From this blog via Samizdata .
Umm… ‘sadly’, ‘don’t just’?
Quite apart from effectively supporting Bush’s occupation of Iraq (yes I know she said it in 2002 but we can now see the effect of such a policy), colour me unimpressed that a senior advisor apparently has such a low regard for democracy.
Or am I missing something?
Did you look up the phrase Libral Democracy before you posted this? I don’t really see how it’s debatable that that is in fact the system of gov’t that we have in the US.
Why would supporting Iraq be a problem for you? You supported the war and have stated that on this board several times.
You wouldn’t be looking for things to disagree with would you :dubious:
Yes I have, and I continue to support it. But I’ve also said - several times - that I don’t agree with the occupation. I understand why Bush is doing it, and respect him for it, but I don’t agree with it.
Yes, I did. I still couldn’t see why she’s so down on the concept.
I think you need to be more clear on specifically what your thinking she’s saying, and why you think it’s objectionable. Are you saying she seems to prefer democracy to liberal democracy, and that’s wrong? Or the other way around.? Or that she dislikes all forms of democracy?
Honestly, it’s one word (“sadly”) in one unprepared sentence in one interview six years ago. I seriously doubt that she’s a closet monarchist or something . I think she just misspoke. Her next few sentences make it clear that she is saying preventing genocide by using military force on the perpetrators is alright, even though that’s technically usurping the perpetrators democratic gov’t, because while we value spreading democracy, we value the various principles (in this case, basically not letting people commit genocide) more. Again, I doubt most Americans would argue with that.
Or re-reading it, she didn’t really even misspeak, just was unclear. Our holding to a liberal democracy is “sad” because it requires us to impose “a solution on unwilling parties” which is “dreadful” and “fundamentally undemocratic”.
But she’s not really against it, in fact she is in favor of imposing such a solution in cases of genocide. She’s just recognizing that sending in the troops to impose a peace through force is an unfortunate even if its necessary.
What if she had said, “Sadly, we don’t have a democracy here, we have a republic.”
Well, in that case the response would be: "BURN THE WITCH! BURN HER! BURN HER NOW—
Wait, it wasn’t a Republican who said it, right? Okay, good. We now return you to your regularly scheduled IOKIYAAR
—!!! BURN HER!!!
-Joe
Exactly what are we debating here? I didn’t get a program.
Basically, some limp-wristed righty blogosphere attacks on Obama.
If that’s the best they can come up with, it might be an interesting campaign.
-Joe
OMG!!! Something ambiguous an Obama staffer said 6 frigging years ago. Is this really the best the righties can come up with at this point? (Hey, I heard that Obama is unpatriotic because he never wears a flag pin and he personally hangs posters of Che Guevara on his bedroom wall. Or something like that.)
This is the worst pitting I’ve ever seen. It’s not even in the right forum.
I think people who are quoted on extemporaneous remarks deserve some leeway in clarifying what they mean. It is simply the nature of speaking off the cuff that one phrases things incorrectly or inelegantly at times, and other times may require more explanation or a retraction. Just because something gets transcribed doesn’t mean the speaker took care to craft one’s spoken words as one would do an essay or book.
One should keep this in mind when one criticizes politicians for droning on without saying anything. Because if they do say something, there’s a damn good chance they’ll screw it up and end up saying something they’ll get criticized over. We regular people should count ourselves lucky that our every word isn’t videotaped for someone to post on some blog.
I change my opinion. The “Pitting” was prescient. The very same Samantha Power called Hillary Clinton a “monster” in an interview and has now resigned.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080307/pl_nm/usa_politics_obama_dc_2
She turned me into a newt.
I got better.
Actually, we have a Constitutional liberal (in the original sense of the word) democratic republic.
I think the word “constitutional” is a bit superfluous there.
Is there anywhere on earth a liberal democratic republic without a constitution?
Pssst… I’m not a rightie; I’m not even an American. I posted in GD because of the political nature. It seems that I was not missing anything, and this woman, as evidenced by her recent comment, lives in a world of her own.