Attacking Palin
Obsidian wings has another hit piece on Palin.
Now I'm no fan of Palin's , I think she was a cynical political choice - and would make a below average president - but I don't get some of the attacks against her.
here is the interview transcript
COURIC (to Palin): Do you think there's an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution?
To me that means the doctrine bush has (which is a complex thing) - I suppose I'm not exposed enough to the liberal media in the USA and neither is she - but that would be the literal interpretation.
Similarly here She asks a question about the right to privacy which to me reflects 1st amendment protection of 'privacy' of religion, 4th amendment protection against unreasonable searches and 5th amendment privacy against self incrimination.
Is there some secret American language in which the right to privacy implies roe vs wade? If so then I suspect it might be a secret democratic language which could explain why Palin does not know it. the same language where 'bush docterine' is a direct translation for 'preemtive strikes' and maybe 'republican' = 'fascist'.
Maybe Palin should know this language - in which case the critique may be valid - but in the absence of this assumption it is the critics that start to look bad to me.
Now I'm no fan of Palin's , I think she was a cynical political choice - and would make a below average president - but I don't get some of the attacks against her.
here is the interview transcript
COURIC (to Palin): Do you think there's an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution?
PALIN: I do. Yeah, I do.
COURIC: the cornerstone of Roe v Wade
PALIN: I do. And I believe that -- individual states can handle what the people within the different constituencies in the 50 states would like to see their will ushered in in an issue like that.
Couric seems to have done this with the 'bush doctrine" phrase too.To me that means the doctrine bush has (which is a complex thing) - I suppose I'm not exposed enough to the liberal media in the USA and neither is she - but that would be the literal interpretation.
Similarly here She asks a question about the right to privacy which to me reflects 1st amendment protection of 'privacy' of religion, 4th amendment protection against unreasonable searches and 5th amendment privacy against self incrimination.
Is there some secret American language in which the right to privacy implies roe vs wade? If so then I suspect it might be a secret democratic language which could explain why Palin does not know it. the same language where 'bush docterine' is a direct translation for 'preemtive strikes' and maybe 'republican' = 'fascist'.
Maybe Palin should know this language - in which case the critique may be valid - but in the absence of this assumption it is the critics that start to look bad to me.
posted by Genius at 12:53 AM
5 Comments:
the "Bush doctrine" got its name because he is the first president in history to argue for preemptive aggression, which is a major shift in America's foreign policy stance. Up until then we tried to follow what you could call a "WWII model" whereby we come in mid-conflict and save the day or something. Anyhow, it's pretty standard parlance.
the privacy implying roe v wade stems from the fact that family choice is the key argument in pro-choice policy — that it shouldn't be up to the government to legislate on personal family issues. Thus, to american liberals these things seems to be connected. Apparently they're not for Palin, or a large number of American conservatives.
"Apparently they're not for Palin, or a large number of American conservatives."
Yes indeed - that is a valid point that this exposes.
Is there some secret American language in which the right to privacy implies roe vs wade? [...]
Apparently they're not for Palin, or a large number of American conservatives.
They are intrinsically connected, and the connection is known by most conservatives (especially conservative politicians, activists, pundits and leaders).
Background: In the landmark case of Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court first found that there is a "right to privacy" guaranteed to each citizen by the US Constitution.
In that example, it applied to the right of US citizens to purchase contraceptives. It caused a big uproar.
It is the premier case of "activist" jurisprudence, which is a conservative bugaboo.
Years later, the right to privacy was invoked as the of the Roe v. Wade decision (that found that woman, by virtue of the right to privacy, have a right to make decisions about their own pregnancy).
Because of its centrality to Roe, the right to privacy became an even more controversial legal principle. Widely discussed. Widely contested.
The right to privacy as a legal principle is central to the fight over abortion. McCain has commented on it numerous times in the past, it comes up every presidential season and when supreme court justices are facing confirmation hearings and there are very few anti-abortion activists that wouldn't know what it means. Especially in the context of actually discussing Roe v. Wade.
In order to overturn Roe v. Wade, the right to privacy would either have to be overturned or greatly modified.
Most American conservatives, by virtue of their position on abortion know the right to privacy.
The Bush Doctrine was not invented, nor only discussed by, the liberal media.
Bush himself has discussed the Bush Doctrine. Back when Iraq wasn't as unpopular, much conservative media and conservative punditry sang the praises of the Bush Doctrine.
As mentioned above, it relates to preventitive war, and democracy promotion.
But the problem with Palin wasn't that she didn't know the particulars of the Bush Doctrine, but that she didn't know that one existed in a specific sense.
Thus she was left with only the "literal interpretation" to address.
A Republican candidate running for vice president after 8 years of the Bush administration should at least have known that the Bush Doctrine existed and that it related to his unique foreign policy regime.
She should have been better prepared. That goes without question when you are nailed like that. Still if she had said no could not Couric have theoretically countered with "no right to privacy of beliefs?" and insinuated she did not know the 1st, 4th or 5th amendments?
does Bush call it the Bush doctrine? that would sound like terribly poor politics. It makes it sound like you made it up on the fly. Still I wouldn't put that past Bush.
Post a Comment
<< Home