Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
How Can You Expect to Be Taken Seriously?
In 1968 the Democrats fired at Richard Nixon with this ad:
Barack Obama is going up with this rather milquetoast update:
But both ads work. The McCain campaign's botched rollout of Palin
(why is she doing
new policy speeches with six days to the election?) turned her
into the
most unpopular pol on either ticket. The newest surveys put her
disapproval rating above 50 percent, in Hillary Clinton territory.
And Palin fares far worse than Clinton on the "ready to be
president" question. She's made it hard-running-to-impossible for
McCain to craft a closing "risk" narrative against Obama.
Despite that, six days from now we're going to be discussing the 2012 Palin run for president. Robert Stacy McCain goes all Gene McCarthy and tells us not to reject this woman:
I saw the Republican Party today, standing in line to see Palin at Shippensburg University. The line stretched for more than half a mile -- people waiting outside for hours on a windy 40-degree day -- and though the doors opened more than two hours before the event, security still wasn't able to get everyone through the metal detectors by the time the rally began. Let's see Buckley or Kathleen Parker or Ken Adelman draw a crowd like that.
Those lines are good enough for an 11-point polling deficit in Pennsylvania, a state that Kerry was barely holding onto in 2004, and hasn't given a Democrat more than 51 percent of its votes since LBJ. Of course the base loves Palin, but unless McCain pulls the upset we're going to realize that the GOP's embrace of "folksy" anti-intellectualism (sorry, anti-intellectualoidism) bought it nothing and lost it plenty.
The Democratic Republican|10.29.08 @ 10:10AM|#
OK, Dave, that's fair enough, but if there's no relationship
between the lines for Palin and polling, then that means there is
also no relationship between the lines for Obama and polling. It
can't matter for one and not the other.
This means that a) let's acknowledge that people will stand in line
for no other reason than to see (hot) celebrities and b) that the
differences in polling reflect what people actually want from
policy, not their "energy" about some sort of messianic figure.
BDB|10.29.08 @ 10:15AM|#
The Republican Party needs a Jindal/Flake ticket next time if it
wants to be taken seriously again.
A ticket with Palin at it's head will make them go the way of the
Federalists and Whigs. It would be a disaster.
|10.29.08 @ 10:17AM|#
Of course the base loves Palin, but unless McCain pulls the
upset we're going to realize that the GOP's embrace of "folksy"
anti-intellectualism (sorry, anti-intellectualoidism) bought it
nothing and lost it plenty
Hmm, I don't know, Dave. Anti-intellectualism has a greater appeal
to more people than you think it does, smart guy.
"Then I wondered 'Why would Einstein want to talk to a gorilla?' So
I grabbed the gorilla and I beat it out of him."
Rock Lobster|10.29.08 @ 10:19AM|#
How about a Flake/Pence ticket? I know, I know . . . it's incredibly novel to have one, let alone two congressmen on a ticket - but if this party ever wants to win again, it will have to revert to what made it win in the first place : unabashed conservatism of the libertarian variety, the kind that emphasizes and actually attempts to carry out plans to reduce government's role in our lives.
BDB|10.29.08 @ 10:20AM|#
I like the way you think, Rock Lobster.
Actually Flake will probably get McCain's seat in 2010.
Rock Lobster|10.29.08 @ 10:22AM|#
Thanks BDB . . . and by the way, I wholeheartedly agree that a Palin GOP spells disaster for them.
Mr. Obvious|10.29.08 @ 10:24AM|#
I think Mrs. Palin's experiences in education, family and even
working momhood are closer to the average person's in the US than
is Mr. Obama's experiences.
It might not be a popular meme, but she seems like the kind of
person people in small twons would even seek out for advice, being
"sharp as a tack" but still "one of us".
Elemenope|10.29.08 @ 10:24AM|#
A ticket with Palin at it's head will make them go the way
of the Federalists and Whigs.
It's like the head was cut off, but the lips are still
moving.
And they're pig's lips. With lipstick.
|10.29.08 @ 10:24AM|#
[U]nless McCain pulls the upset we're going to realize that
the GOP's embrace of "folksy" anti-intellectualism (sorry,
anti-intellectualoidism) bought it nothing and lost it
plenty.
Oh, really bad premise.
Even if McCain/Palin win, there is no guarantee that the GOP
embrace of anti-intellectualism will benefit the next
administration.
