Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
One thing I can't get over
I enjoyed last night's debate, thought both did relatively well (clearly the expectations game was played well by both sides), although I wish Ifill had pushed harder to make both answer the questions as they were asked rather than rambling about unrelated topics.
I can get over Palin's folksy mannerisms and "your reward is in heaven" bs, and Biden's zombie face and slow start.
But I can't get over Palin's response on the Darfur question. Especially after she responded to the question about Iran with her fear over the "second Holocaust."
Here it is verbatim:
"Oh, yeah, it's so obvious I'm a Washington outsider. And someone just not used to the way you guys operate. Because here you voted for the war and now you oppose the war. You're one who says, as so many politicians do, I was for it before I was against it or vice- versa. Americans are craving that straight talk and just want to know, hey, if you voted for it, tell us why you voted for it and it was a war resolution.
And you had supported John McCain's military strategies pretty adamantly until this race and you had opposed very adamantly Barack Obama's military strategy, including cutting off funding for the troops that attempt all through the primary.
And I watched those debates, so I remember what those were all about.
But as for as Darfur, we can agree on that also, the supported of the no-fly zone, making sure that all options are on the table there also.
America is in a position to help. What I've done in my position to help, as the governor of a state that's pretty rich in natural resources, we have a $40 billion investment fund, a savings fund called the Alaska Permanent Fund.
When I and others in the legislature found out we had some millions of dollars in Sudan, we called for divestment through legislation of those dollars to make sure we weren't doing anything that would be seen as condoning the activities there in Darfur. That legislation hasn't passed yet but it needs to because all of us, as individuals, and as humanitarians and as elected officials should do all we can to end those atrocities in that region of the world."
I'm sorry, but if you're going to stake your foreign policy towards Iran on fears of them committing genocide, then you'd damned well better have stronger opinions and words on the topic of the actual genocide that is currently taking place in this world. "Oh gee, I'm a Washington outsider," is not an appropriate response to genocide. I was pretty offended by that one, and I really can't get over it. Going on to say "there are options on the table" and talking about a divestment bill that hasn't passed was not sufficient to make it better.
You can speak with passion on a theoretical genocide that is not taking place, but when confronted with an actual one you make cutesy jokes about not being from DC and therefore not understanding how these things work? Sorry. You cannot get it on Iran, but then suddenly not on Darfur because you're from Alaska.
Re: One thing I can't get over
Excellent point. Well said.
And, can I just say, you are not allowed to quit this board. I love how you bring our focus to Africa and issues that never get any coverage. This point would have slid by me, and probably will most of the media. I'm glad you raised it.
Iran is a threat to Israel. Israel is considered vital to the "second coming of Christ" (according to some Christians). Also, chaos in Iran could theoretically disrupt Middle east oil production.
Genocide in Darfur = horrific violence against innocent black Africans. Their economy is small and doesn't directly affect the US.
See the difference?
Screw the golf claps, Zoe.
::resounding standing ovation::
Some people certainly believe this. There have been arguments that W believes it, as well.
The rise of fundamentalist Christianity as a political force in the United States, has allegedly had an influence upon political decisions on the global stage. The majority of fundamentalist Christians in America subscribe to dispensationalist theology and biblical literalism, which predicts that at the second coming Jesus Christ will commence his reign over a re-established Jewish nation in the Middle East. The belief that the Jews must be returned to the Biblical lands of Judaea and Samaria before the world can end has, according to some, driven up American support for an aggressive Israeli approach to its neighbours in the Holy Land. [39] These views have been propagated by Christian Zionist preachers such as Tim LaHaye, Jerry Jenkins, Pat Robertson, John Hagee, and Hal Lindsey. However, the majority of the Christian world both within and outside of America, including the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican and most Presbyterian churches, rejects dispensationalism as a valid belief system.
Ditto ESF.
And I second hrparker's standing ovation.
