and were a homemaker for many years before entering politics. You say ... the skills you honed doing those things were the same ones you needed when you got [into politics]. How so?"
"[A:] Absolutely, and this is what I want women to know, so they recognize the value of their own path, their unique experience. I've been in politics a while, ... and this is a very rough-and-tumble.... I shouldn't say 'rough,' let me say a very challenging arena to be in. But as challenging as it is, nothing is as challenging as raising a family -- nothing. That experience forced me to be disciplined, diplomatic, focused, and successful, and I brought that discipline and focus to [my political career]. Also, having a family keeps you focused on the future, which is the biggest inspiration in politics. In order to do what it takes to succeed in politics, you have to be inspired by your constituents, the power of your ideas, and the fact that you speak on behalf of children and their future, whether you have children of your own or not. It makes all the difference in the world...."
Very interesting. (The interview quotes are from here, though I've seen the same in yesterday's edition of The Wall Street Journal's Political Diary Newsletter, which I've always found to be reliable in its quotations.)
Where's the rest of the post, where you explain what's interesting about it?
I would add that her experience in running a commercial fishing operation with her husband, having him work as a union employee and having their children in public school delivers experience in how government invades private matters that neither McCain, Biden or Obama really understand. A visceral, real annoyance with intrusiveness might lead her to oppose larger government as more than an abstract creed.
Hopefully.
Why is it intersting? It's obvious. Any homemaker is going to read that and say, "Absolutely!"
And sure, generic skills that you learn from your life experiences are useful in entry level jobs, the help get your foot in the door, they help you be better at your job. But if they are a substitute for real life experience, then why the hell am I still a junior nobody?
I've got 3 years experience, surely I am qualified to run my entire statistical department. I learned a lot of transferrable skills like organization and managing people when I was in college.
Seriously, how can you read this crap without your bullshit meter blaring? This is the kind of thing people say in interviews for jobs they are completely unqualified for. I know this, because not 3 years ago I was saying them.
Oh, wait. I thought it was Palin.
It's Pelosi?
Well, then, it's an outstanding explanation of a woman's experiences applied to national and international politics.
Those words that Eugene quotes are NOT the words of Palin; they are the words of Pelosi, from an interview with "Ladies Home Journal."
Second, is the implication here that Pelosi couldn't apply the same quote to Palin and still say, despite the experience garnered from being a homemaker, Palin is still unqualified for being VP? Are they mutually exclusive propositions?
As to Jiffy's point, Pelosi is third in line. It's hard to argue that experience as a mother makes you qualified for third in line but not second.
Ridiculous, don't set the bar that low. She has bigger things to do:
Pelosi
"“I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet,” she says impatiently when questioned. “I will not have this debate trivialized by their excuse for their failed policy.”
This is the time to point out that Nancy Pelosi is only 2 hearbeats away from President and leader of the free world. See here.
Similarly, could the woman who said the words linked to by EV (Pelosi) cogently discuss the Bush Doctrine, regardless of her thoughts on motherhood?
The fact that well over half of American citizens attempt to do just that somehow renders her statement less than plausible. The difficulty of being a parent is often grossly exaggerated -- nothing is more challenging than raising a family? Really? Not developing nuclear weapons, not running a country, not reading ancient Sanskrit literature? Why, then, are there so many people employed in the former and not the latter?
Before you say that she's merely employing a bit of hyperbole, or that she's cynically grasping at the mommy vote, consider that one hears this from many, many people about their chosen professions (especially unionized professions). It's common to hear police and firefighters and soldiers talk about the ludicrous difficulty of their jobs and how they deserve more respect than anyone else. What is so grating is how any challenge is immediately confronted with "You don't know what I do everyday," or even "You couldn't even begin to imagine the difficulty of my job." These statements effectively bludgeon people into submission: Who would deny that police, firefighters, soldiers, and mothers all play important roles in our society? (For they do: These jobs are critical, the very foundations of modern life.) These are such big constituencies that no one ever does, and so nonsense like this goes unchecked. Most people could make at least a decent stab at raising a family; very, very few could comprehend the nature of our universe as Einstein could.
Pelosi is now 68 years old, has been active in politics since at least the 60s, and has been an elected member of Congress for 20 years. Experience may not count for anything, or worse, it may disqualify you among many voters, but that does not change the fact that Pelosi has experience. Oh, yeah, and she gave birth to five kids.
yes, yes, i (we?) know it's pelosi. so...?
Re Jiffy, "Pelosi doesn't argue that her experience as a mother qualifies her to be the leader of the free world."
