Oh, I heard about the resignation, just not the reasons. Given that she's a conservative Republican I initially figured that she probably had an affair, but then conservative Republicans who have had affairs don't resign (Vitter, Sanford, Craig, Ensign, etc., etc., etc.).
So maybe she's just a quitter, or had some wolves to shoot, or another of her daughters is pregnant, or she just wants to spend more time sitting around the cement pond, etc.
Reminds me of Morticia's line from the Addams family movie: "I'm just like any modern woman trying to have it all. A loving husband. A family. It's just ... I wish I had more time to seek out the dark forces and join their hellish crusade."
So your answers is “I just want to be trendy”. You should feel proud that you and Lindsey Lohan have the same political philosophy
It’s one thing to criticize public figures, but with your juvenile “cheap shots” you show yourself to have the mental depth of shows like SNL and Stewart.
It’s safe to say you don’t like Palin because someone told you not to like her.
Now that I think about it, politically you’re in lock-step with Lindsey Logan, John Steward and the like. How can you even claim to have ever drawn an original opinion? Late night television is for entertainment Dan not for adopting political opinion.
Alas, I waste my time. . . If people didn't rely on late night talk shows and celebrities for political advice then you would be calling her Vice President Palin.
Actually, Edwin, I neither like nor dislike Sarah Palin. That requires a level of familiarity that I do not have. I find her politics to be dangerously ill-informed, her practice to be the equivalent of the Senior Cheerleader elected class President because everyone likes her, who goes on to make sure all her friends get on the homecoming decorating committee.
Had history not been against her and her running mate, I doubt we'd have called her "VP" for very long. She couldn't take the heat of an Alaskan summer. Having lived through four DC summers, I can tell you that the midnight suns of Alaska are nothing to the swamps of DC in July and August.
Face it. She couldn't handle the heat, so she turned tail and ran. Good riddance, as far as I'm concerned.
BTW, check out a post I did on her resignation; there's a link to some social science data that show her inclusion on the Republican ticket was the reason it tanked. I know that goes against conventional wisdom ("It's the economy, stupid!"), but the data are pretty clear; even the authors of the study are stumped. After an initial bump, after the rough outlines, with some detail, of her political beliefs and practices became clear, the Republican ticket collapsed like a bridge in Minnesota. It wasn't AIG that killed McCain's chances, it was Moose Lady.
McCain killed McCain's chances. Palin was the only decent choice he made.
You can't even describe Palin without using terms like cheerleader and moose lady. It's been so ingrained into your thinking (by late night talk show hosts and celebrities) that you can't help it.
I've never met Sarah Palin, so I don't like nor dislike her, Eddiebaby. Unlike you, I don't waste my time liking or disliking complete strangers.
I realize that for someone like you, voting for President (or in this case VP) is no more involved than voting for Prom King and Queen, and is simply a matter of "liking" someone or not. It's just a popularity contest for you.
However, Eddie, for those of us who actually spend time carefully considering our choices, Palin added nothing to the McCain ticket and in fact, given her positions, detracted from it. I voted for McCain in the primaries because he was much more centrist than the rest of the field. Adding Palin to the ticket -- with her one heartbeat away from the presidency with a guy who is no spring chicken -- meant that we'd have a far-right reactionary VP, who couldn't name any significant Supreme Court cases other than Roe, who couldn't name a list of places she got her news, who was being investigated for ethical violations, and with whom I disagreed on a number of issues (based on her own statements at the VP debate.) There are plenty of other reasons I didn't vote for McCain, but she's definitely one of them, which has nothing to do with what anyone else had to say about her.
Now we see that she's a quitter. If she couldn't handle the relatively sedate world of Alaskan politics, she'd have completely imploded in DC. So it turns out that my choice was a good one. Again, based not on whether or not I want to go hunting wolves with her, but based on the actual evidence that she quit.
So you see, your 3rd grade concepts of who likes whom never entered into it.
If you want to vote for someone because you think they'd make a good Prom Queen, be my guest. But just because that's the yardstick you use doesn't mean that's how the rest of us make our choices.
You seem to mistake poking fun at someone with holding a political opinion about someone. Some of us are able to separate the two. Just because you're unable to hold two such notions in your noggin at the same time doesn't mean the rest of us are similarly unable to do so.
So I can poke fun at someone with whom I do not agree with politically (ie. Palin) as well as someone I do (ie. Obama.) Your assumption that this thread is supposed to be some sort of well-reasoned, well-researched apologetic regarding Palin is a pretty clear misunderstanding of its obvious intent.
I know that reading can be difficult for some folks, but do try harder, won't you? Believe it or not, blogging isn't always about serious arguments and discussion, but sometimes it's just about joking around and having fun ... which I, for one, was having until you showed up.
Really, Kitten, you should try not to take everything so seriously and so personally all the time. Try not to troll around the internet always looking for a fight. Try actually having fun once in a while. You might find life can be a lot more enjoyable. And if something on the internet ticks you off, there's a handy way of dealing with it: close the window or hit the back button and move on. Not only will you be happier, but I suspect many others will be too.