The "second holocaust" talking point really bothers me, I paused the debate to mention this last night. It really rubs me the wrong way to use that type of language as a political barb. There are actual people who died in the Holocaust, actual people who have been victims of genocide since, and actual people who are still dying in Darfur. Second holocaust isn't a phrase you just go throwing around.
The first paragraph really bothered me also, first because of the folksiness-as-positive and secondly for the dig on "for it before I was against it". You mean like the bridge to nowhere Gov. Palin?
He actually did bring it up, but indirectly. It was the only line of the night that I recall that got a laugh from the audience. Frankly, it was a rather clever way of bringing it up without actually getting into the issue.
You might not like her mannerisms but the American public wants to "feel" like their politicians understand them. That was the big criticism against McCain after the first debate. They didn't think he "understood their needs." It's populism and I don't like it either, but that rhetoric is effective b/c most people don't have the time or inclination to delve into policy.
I don't care about her "passion" in her answers, I just care about her answers. Does she view Darfur as genocide? Yes.
all of us, as individuals, and as humanitarians and as elected officials should do all we can to end those atrocities in that region of the world."
That's a great answer.
Mxolisi- How do you feel about Biden throwing foreign aid under the bus when asked what spending he would now cut?
Caden, I don't know if you're addressing me here, but I said from the start that I could see past her mannerisms. I just don't think genocide is an appropriate topic on which to grin at the camera and say "I'm a Washington outsider."
The question was about intervention--when do you make the call. Her answer was "we should do all we can." But what is that? Send troops? Diplomacy? Support for the AU? Support for the ICJ? Sending military to protect aid agencies who are increasingly pulling out of the region because their staff are targeted by the government?
As I said before, this would have just been a blip to me if her tried and true statement on Iran wasn't "second holocaust." If you are going to go on and on about a theoretical genocide that is not occuring, then you ought to be able to speak with specificity about actual genocides that are. And moreover, if genocide is a topic you take so seriously as to bring up potential for it to occur where it is not, then it is probably not an appopriate topic to address by making jokes and taking potshots at your opponent.
And you know I was hitting my head against the wall when Biden said that! I was like, of all the things you could choose! But it plays well--you could see on the CNN focus group tracker that both men and women liked the statement. This may have something to do with the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations survey, which found that when asked about attitudes towards foreign assistance the median response to the question "what percentage of the federal budget goes to foreign aid?" was 25%, and the median response to what percentage ought to go towards foreign aid was 10%. They all think it should be cut by 40%, yet actually think it would be appropriate to be 20x higher than it is...
That data is from 2002, but it is still the gold standard, no one has really done as comprehensive research since: http://www.worldviews.org/detailreports/usreport.pdf.
Thank you, mxolisi, this is exactly what I was thinking last night.
Is it racism or ignorance? That genocide is horrible when it happens to white people/Jewish people/Israelis, but only worthy of a passing mention when it happens to black people in Africa. There's SO much talk of "we must defend Israel at all costs" yet the thought of putting American troops on the ground to stop the very real and very happening-right-now slaughter of thousands of innocent people is basically out of the question.
If you go check debate chat thread, I think you'll find a comment from me saying the exact same thing.
Yes. I did/said the same thing last night. I hadn't heard the "second holocaust" terminology before, but that really burns me.
And thanks for posting, mxolosi!?
You're holding her to a much higher standard than Biden, whose answer was just as generic and dispassionate.
"We can lead NATO if we're willing to take a hard stand. We can, I've been in those camps in Chad. I've seen the suffering, thousands and tens of thousands have died and are dying. We should rally the world to act and demonstrate it by our own movement to provide the helicopters to get the 21,000 forces of the African Union in there now to stop this genocide."
So provide helicopters and "rally the world." That's the in-depth, specific solution from the brilliant, experienced candidate, the leader of the senate foreign relations committee. Even better was the follow up:
"When a country engages in genocide, when a country engaging in harboring terrorists and will do nothing about it, at that point that country in my view and Barack's view forfeits their right to say you have no right to intervene at all."