Well, actually, as Speaker of the House she's right behind the VP in succession...and she is arguing that her experience qualified her to do well in politics.
I disagree with her assertion, but still find it very amusing and like how Eugene Volokh posted it without revealing the speaker -- I assumed it was some past quote from Gov. Palin until I was clued in by a prior poster to click the link. "Motherhood and apple pie" is good, until it's a political opponent (in fairness, I don't know what if anything Speaker Pelosi has said about Gov. Palin).
Because it's really, really easy to start a family. The hard part comes later.
As you know, and as the rest of VC commenters know, Gibson got the Bush Doctrine mixed up. Not Palin.
You should peddle that stuff at a group home.
And only Republicans actually have them.
My honest, Obama supporter assuming this was about Palin reaction was: OMG I can't believe Charlie asked that sexist question. The republicans are going to howl! The answer I thought, was not bad except for the line about raising a family being the greatest challenge in the world. (I am a parent).
Put another way, I don't understand Palin's critics to say that mothers of five can't be qualified for the presidency, just that this particular mother of five isn't.
Save perhaps paying minimal attention to the foreign policy basics that have been furiously discussed over the past six or seven years.
In coming years, we will see more women transitioning from family into work, as highly educated women have kids and go back into the working world (or take the Sarah Palin PTA mom to mayor to...???) path. It would be nice if we had bipartisan support for motherhood as not time spent away from the serious working world, but time spent with one's family, developing skill sets that can be an asset.
But it didn't come from Palin. The criticism of 'mommy isn't politically experienced' comes from junior Senator Obama's camp, Kos and MoovOn. The senior Democrats say parenthood is good preparation for politics; while the junior Democrats think Palin (and Pelosi) are unqualified.
Cute.
Even better...Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives -- two heartbeats away from the top!
Famous last words....
(...and I'm a Palin fan.)
The revision history of the Bush Doctrine "article" at Wikipedia is one of the best arguments I've seen lately against using Wikipedia as a reference anything remotely controversial. There were over 250 revisions today alone.
What irritates me is that you must have known that, but chose to make it look like EV was making a claim you found easier to refute.
Wikipedia should only be considered authoritative on matters relating to Star Wars and Star Trek. All other topics are a crap shoot.
Yeah, but my grandmother is a mother, grandmother, and great-grandmother. I think she gets dibs. Heck, let's make her the presidential pick. Sure, she's a little younger than McCain's mother, but I don't think Roberta McCain has any great-grandchildren.
I agree that EV's post was aimed at the supposed "hypocrisy" of "progressives who might be expected to like Pelosi but are complaining about Palin." My point is that there is nothing hypocritical about that position. Those progressives are saying that Palin isn't qualified to be President; they may think that Pelosi is qualified. But the facts that both Palin and Pelosi are mothers of five and that, as Pelosi unremarkably suggests, some skills learned from being a mother of five may be useful in politics, don't make the progressives' opinions about Palin and Pelosi inconsistant.
in his attempt to point out they hypocrisy of liberals EV also managed to point out the hypocrisy of conservatives.
Certainly, no publication is within an order of magnitude as comprehensive, and if any publication is more accurate, I haven't heard about it.
So, truly encyclopedic, top-of-the-class accurate, and ubiquitous -- what do you want for free?
Which Bush Doctrine? Bush doesn't use the term, but Wikipedia's discussion says that it is actually several doctrines. Bush critics use the term to cover a variety of policies.
Palin asked which "Bush Doctrine" was being asked about and given that answer answered the question.
Should she have guessed what the interviewer meant instead?
"in his attempt to point out they hypocrisy of liberals EV also managed to point out the hypocrisy of conservatives."
What makes you so sure this wasn't his intent?
Not quite. If Palin was unclear about which facet/version of the Bush Doctrine Gibson was referring to, she could have asked that. Instead, she said, "you mean his worldview?" She appeared to have never heard the term before.
Anyone who's been paying attention to politics and foreign affairs for the past 7 years would at least know that the "Bush Doctrine" refers to Bush's foreign policy. Charlie Gibson may not have given the perfect definition, but Palin didn't have one at all. It was embarrassing to watch.
I was going to ask the exact same question. I think it's kind of like democracy: a terrible system, but still much better than whatever's in second place.
I find generally that the people who take shots at Wikipedia tend to be the same people who make lots of claims while providing no source whatsoever (although I'm not saying that's true about the two people in this thread who took shots at Wikipedia).
I read Wikipedia with the same skepticism I apply to everything else I read. But I like the fact that it lets me easily verify the claims that are being presented.