I can see any number of situations arising where President McCain
(or Palin) is faced with a crisis requiring a technical solution,
and the scientific community issuing a public smackdown about how
we would have been better prepared for this had Project X received
more funding, or basic research had not been scoffed at.
Paybacks are like that.
|10.29.08 @ 10:26AM|#
Wow, I find it hard to believe at this point that anyone with a
single ounce of common sense could be taking McBush seriously.
Everything he says lately is either made up as he goes along or is
just an outright lie. His word clearly means nothing.
Jiff
http://www.online-anonymity.kr.tc
Elemenope|10.29.08 @ 10:26AM|#
I think Mrs. Palin's experiences in education, family and
even working momhood are closer to the average person's in the US
than is Mr. Obama's experiences.
I too believe that Palin's experiences of working momhood are
closer to average than Obama's.
Seriously, what the hell are you talking about?
Lester Hunt|10.29.08 @ 10:27AM|#
Yes, the Republicans absolutely have to drop their folksy anti-intellectualism -- but it is hardly something that they have only recently embraced.
Rock Lobster|10.29.08 @ 10:28AM|#
Mr. Obvious . . . should we really seek something like the average American to be our President? Remember, the average American has become a piglet on the teat of government . . . I think it takes an exceptional, not average, person to elucidate in plain language why this should not be so.
|10.29.08 @ 10:28AM|#
I can see any number of situations arising where President
McCain (or Palin) is faced with a crisis requiring a technical
solution, and the scientific community issuing a public
smackdown
Do you really think this would happen? Embarrassing the President
isn't the way you get funding for stuff.
|10.29.08 @ 10:32AM|#
Rock Lobster and BDB - unfortunately, there is a big difference
between "what we would LIKE to see the GOP do" and "what it would
take for them to win in 2012".
But, on an even better note....can we please please please please
not talk about the 2012 Presidential Election until at least 2010?
Give me some fucking peace already.
BDB|10.29.08 @ 10:34AM|#
I agree with your second point, TAO. After all this election isn't even over yet (though all that's really left is the vote counting).
|10.29.08 @ 10:34AM|#
I think Mrs. Palin's experiences in education, family and
even working momhood are closer to the average person's in the US
than is Mr. Obama's experiences.
And if there's one thing people like in their leaders, it's to be
average. Christ, people bitch about being smarter than their boss,
why would they want the same in their president.
By the way, Palin may be living an average American life, Obama
lived the American Dream. Raised by a single, poor mother, went to
the the best universities, now on the cusp of presidency. It's the
aspirational "average" life.
BDB|10.29.08 @ 10:35AM|#
How many "average Americans" shoot moose or snowmobile? For God's sake before August the GOPers would have called you some kind of weird Canadian for doing either of those things.
|10.29.08 @ 10:36AM|#
It might not be a popular meme, but she seems like the kind
of person people in small twons would even seek out for advice,
being "sharp as a tack" but still "one of us".
I have the impression that she's a self-important
politician/overbearing sports parent who's neither "sharp as a
tack" nor "one of us".
|10.29.08 @ 10:39AM|#
How many "average Americans" shoot moose or
snowmobile?
If you change that to "shoot deer or ride a quad", then your
question becomes pointless. Don't underestimate the ability of
people to associate with someone they reflexively like anyway.
BDB|10.29.08 @ 10:40AM|#
David--
Well put. She reminds me of the asshole local pols that make County
Council such a pain in the ass.
|10.29.08 @ 10:40AM|#
Epi,
Do you really think this would happen? Embarrassing the
President isn't the way you get funding for stuff.
True, under normal conditions. However, my premise was an
unforeseen crisis which requires some sort of new scientific
discovery to solve.
Granted, the people who might be funded in hopes that they would
solve said crisis might prudently keep quiet, but their surrogates
certainly would not.
The reality-based, pro-science community is hugely incensed over
recent statements by McCain and Palin. They (McC/P) don't even
understand concepts like basic research, or worse, do but pretend
they don't.
The most egregious recent example of GOP anti-intellectualism was
McC referring to a multi-million dollar planetarium projector as
"an overhead projector."
|10.29.08 @ 10:42AM|#
The front runner in 2012 is going to be Mark Sanford, and he's
about as Libertarian as a major party candidate with a realistic
chance of winning is going to get. I don't think that's a reaction
to anything in particular another than Sanford existing and having
his career peak in the year 2012.
