambitions, Palin said three times that she wouldn't "second-guess" Israel if it attacks Iran to eliminate its nuclear facilities.

This editorial tornado overlooks the fact that Palin's answers represent wise diplomacy. Palin would be stupid to pre-judge an action by U.S.-friendly Israel against U.N.-flauting Iran. The contrast with foreign policy neophyte Obama is instructive. Obama answers questions from journalists with foreign policy specifics when he should offer something non-committal.

Two examples suffice.

When asked if he would meet with hostile foreign leaders like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez without preconditions, Obama answered that he would. In relatively short order, Obama backtracked to the point that "preconditions" was redefined to apparently mean nothing at all; Obama would only meet without preconditions if certain preparations had occurred--preparations that appear to amount to preconditions. That makes Obama's statement idiotic, and odds are that you will never hear Blumner acknowledge it if she had 3 billion years.

Second, during a time in the campaign when Obama felt the need to appear strong on pursuing terrorists, the artful Obama blurted out that he would violate Pakistan's sovereignty if Pakistan failed to move against known high-value terrorist targets. That statement helped result in a diplomatic dust-up with Pakistan, and Obama was portrayed in the Pakistani press as advocating an invasion of Pakistan if their government did not dance according to Washington's tug on its strings. Obama damaged U.S. relations with Pakistan with his comment.

Sarah Palin's performance with the press has been superior to Obama's with respect to foreign policy. She knows when to wisely keep her mouth shut, though it took Charlie Gibson three clues to take the hint.

If Blumner realizes the importance of guarded language with respect to the actions of international friendships, she sells out that knowledge for the sake of her political spin:

This is probably the most significant national security issue the next administration will face, yet her answer was devoid of the slightest depth.

For real depth, I suppose you need to obtain Obama's position:

"He has advocated tough, direct engagement, backed by stronger sanctions to pressure Iran. And, he has made it perfectly clear that Teheran should not wait for a new administration to reach agreement to end its program," she said.

Wow. Deep. And just look at the nuance!

Obama's statements, in actuality, paint a picture not unlike that of Palin. Both refrained from prejudging Israel's actions and both implied a firm stance against Iran's possession of nuclear weapons.

But the question of Israel's response to Iranian nukes was not Blumner's only problem with Palin:

On our sputtering economy and how she would diverge from President Bush's economic policies, she said: "We have got to make sure that we reform the oversight also of the agencies, including the quasi-government agencies like Freddie and Fannie, those things that have created an atmosphere here in America where people are fearful of losing their homes."

Huh?

If she wanted to discuss the foreclosure crisis, Palin could have talked about an end to predatory lending practices or the need to assert regulatory authority over the investment banking sector.

Uh, Ms. Blumner, hasn't Bush already proposed those things? And aren't they just as platitudinous as what Palin mentioned?

As for the economy, the question Gibson asked Palin included a questionable and needless premise. That is, the implied notion that Bush policies in particular are responsible for economic problems currently facing the nation. Palin was asked to distinguish the McCain-Palin approach from the Bush approach. Gibson should simply have asked how McCain and Palin would address economic problems. Gibson's question implied interviewer bias. Palin's response, I think, properly ignored the questionable premise and addressed the question that Gibson ought to have posed.

Was Palin's response light on detail? Certainly. That is normal in politics, and Obama is second to none in using platitudes to represent his agenda.

Another complaint from Blumñata:

On Iraq, Palin has conflated what happened on 9/11 with going to war there. Is she really still confused about this?

Blumner is the one manifesting confusion (charitably supposing that Blumñata is not willingly telling a lie).

Though Blumner offered no specifics, she most likely wrote in reference to a Palin speech reviewed by Anne E. Kornblut for the Washington Post:

FORT WAINWRIGHT, Alaska, Sept. 11 -- Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans."

Kornblut's story is a bad enough example of journalism, as exposed by Bill Kristol among others.

Palin was entirely justified in linking Al Qaeda Iraq with the Al Qaeda that planned the airliner attacks on 9-11. American troops defend Iraqis from terrorists under the same organizational umbrella.

Kornblut's reporting was a disgrace, but Blumner adds an extra twist by implying that Palin said the reason to go to war in Iraq in the first place was to combat the same terrorists who were responsible for the 9-11 attacks. That is hogwash. Palin was saying that the reason for troops to continue to serve in Iraq was to defend Iraqis from the same terrorist group.

Have I already mentioned that Blumner's editorials represent a disgrace to journalism?

Blumner devolves to the point of foundationless personal attacks in the remainder of her column:

I'm not a school snob. You don't need an Ivy degree to be qualified as vice president. Bush has an undergraduate degree from Yale, an MBA from Harvard, and yet he's one of the dimmest bulbs to live in the White House.

Doesn't it warm the heart to know that an editorialist can keep the fires of disinformation burning through her work at one of the nation's 10 best newspapers?

But it took Palin six years at six different schools to finally secure an undergraduate degree in journalism at the University of Idaho.

That's indicative of someone who either can't cut it in the academic world or doesn't want to. Either way it's a problem for a potential vice president.

The false dilemma posed in the second paragraph is indicative of someone who can't cut it in terms of logical thought or doesn't want to. Either way it's a problem.

There are many factors that may have contributed to Palin's unusually varied college experience. Some of them will reflect neither an inability to cut it in the academic world nor a lack of desire. And on top of that there is no good reason why either inability of lack of desire to make it in the academic world should serve as a handicap when it comes to serving in executive office.

What we have here is a person trained in law (Blumner) doing what lawyers do: Arguing their case based on whether they think it will convince others of their point rather than whether the argument really makes any sense.

It's the tale of the Twister*.


*Yes, phrase inspired by the Chagall Guevara tune of the same name.