Vice presidential geography - Quayle & Palin

A compare and contrast exercise for the reader...

Sarah Palin on the geographic position of Alaska:

[I]t'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.

Dan Quayle on the geographic position of Hawaii:

Hawaii has always been a very pivotal role in the Pacific. It is in the Pacific. It is a part of the United States that is an island that is right here.

Comments

[David]

Governors who run for President or VP typically have no foreign policy experience. That goes for Carter, Reagan, Dukakis, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and now Palin. Obama also has had little or no foreign policy experience during his brief stint in the Senate.

However, the media typically hound only Republicans on this issue. Reagan was portrayed as an ignoramus (a claim utterly contradicted by the book Reagan in his Own Hand.) George W. Bush got heavy criticism for supposedly never having visited a foreign country. (The claim wasn't true.) Quayle, of course, was the butt of everyone's jokes. Now the media is giving the same treatment to Palin.

However, I don't remember the main stream media cross-examining and mocking Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton, or Barack Obama when they ran for office without foreign policy experience.

[Dave M]

Wow. I couldn't stop cringing. Of course the Quayle comparisons give me no comfort, as he actually was a heartbeat away from the Presidency for 48 months.

to David (above) - the issue is not (only) that she has no foreign policy experience. It's that she's claiming (or her surrogates are claiming) that she has foreign policy cred because parts of Alaska have proximity to the huge land mass that is Mother Russia. And then when she is asked a simple question about how that proximity translates into how she is prepared to be President, she stammers and loses track of her thoughts like an 'deer in the headlights' undergraduate who's been asked to respond to a text they haven't read.

Why didn't she simply say what you've pointed out above - i.e. "I don't need foreign policy experience to be Vice President, and there's a double standard (probably sexist) that makes elite journalists like you pepper me with these irrelevant questions while letting Democrat men off the hook." Why did she blather nonsensically about the specter of Putin's head?

Note, I'm not troubled about the possibility of a Palin VPresidency because she hasn't shaken hands with Kissinger until this past weekend. I'm scared to death because she seems to be a freakin' moran, and I want my public officials to be smarter than the worst undergraduates I encounter. This desire for competency exceeds any and all partisan leanings I have, to boot. Shouldn't it?

[Howard Craft]

Some possible reasons -

1) Following eight years of Bush / Cheney, the role of the VP is seen as being as being more important.

2) Prior to announcing Gov Palin as his running mate, experience (including foreign policy) was an issue the McCain camp used to make a case that McCain was superior to Obama.

Obama added a running mate with a long record of exposure to foreign policy issues but McCain did did the opposite. People now want to judge the experience represented by each ticket.

3) As Dave M noted, when Gov Palin was announced she was a relative unknown. Instead of saying that she lacked foreign policy experience the campaign more or less fabricated a case ("Alaska is close to Russia"). People, naturally, find that a bit silly.

When it's pointed out that its silly and it gets defended that makes it seem even more silly.

I don't think she is being mocked personally, just her comments.

4) McCain is the oldest candidate to run for President. People seem more concerned with Gov Palin succeeding him. Her ability to do so seems more critical.

5) Foreign policy is not always a top issue. In wasn't for many of the campaigns you listed (Jimmy Carter in 1976, Michael Dukakis in 1988, or G.W. Bush in 2000, for example). In this election it has more prominence than many others.

6) Gov Palin, in what little she has said, has fully endorsed the foreign policy stance taken under G.W. Bush. The public is pretty divided in terms of our current foreign policy (or some aspects of it). That makes her comments (however few there have been) draw additional scrutiny.

[MartyB]

Compare and contrast? Let's see.

Palin's statement has at least 2 qualities that distinguish it from Quayle’s.

1) Alaska is extremely close to Russia geographically. Hawaii is not geographically close to a potential enemy or any foreign country.

2) It more than just a statement of geographic fact. Quayle's statement is extremely banal - "Hawaii is an island" - whereas Palin at least attempts to draw some sense of seriousness over the fact that Russian missiles would fly directly over Alaska.

I will grant that the proximity of Alaska to Russia has been well over-played by the McCain campaign as a selling point - they would have been better off pursuing the strategy mentioned by Howard and David that few governors have foreign policy experience.

However, many critics of this point (including Brendan apparently) seem to assume that having a foreign country right next door - and a potential enemy of your country at that - would be a complete non-issue to a governor.

I doubt that would be the case.

Do you seriously think a governor would just ignore this fact since it’s the national government’s responsibility? Does my governor – Janet Napolitano of AZ – just shrug off the fact that Mexico - a non hostile country (unless you consider that their immigration policy may actually be somewhat hostile) – is right next door?

Does it necessarily imply a lot of thought about foreign policy? No, of course not. Does it at least represent a realistic potential that some serious foreign policy issues have been considered by the governor? I definitely think so. Has Palin articulated what foreign policy issues she has thought deeply about? It appears not, and that is a valid criticism.

However, dismissing out of hand that the Alaska governor would never consider serious foreign policy issues is ridiculous and treating Palin’s statement as remotely equivalent to Quayle's is simply silly.

However, it fits the current partisan meme and I am disappointed Brendan is not more independent-minded in this case.

[David]

Dave M. wrote: It's that she's claiming (or her surrogates are claiming) that she has foreign policy cred because parts of Alaska have proximity to the huge land mass that is Mother Russia.

Yes, Palin made that claim in the segment here. But, it wasn't her choice; it was a result of hectoring from the interviewer.

My point was that Obama hasn't had to face this sort of questioning. Suppose Katie Couric had demanded that Obama describe his foreign policy experience. Suppose she had continued pressing when he admitted that it consisted of having recently met a few foreign leaders. Chances are he might have come up with something equally puerile.

Or, suppose Obama had been pressed on his military know-how. That would be appropriate, since the country is at war and the President is Commander in Chief. Obama could have been made to sound as foolish as Palin and Quayle did.

[Dave M]

David.

Come on. People have asked Obama about his foreign policy creds, and he would respond with things like "I worked with Lugar on nuclear proliferation issues, my first major speech was on the Iraq war, which I was against for reasons x, y, z..." He has never - ever- to my knowledge - rambled as incoherently as Palin did (on a question she had to know was coming).

If you can show me comparable video, I'll retract.

Also, "it wasn't her choice" to make that claim? Katie Couric must have incredible powers to coerce Palin into making a claim that she otherwise wouldn't make. Couric asked Palin to defend a claim that has been made - and Palin didn't say, "I deny the validity of such claims, because they are prima facie ridiculous." If she had gone this route, then I - and a lot of people - would have said, 'good, thank god, let's move on.' She didn't, and that was a choice, no matter how you spin it.

[Asher]

Oh, Quayle wasn't nearly as bad as Palin. He actually almost beat Gore in the '92 debate, back before Gore became a totally insufferable prick. Palin's sui generis.