And I find the idea that Sarah Palin is McLame's big problem pretty
hard to swallow. She's the thing that brought him back in to
contention in the first place. His frenzied support for the bailout
is what stuck the fork in McCain. If McCain had more sympathy and
understanding for Palin's paleoconservative views, he might have
thought better of throwing his lot in with the Feds and the Wall
Street hustlers.
|10.29.08 @ 10:43AM|#
There is a guy I know (who loudly and frequently professed his
undying admiration for Hillary Clinton, prior to her exit from the
race) who goes into a sputtering, foaming-at-the-mouth frenzy when
Sarah Palin's name is mentioned.
I don't get it; I'm no fan, but she doesn't offend me to the roots
of my soul. Of course she's loathsome. She's a politician
for pity's sake. Politicians as a species are loathsome.
And I still believe it's possible to make the case that a
(non-Palin) mayor would be a better President than a United States
Senator would. So would a paperboy.
Rock Lobster|10.29.08 @ 10:46AM|#
I will second BDB . . . unfortunately, libertarians are left in no man's land once again - The GOP used to speak to some of our values, and very occasionally seemed to want to act upon them. No more . . . there are just a token few Goldwater types left. I actually bear very little hope that those few will come close to mounting the type of comeback within the party that would make it somewhat attractive to us. So, it's the wilderness . . .
|10.29.08 @ 10:46AM|#
The most egregious recent example of GOP
anti-intellectualism was McC referring to a multi-million dollar
planetarium projector as "an overhead projector."
Tonio, the only way statements like this are going to hurt, and not
actually help, is if we get an asteroid barreling down on us or
some other major emergency. And at that point, how you poll kinda
doesn't matter.
The scientific community being mad at the GOP probably is a net
benefit for them with the fundies and other religious
types.
BDB|10.29.08 @ 10:47AM|#
I have no problem with the projector. I have a problem that the Feds paid for it. They could have easily used Illinois tax money instead of tax money from people who live in other states.
BDB|10.29.08 @ 10:48AM|#
Hell, the City of Chicago probably has enough money floating around they could have even footed the bill.
fyodor|10.29.08 @ 10:55AM|#
Politicians have made themselves over with varying degrees of
success before, and maybe she'll learn how to moderate her rhetoric
and make sense in an interview. In other words, lotsa time for
lotsa lipstick by 2012! And if Obama does okay (popularity wise),
the GOP may be ripe for a sacrificial lamb (at the risk of shifting
barnyard animal metaphors) to offer up for the base's sake...
Not that I'm predicting this, mind you, but it's hardly beyond the
pale.
BDB|10.29.08 @ 10:58AM|#
Fyodor--
You're assuming Alaska re-elects her in 2010. With oil prices
falling, I wouldn't bet on it.
|10.29.08 @ 10:59AM|#
Tonio, the only way statements like this are going to hurt,
and not actually help, is if we get an asteroid barreling down on
us or some other major emergency. And at that point, how you poll
kinda doesn't matter.
Well, a major emergency was the premise for my original post. I was
actually envisioning a pandemic disease of some sort -- one which
would significantly reduce the population but would not destroy
infrastructure or change habitability.
The scientific community being mad at the GOP probably is a net
benefit for them with the fundies and other religious
types.
Hugely true, but only if there is no crisis. Also, the aftermath of
this election could entail either the marginalization of the
fundagelical wing of the GOP, or the marginalization of the whole
GOP if they don't purge or marginalize the fundies.
|10.29.08 @ 11:02AM|#
"And I find the idea that Sarah Palin is McLame's big problem
pretty hard to swallow. She's the thing that brought him back in to
contention in the first place. His frenzied support for the bailout
is what stuck the fork in McCain. If McCain had more sympathy and
understanding for Palin's paleoconservative views, he might have
thought better of throwing his lot in with the Feds and the Wall
Street hustlers."
The bailout killed McCain. I was an issue handed to him on silver
platter, and he botched it totally. A simple "no" vote would have
simultaneously put Obama in the position of defending corporate
warfare and drawn a clear distinction from the policies of W. I
think economic issues are weaknesses for both McCain and Palin, as
neither can seem to grasp them.
Elemenope|10.29.08 @ 11:05AM|#
Christ, people bitch about being smarter than their boss,
why would they want the same in their president.
