So I was sort of wondering if Bush came off better in interviews in 2000 than Palin does in 2008.
This comparison I thought might be instructive. Each was/is the governor of a red state with a pronounced frontier fetish, each had/has a reputation as a hardass politician as opposed to a policy wonk, & each was/is the darling of the religious right.
And each was/is tagged with the criticism of being way out of their depth. Now, we know Bush actually was out of his depth, as he would have been had he got tossed into a wading pool, even though in fact he got tossed into the ocean. To be fair, as of now we only suspect this of Palin, though if I were her I wouldn't go wading in birdbaths anytime soon. (Katie Couric made you look dumb? Jeepers.)
Anyhow, let's look at the tape. Here is Bush with Jim Lehrer in February of 2000. Does he seem smart? I chose this more at less at random, though I was intrigued by his answers about Northern Ireland particularly:
JIM LEHRER: Now, in areas that involve our power diplomatically, rather than sending troops, is it proper for the U.S., for instance, to play a role in brokering the peace in Northern Ireland as it is trying to do now?
GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: Yes, it is very important, I think, Jim, that the United States use our power and prestige, our standing in the world to bring parties together, whether it be in Northern Ireland, as the president was trying to do. They've had some success it looked like, and then it fell apart. And, hopefully, they'll be able to get the talks back together again -- or in the Middle East -- but the danger is, is that any president allow -- you know -- public opinion in the United States to drive or standing in the public opinion polls to drive the U.S. to dictate terms of peace. And it's very important that we serve as an honest broker. And I intend to do so.
JIM LEHRER: Are you suggesting that we're not doing that in Northern Ireland, or we are?
GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: No, I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm just making it clear to people that the difference between being a true mediator and a country that tries to decide what the proper terms of peace ought to be -- because if you try to do that, the peace will not be a lasting peace. If you dictate the terms, if we were to use our power to dictate the terms, let's say in the Middle East, and it was unsatisfactory for either party negotiating a peace treaty, that peace treaty will ultimately come apart.
Now, I think I actually sort of remember this interview at the time, because I'd been paying attention to events in NI, and to the US elections, and I was enough of a nerd to watch PBS, and I'm pretty sure I recall thinking, "he doesn't know what he's talking about," and not being at all happy with that conclusion.
The reason for that was that there was indeed a crisis in NI at that moment, February 16, 2000, which was why Lehrer had brought it up, presumably. The specific issue was to do with the IRA and arms decomissioning. I thought Bush's stuff about "US opinion polls" was weird and irrelevant, as was the stuff about the US trying to "dictate terms of peace." Because that was kind of a stark reversal of US policy, or seemed to be (if you could understand his answer at all), which was that the IRA should indeed "decomission" (to use the jargon). (In light of later events to do with "terrorist groups" his answer here is actually very funny, if you like that sort of humor, which I don't, you insensitive prick.)
What I thought was going on was that Bush had a vague sense that NI was in the news, didn't know exactly why or could not remember, was trying to jump back to the Middle East, and was in the interim bullshitting. This caused me Righteous Outrage.
Now, let's jump forward.
Sarah Palin, unable to name a single newspaper or magazine that she regularly reads. Sarah Palin, not knowing what her running mate's ridiculous position on attacking Al Qaeda in Pakistan is.
I'm sorry, I just have to give the edge to Bush in 2000. Northern Ireland was and is not a major issue in US politics (it is not nearly as important as the haircuts of Democratic candidates, even if historically it has been slightly more lethal). I did think in 2000 that a presidential candidate, regardless, should at a minimum be smart and curious enough though to follow events there somewhat more carefully -- hell, it might be worth a few thousand votes in, say, Pennsylvania, after all, who knows, to at least not sound badly informed.
But now? Shit, at least Bush back then knew that something was going on, and had some sense that he should care about it.
So where does this leave us? Up shit's creek. Because she is exactly like George W. Bush, but lacks his good points. That is, she is an even worse liar.
I'm pretty convinced that Bush would have folded in 2000 if he had been relentlessly subject to a series of questions like "what do you read" and "what Supreme Court cases do you know about?" But he would have lasted longer. As I recall, he dog-whistled this one in a 2004 debate, in fact, which Palin it seems couldn't manage even now, and the Dred Scott thing is a fundie food-fest.
He was better prepped then than Palin is now, but then, again, is he really smarter than she is? He was in 2000 a more seasoned pol, but smarter? Nah. He knew how to bullshit better is all, and was much more fluent in media-ese.
Yes, there is some sexism involved here: I myself have encountered many grossly incompetent women in leadership positions, but it is in my experience more usually men who get such gigs. Women can indeed fuck up as colossally as men, yet usually they don't get to do so with the same sort of frequency.
But the upshot is, Bush was and is noted for a poor grasp of details as well as fundamentals. As is Palin now, only even more egregiously. The reasons he got a pass aside, & the reasons she is getting hammered now aside, she just can't be allowed to get near the White House, probably even as a tourist. She would be worse than Bush. And that's going some.