Ok. He drew a hard line at who forfeits their right to say things.
Taking potshots is the whole point of the debate. That's what both sides did all night. Biden ripped apart McCain during his Darfur answer. Funny that no one takes issue with that.
I thought, by far, the worst answer of the night was Biden's Afghanistan answer. To paraphrase, "The commanding general in Afghanistan said a surge won't work [forget that Petraeus said it would], but Obama and some republicans are pushing for more money and a troop surge there b/c that's a better solution than McCain's [which also happens to be a troop surge]. mmmkay.
ok please ignore my post, I am stupid
Yes. I am holding her to a higher standard because she has made it clear that genocide (or at least "holocausts") is one of the driving forces in her foreign policy formulation (or her worldview, if you will).
I know no one cares about Darfur. I get it. Trust me. That's why it wouldn't bother me that either candidate had a wishy washy answer if neither candidate had turned the potential for genocide into the singular purpose behind their most well articulated foreign policy stance.
You want to advocate a hard line on Iran because you believe they have genocidal intentions? Fine. But back it the hell up by demonstrating you care about it when it happens elsewhere.
Why is it ok to advocate for a harder line and more action against Iran, when by her own metric Sudan is far more evil. Why is Israel more worthy of protection than Darfuris?
But Biden was the same way. Biden didn't say he "never, ever would have joined this ticket were he not absolutely sure Obama shared his passion about Darfur." He said it about Israel. Biden didn't mention "standing with Darfur" or that "no one in the senate is a better friend to Darfur than Joe Biden." Both of those comments were about Israel.
I'm sorry people care more about Israel than Sudan. That's probably b/c Israel is a long-time ally and Sudan isn't, but it needs to be said that both political parties are like that and there's no reason to hold one to a higher standard than the other.
But even if Biden was the same way (which I don't agree with), it doesn't make either one of them right and it doesn't make that attitude OK.
I didn't say it was. I'm just pointing out that someone who cares about this issue should care that both parties are the same on it.
I'm not giving Biden a pass here. His answer was unimpressive. Though I will note that the Genocide Intervention Network has assigned him and Obama both an A+ on their annual "Darfur Scorecard."
But Biden has not made genocide a campaign issue. Yes, he talks about support for Israel, because let's be transparent here--you can't win without saying that. For better or worse, if you say you aren't a "strong, lifelong supporter" of Israel, you will likely lose. But Biden is not accusing Iran of having genocidal intentions. There are plenty of reasons to criticize Ahmedinejad's government, but if you choose genocide as your justification for your policy it is only natural that people will then look to you as a leader on the issue of genocide elsewhere. She set the bar for herself, and it's not my fault that it happens to be higher than those of other candidates, because she has made it clear that genocide is one of the most critical issues in our foreign policy.
And positions on Darfur are hardly broken down by party lines. Two of the most outspoken critics of Sudan and advocates for increased American action on the genocide in Darfur are Senator Brownback and Rep. Tancredo. The other two major forces are Rep. Payne and Sen. Durbin. These people agree on little else, but it's an issue on which party lines hardly matter.
Yes, I could write out a long list of every American politician who is failing on this issue, and call them all out independently. But to me at least, this particular case was noteworthy because of the candidate's special emphasis on genocide in previous remarks that evening.
I'm leaving for a meeting now, but wanted to post that the following news outlets have questioned Palin's record on divestment--the only part of her answer that wasn't outright meaningless. It seems she was against it before she was for it, and a substantial contributing cause to the bill's death in committee was the lack of support from her administration. By the time she changed her mind the legislative session was nearly over and it was too late to get the bill passed.
ABC: http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5948944&page=1
Washington Post factchecker: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/10/palin_twists_the_facts_on_darf.html
The Miami Herald: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/711540.html