Because their president is not their boss.
|10.29.08 @ 11:07AM|#
the aftermath of this election could entail either the
marginalization of the fundagelical wing of the GOP, or the
marginalization of the whole GOP if they don't purge or marginalize
the fundies
While I would like to see either of those scenarios, I really can't
see it happening. The fundies represent a significant part of the
core of the GOP now. Maybe the latter situation if the fundies keep
dominating the GOP, but definitely not the former.
robc|10.29.08 @ 11:08AM|#
BDB,
A ticket with Palin at it's head will make them go the way of
the Federalists and Whigs. It would be a disaster.
Im failing to spot the disaster in that.
BDB|10.29.08 @ 11:08AM|#
The GOP could have a crack-up, the same way the Dixiecrats ran third party candidates for President several times, there could be a Evangelical Nationalist Party or what have you.
BDB|10.29.08 @ 11:09AM|#
robc--
If you look closely, I think you can see the disaster from your
house.
robc|10.29.08 @ 11:14AM|#
BDB,
???
My point was the GOP going the way of the Whigs is a good thing,
not a disaster. If we could get the Dems to follow, it would be
even better.
Xmas|10.29.08 @ 11:29AM|#
Gee...I don't know why 6 weeks of "She's an idiot hick, a
redneck beauty queen" reporting would ever cause someone to be
unpopular.
Meanwhile, newspapers and newsrooms around the country are losing
money hand-over-fist. I wonder if these things could be
related.
We all lost when the first "Palin is a C*nt" t-shirt was sold on
Cafepress.
Elemenope|10.29.08 @ 11:29AM|#
The GOP could have a crack-up, the same way the Dixiecrats
ran third party candidates for President several times, there could
be a Evangelical Nationalist Party or what have you.
That would be nice (I've always thought it would really take four
parties to decently capture the American political spectrum), but
it's not likely to be stable.
Duverger's
Law, and all that.
|10.29.08 @ 11:30AM|#
This is OT, but still about embarrassing candidates. Joez Law goes mainstream. Personally, I'd prefer a CFO that could spell.
Some Guy|10.29.08 @ 11:33AM|#
A ticket with Palin at it's head will make them go the way
of the Federalists and Whigs. It would be a disaster.
I would call that one down, one to go.
I think Mrs. Palin's experiences in education, family and even
working momhood are closer to the average person's in the US than
is Mr. Obama's experiences.
I agree that she is much closer to average. And the average
American is too stupid to run their own life, let alone run a
country.
|10.29.08 @ 11:37AM|#
She reminds me of the asshole local pols that make County
Council such a pain in the ass.
She reminds me of the Vice-Chair of the Board of Selectmen who
spends all of her time looking for the chance to knife him in
public, so she can hold the gavel.
|10.29.08 @ 11:40AM|#
And I find the idea that Sarah Palin is McLame's big problem
pretty hard to swallow. She's the thing that brought him back in to
contention in the first place.
The IDEA of Sarah Palin put him back in contention, briefly.
Then she opened her mouth.
|10.29.08 @ 11:48AM|#
It is not folksy anti-intellectualism, it is folksy anti-big
media. Frankly, you have a pretty low bar for the term
"intellectual" if you consider George Will or Kathleen Parker to be
notable ones. Bloviating on a national editorial page or blog does
not make you an intellectual. There are a few people like Anne
Applebaum or Amity Shales who are intellectuals and also write on
editorial page. But those are few and far between.
Lastly, in the realm of public policy being anti-intellectual may
not be a bad thing. Intellectuals tend to dream up government
solutions to things. Herb Stein was one hell of an intellectual. I
took an econ class from him when he was guest lecturing a night
class at GW. That guy was a giant brain. He also was chairman of
the council of economic advisors when Nixon thought wage and price
controls were a good idea. Heidegger was certainly smarter than the
entire Reason staff combined and he supported National Socialism.
Wilson, the worst President of the 20th Century, was President of
Princeton. The list of well intentioned but incredibly wrong and
destructive intellectuals goes on and on. If there is one lesson of
history since the French Revolution it is that intellectuals in
power is usually a very bad thing.
Etymology Boy|10.29.08 @ 11:57AM|#
The Palin base-appeal is much better described as
"anti-intellectualoid" than as "anti-intellectual."
Lotta syllables, I know, but do you really not know what
"intellectualoid" means? Limbaugh appears to.
Are you and Douthat pretending to be stupid to pretend to
be smart, or just reveling together in not understanding a common
suffix as a kind of cross-publication frat-boy high-five?
Either way, the ironing is delicious.
|10.29.08 @ 11:59AM|#
Please don't insult the American anti-intellectual tradition by
equating it with the utter idiocy of what the GOP base is up to
these days. Anti-intellectualism is a philosophy that values
pragmatism over idealism. Anti-intellectualism is why the US had,
and still has remnants of, the ubermessy but liberty-riffic
distributed govt and common law systems, that European
intellectuals were tearing down left and right on their side of the
pond.
Anti-intellectualism is not the same thing as absolute
foolishness.
|10.29.08 @ 12:07PM|#
@ mo: heh. nice that it got misspelled twice
And now it's a neologism. Maybe it's a corruption of "Republican" and "politician" or "Republican" and "magician".
|10.29.08 @ 12:07PM|#
I think Palin gets too much credit for "bringing McCain back in
to centention". The bump in McCains poll numbers coincides with the
convention which ALWAYS gives candidates a bump.
Further it seems that she gets too much blame for him for him
dropping further back. If you look at the daily tracking numbers,
Obama's biggest move (excepting his BIG jump during the DEM
convention) coincides with the bank failures, the bail-out drama
and wild Dow drops.
At times when the ecomomy is poor, the incumbant party always
loses. That is what is going on here. That explanation doesn't make
for very entertaining cable news programming. Goofing on Palin
does.
So I think this "Palin effect" has been wildly overblown both ways.
The ecomony is what is pushing Obama's strong performance and is
what is going to account for his win.
|10.29.08 @ 12:11PM|#
do you really not know what "intellectualoid" means?
The counterpart of "Joe the plumber"?
|10.29.08 @ 12:15PM|#
Gee...I don't know why 6 weeks of "She's an idiot hick, a
redneck beauty queen" reporting would ever cause someone to be
unpopular.
Xmas, I think you're overestimating the persuasive ability of the
MSM, and have a flased notion of causality. The MSM is reporting
that she's a rural, unsophisticated person because, well, she IS
(or chooses to present herself this way). And I say this as someone
with rednect bona fides.
You're also underestimating the backlash against said media, which
she's certainly aware of and benefitting from.
Meanwhile, newspapers and newsrooms around the country are
losing money hand-over-fist. I wonder if these things could be
related.
While you're wondering, you might want to look at the decline of
print media BEFORE this campaign. It was already dropping like a
shot pheasant. Now, if you can pin an acceleration of that drop to
the portrayal of Palin you might have something.
We all lost when the first "Palin is a C*nt" t-shirt was sold
on Cafepress.
I don't think the constitution is so fragile that a little bit of
scurrilous political speech would take it down. Are they really
selling these shirts?
Elemenope|10.29.08 @ 12:26PM|#
The list of well intentioned but incredibly wrong and
destructive intellectuals goes on and on.
Are you saying that the list of well-intentioned but incredibly
wrong *idiots* is shorter?
|10.29.08 @ 12:28PM|#
The most egregious recent example of GOP
anti-intellectualism was McC referring to a multi-million dollar
planetarium projector as "an overhead projector."
Actually, I'd say the most egregious example of GOP
anti-intellectualism would be Sarah Palin decrying
research into fruit flies in the same speech she called for
more research into autism, at least some of which involves said
fruit flies. It's like the GOP isn't even trying anymore. They
remind me of a cargo cult, repeating the old liturgy without
understandig of why it worked for their ancestors, and so not
capable of making it work for themselves.
Scott66|10.29.08 @ 12:30PM|#
Reason tends to use the word intellectual in the cultural sense
not the primary dictionary meaning. Reason and others want
intellectual to mean university educated and participating in
certain professions such as being a professor or journalist. This
group then wants to conflate that with the dictionary definition
and thereby take possession of the word to mean those who are
professors, journalists and such are by definition devoted to the
pursuit of intellect, the dictionary definition.
Very few people are anti dictionary definition intectualism. If
someone says they are anti-intellectual they are most likely using
the above definition except they do not conflate the profession
with pursuit of intellect. In other words what they mean is they
are anti university educated elitist snob.
Is Obama an intellectual? Most people would say yes, after all he
was a university professor. But if you ask him why he plans to
raise the capital gains tax rate when it has been shown that action
will lower the amount of tax revenues, Obama will say "fairness".
Ask Palin if she would raise the tax even though it reduced tax
revenue and you would probably get something like "Golly gee no
that would be stupid." Who's the intellectual? The answer is
probably neither but because Obama fits Reason's definition they
will never challenge Obama's intellectualism only Palin's
LarryA|10.29.08 @ 12:34PM|#
Of course the base loves Palin, but unless McCain pulls the
upset we're going to realize that the GOP's embrace of "folksy"
anti-intellectualism (sorry, anti-intellectualoidism) bought it
nothing and lost it plenty
The McCain campaign brought Sarah Palin on board, then tried to
cram her into a McCain-shaped hole. Who in their right mind would
think it a good idea to send the candidate on a
high-fashion-expensive-clothing tour in the middle of an economic
disaster?
Palin is a mishandled rookie, and she's figured that
out. Give her four years on the national stage, and we all
may be singing a different tune.
How many "average Americans" shoot moose or
snowmobile?
There are 80,000,000 "average American" gun owners. If, as I expect
he will, Obama truly pisses them off, Palin's NRA "A" rating will
go nova. Add to that everybody else who is going to get screwed
over by Obama's policies.
She reminds me of the asshole local pols that make County
Council such a pain in the ass.
As governor of Alaska, eighty percent (80%) approval
rating.
|10.29.08 @ 12:36PM|#
Every gun owner in America shoots moose?
How about, less than 1%? Better?
BTW, her approval rating is now 60%, a 20% drop in a month.
BDB|10.29.08 @ 12:38PM|#
My prediction is her popularity is directly related to the price of oil. As oil prices go down, so do the Alaska Oil Welfare Checks, so does her popularity.
|10.29.08 @ 12:54PM|#
Scott66 has it exactly right. Further, Reason is a haven for pseudo-intellectuals and posers. Other than maybe Ron Bailey, I wouldn't describe any of their writers as intellectuals. Repeating conventional wisdom snark does not make Weigal and intellectual.
|10.29.08 @ 12:59PM|#
does not make Weigal and intellectual.
joe'z law? I can forgive either the misspelling of Weigel's name or the 'and' typo, but not both.
Franklin Harris|10.29.08 @ 1:07PM|#
The newest surveys put her [Palin's] disapproval rating above 50 percent, in Hillary Clinton territory.
And yet, the conventional wisdom is that Palin is sinking McCain's
candidacy, whereas had Obama nominated Clinton, Obama would be on
his way to a Reagan-like landslide victory.
If Palin and H. Clinton have the same disapproval rating, I doubt
both those bits of conventional wisdom can be true.
|10.29.08 @ 1:19PM|#
That is hardly the conventional wisdom.
Even the Conventional Wisdom has caught up to the fact that Clinton
voters are going overwhelmingly for Obama.
Mr Obvious|10.29.08 @ 1:21PM|#
I too believe that Palin's experiences of working momhood
are closer to average than Obama's.
I agree, she does have a lot more in common with half of the
elctorate than does Obama.
Warty|10.29.08 @ 1:26PM|#
Lots of obnoxious jackasses on these threads misspell Weigel's name as "Weigal". Is this just idiocy, or is it somehow snide?
Elemenope|10.29.08 @ 1:26PM|#
Mr. Obvious, allow me to insert a syllable.
You are now "Mr. Oblivious".
|10.29.08 @ 1:36PM|#
As governor of Alaska, eighty percent (80%) approval
rating.
68%, actually. And dropping, mostly due to her behavior during
Troopergate and the events that are making moderates dislike her
all over the country. If she's smart, she could make herself into a
power player for the 2016 elections, but 2012 is a little soon for
her to be getting the experience she needs to not have the people
who are supporting her now turn on her as "not sufficiently
experienced." She needs to pull a John Edwards; spend time working
on her own large initiative and then parley that into a candidacy.
She *won't* because she's not smart enough to see it and is just
going to run to DC in two years because she's convinced that she's
beloved by all, but that doesn't change the fact that it's what
she'd have to do.
Franklin Harris|10.29.08 @ 1:37PM|#
That is hardly the conventional wisdom.
You obviously didn't watch the same C-Span panel with several
Democratic pollsters that I watched this weekend.
Mr Obvious|10.29.08 @ 1:40PM|#
Mr. Obvious . . . should we really seek something like the
average American to be our President? Remember, the average
American has become a piglet on the teat of government . . . I
think it takes an exceptional, not average, person to elucidate in
plain language why this should not be so.
I'm surprised at this immature expression of need for someone who
is smarter and better than you to lead you.
W has a Harvard degree and he's an idiot. Clinton is brilliant and
he was stupid enough to get caught and impeached for didling with a
skanky butterface. Bush 1 was smart enough to squander the
seemingly impossible success of uniting the arab nations in a
victorious and almost blood free (on the allies side ) war. Reagan
was the closest we've had to normal person as president since that
POS Truman and even St. Ronnie was double dealing with
Iran/Contra.
There have been many articles on this site explaining that while
the average American is on the teat of government, it's the
exceptional one who are sucking hundreds of billions of dollars
from government. Perhaps it is understandable why the average
person, who sees the deserving rich and the deserving poor get
their share from taxes, suddenly use the existing loopholes to get
a small bit of their money back?
Maybe a taste of someone who hasn't been assured of their brains or
their privilege every day of their lives might be a refreshing
change from the past 30 years?
|10.29.08 @ 2:04PM|#
Since we do, in fact, have a president, wanting that president
to be intelligent and capable isn't "wanting someone better than
you to lead you," but "wanting the person who's going to be
president to be smart and capable."
One could just as easily wrote that Mr. Obvious wants to be led by
someone, but doesn't care if he's smart and capable.
But that would be equally inaccurate.
|10.29.08 @ 2:05PM|#
Considering that 99.7% of intellectuals are liberal (statistic
provided by POOMA Research Associates), it's not at all surprising
that conservatives try to distance themselves from intellectualism.
It doesn't take an intellectual to figure out that when
"intellectual" becomes a political position that you're going to
alienate a lot of people.
Couple that with the disdain the left shows to ruraldom, and the
only reason the Democrats still have voters left in flyover country
is because they still own the unions.
|10.29.08 @ 2:22PM|#
"Since we do, in fact, have a president, wanting that president
to be intelligent and capable isn't "wanting someone better than
you to lead you," but "wanting the person who's going to be
president to be smart and capable."
Of course there are different kinds of intelligence. There seems to
be a certain kind of intelligence, bookishness combined with huge
doses ego, earnestness and a strong belief in a ideology that
produces at best incompetent and at worst monstrous results.
To be an effective leader, you have to understand and respect
people. People of truly exceptional intelligence tend to make
terrible leaders because they are so different from average people
they don't understand them and thus don't understand the world.
This idea that the eggheads should run the world is absurd. We want
people with practical knowledge and wisdom who understand how
things actually work, versus how they should work, to be leaders.
Most importantly, however, is a leader's morality and values.
Richard Nixon is the epitome of the self made man with practical
knowledge of the world, but he had lousy moral values and thus was
a terrible leader. Woodrow Wilson was the rare combination of all
of the bad features of a leader, excessive bookishness, lack of
understanding of how the world actually works, and an immoral
character.
If you look at past Presidents, of the great ones only Jefferson
could fairly be described as a genius and true intellectual. The
rest like Lincoln were certainly smart and erudite but the strength
of their leadership came from their morality and understanding of
people and the world, not their intellectual talents.
|10.29.08 @ 2:23PM|#
I agree that thinking people are ovewhelmingly liberal, but what makes you conclude that there aren't any in the interior states?
|10.29.08 @ 2:26PM|#
"I agree that thinking people are ovewhelmingly liberal, but
what makes you conclude that there aren't any in the interior
states?"
Yeah because people who fix cars, build buildings, and do
everything else to make the world work don't do any thinking.
Thinking is reserved to people in wood paneled offices wearing
tweed jackets.
|10.29.08 @ 2:29PM|#
Wasn't someone lecturing us on elitism the other day? Gosh, I wish I could remember who that was...
Elemenope|10.29.08 @ 2:30PM|#
John --
Skating right past the moral point that Jefferson owned slaves, you
do realize that he *did* a few of them, right? According to your
theory, he should be knocked out of the runnings, as "raping a
female slave" is an inarguably immoral act.
Xmas|10.29.08 @ 2:58PM|#
Tonio,
Yes, they are selling those shirts. People are buying them.
The shirts aren't a Constitutional problem, I don't think we're
losing anything that way. But this editorial sums it up
nicely:
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/currents/20081026_Palin_deserves_our_respect.html
|10.29.08 @ 2:59PM|#
Elemenope,
I have never heard that Jefferson raped female slaves. I find that
claim highly dubious. Affairs with them? Maybe depending on who you
believe. But, I have never heard of him being a rapist.
|10.29.08 @ 3:03PM|#
People of truly exceptional intelligence tend to make
terrible leaders because they are so different from average people
they don't understand them and thus don't understand the
world.
What? This is idiotic. Why not just yell, "NERDS!" and get it over
with. Do you really think smart people don't know how things work?
Jealousy of the smart kids isn't attractive.
I have never heard that Jefferson raped female slaves. I find
that claim highly dubious. Affairs with them? Maybe depending on
who you believe. But, I have never heard of him being a
rapist.
They were slaves. Do you think they had any choice? Who's the one
that doesn't understand how things work?
|10.29.08 @ 3:09PM|#
"What? This is idiotic. Why not just yell, "NERDS!" and get it
over with. Do you really think smart people don't know how things
work? Jealousy of the smart kids isn't attractive."
Mo, I am one of the smart kids I have nothing to be jealous about.
If you had ever been around really smart people you would know that
their views and understanding of the world rarely match up with
reality. The examples of this are endless. Go read about Bertrand
Russell sometime for an example of an exceptionally smart person
who had no clue about anything practical.
Again, with the exception of Jefferson, none of our great
Presidents have been geniuses. Many of our worst Presidents, Wilson
and Carter most notably, have been serious intellects. Even
Madison, despite being perhaps the smartest President, wasn't that
great of one in office. I will take Eisenhower or Lincoln or
Reagan, all of who were certainly smart but not geniuses over the
geniuses any day. There are different forms of intelligence.
|10.29.08 @ 3:12PM|#
"They were slaves. Do you think they had any choice? Who's the
one that doesn't understand how things work?"
Yes, Jefferson raped Sally Hemmings. There was nothing complex or
ambiguous about the relationship, it was just Old Jefferson raping
the shit out of her. God Mo are you really that stupid or are you
just a troll?
SIV|10.29.08 @ 3:18PM|#
There is no definitive evidence Jefferson even had sex with Sally Hemmings.Someone other than he fathered most of her children.
|10.29.08 @ 3:52PM|#
Not you, John, Brandybuck.
Quote: Considering that 99.7% of intellectuals are liberal
(statistic provided by POOMA Research Associates), it's not at all
surprising that conservatives try to distance themselves from
intellectualism. It doesn't take an intellectual to figure out that
when "intellectual" becomes a political position that you're going
to alienate a lot of people.
Couple that with the disdain the left shows to ruraldom, and the
only reason the Democrats still have voters left in flyover country
is because they still own the unions.
But what makes you think that people in the interior states only
"fix cars and build buildings?"
|10.29.08 @ 3:53PM|#
There's this "noble savage" theme that runs throught this
anti-intellectual, "Real America" line of argument.
No, no, it's not an insult when I say you aren't intellectuals,
because you're NOBLE savages. Close to the earth. Work with your
hands, you know?
|10.29.08 @ 3:55PM|#
Mo, I am one of the smart kids I have nothing to be jealous
about. If you had ever been around really smart people you would
know that their views and understanding of the world rarely match
up with reality.
He's got you there, Mo.
|10.29.08 @ 4:53PM|#
Mo, I am one of the smart kids I have nothing to be jealous
about. If you had ever been around really smart people you would
know that their views and understanding of the world rarely match
up with reality. The examples of this are endless. Go read about
Bertrand Russell sometime for an example of an exceptionally smart
person who had no clue about anything practical.
I never said all smart people know nothing about reality. The old
trope about street smart vs. book smarts is idiotic and for the
most part, non-existent. Street smarts is just applied
intelligence. Eisenhower graduated relatively high up in his class
from the USMA, he was no dummy. Lincoln didn't have formal
education, but based on things written about him and his
self-education, I'm guessing he was a genius.
If smart people don't know anything about the real world, then how
the fuck do smart people, that aren't inventors or lawyers, become
rich in the real world. To build a successful business, you have to
have a pretty good understanding of the real world and what people
want.
The reason intellectuals tend not to know much about the "real
world" is because they're lumped together with academics that are
often in an unusual, not real world environment. Of course, by the
same token, I'd say the same thing about career military men.
Clinton was a brilliant man and a really good president (the affair
thing doesn't really count because for the majority of American
history, extramarital affairs weren't reported by the media).
Yes, Jefferson raped Sally Hemmings. There was nothing complex
or ambiguous about the relationship, it was just Old Jefferson
raping the shit out of her. God Mo are you really that stupid or
are you just a troll?
Do you really think there is any sort of choice in that situation?
Rape isn't just scary dude jumping out of an alley or frat guy
going to far on a date. I don't know what the situation is, but to
think that assuming that there was some duress involved in having
sex with a slave is hardly controversial. Slaves were forced to
work unwillingly, why is it trollish to think that the sex was
unwilling?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245