Lighten up, Drood. Is making fun of the opponent only an option for the Right? Yes, I know I should be more mature and not engage in a bit of silly joking, but Palin (as noted righteously by Alan and Geoffrey) was/is SO FAR out of her league and yet SO PROUD of herself and SO WRONG when she whines that she is being attacked ("because I'm a Christian, because I'm a conservative, because I'm a woman..." name the reason) that it is fitting to engage in a bit of mocking at times, it seems to me.
Was Jesus wrong to mock/joust with the pharisees at times ("You white-washed tombs! You snakes! You hypocrites!...")? Or, would I be correct in thinking that you believe a bit of mocking is called for at times? Are you not seeking to mock some here today?
"Just want to be trendy"? Is that the best you got? How is making fun of Palin because of her ineptitude and arrogance "trendy"?
And if you suggest I only have the "mental depth" of Jon Stewart again, well, I'll have to thank you, as he strikes me as exceedingly wise and witty.
"All this from the guy who just hours ago called her "Caribou Barbie"."
Yup, which shows that I can make fun of her AND have an informed opinion about her at the same time. Again, just because you can only show slavish devotion to those politicians you "like", doesn't mean the rest of us aren't able to poke fun at someone and have a serious opinion about them at the same time.
Not only that, but unlike you, we're able to tell the difference between a real opinion based on evidence (such as the one I offer above) and a simple joke like "Caribou Barbie". I'm sorry you're unable to do so, but please don't assume we're all as incapable as you are.
McCain killed McCain's chances. Palin was the only decent choice he made.
Following Geoffrey's offer to check out some SCIENCE-based research into why McCain lost. I'm not sure of Brother Drood bothered to look at the research or if he just dismissed it as being too "researchy" and "science-based," but by all means, support Palin. Run her again in 2012. Run her in 2016.
Hell, I may send some money her way (for the entertainment value, if nothing else). Keep ignoring crazy things like "evidence" and "reality," and insist that it's all the media's fault and the Left wing haters of America.
I figure if you bang your head against the wall long enough, you'll either pass out or wise up.
You know, more generally ... I just don't get the trolling.
OK, if you don't enjoy reading someone's blog, if all you're going to do is grouse and whine and pout, if even silly joking posts lead you to start foaming at the mouth ... then why the heck would you visit that blog? (And I'm not speaking to/about Eddie only, but in general.)
No one forces anyone to come here, or my blog, or Geoffrey's, etc. So what the heck? I don't intentionally pound my hand with a hammer because it hurts and it's not much fun. So why would I spend my free time going to blogs that just irritate me? If I did spend time intentionally pounding my hand with a hammer, wouldn't someone rightly assume that I had some sort of a mental problem? And if people intentionally visit blogs just to get ticked off, well doesn't it seem like they have a similar sort of problem?
That's why I don't visit the Amerikkkan Descenter's blogs (and at least a zillion other blogs on the internet.) Either they're stupid, uninteresting, unfunny, or all 3. Why waste my time? I have no doubt they feel the same about my blog, so they don't visit (thankfully!). Great!
In other words I have better things to do with my time then go somewhere just for the purpose of getting pissed off at a complete and total stranger whose opinions I couldn't care less about anyway.
I wonder why it's so hard for some grown adults to get that.
I'll miss Sarah Palin. She always pissed off the right people. All the inbred snowbilly jokes -- they showed the contempt that much of the Left has for flyovercountry and non-Ivy League America.
I'll miss Sanford even more. He was the only potential GOP candidate who really expressed the importance of small government.
I live in flyover country, and I made just as many of those jokes.
Frankly, I think attempting to portray her as somehow representative of "real Americans" (whatever she means by that) is what really shows contempt for those of us us in the fly-over states. She and her supporters assume that it isn't possible to be intelligent and rural; to be from humble roots and Ivy League educated. And of course they assume that one cannot be educated, liberal and be a real American. Education is treason. Liberal politics are treason. These were the themes she just exploited. I found her to be far more condescending than any of her detractors.
True, it's possible (and common) to depict people from major cities with Ivy League educations and/or inherited wealth and prestige as non-Americans. The contempt can cut both ways.
But for once, I'd like to see someone from outside of the elite make it into the White House.
By quitting to demonstrate that she's a fighter; by rambling on and on without coherence or even a vestige of thought, Sarah Palin no more represents "real Americans" than did our previous President.
For those on the right who wish to continue to insist that, somehow, evil coastal media elites tore Sarah Palin limb from limb before our very eyes, I would only ask, Edwin, once again, to check out the link on a post I did on the day Sarah Palin face-planted herself in history. The evidence is clear and convincing - she dragged McCain to defeat. She is, still, popular with the base of the Republican Party. Since this is the same group of people who think that our slide to socialism began with George W. Bush; that Barack Obama is a Marxist-gay-Muslim who is going to instill sharia to kill whitey, I suppose that says all that needs to be said, doesn't it.
Palin/Wurlzbacher 2012 - the only ticket the base will support, it seems to me, and it says all that needs to bee said about the Republican Party.
"But for once, I'd like to see someone from outside of the elite make it into the White House."
And I'd never want anyone who isn't the top of the heap to be President. I think this country deserves better than mediocre or fair-to-middlin', someone who gets by with a gentleman's C. We deserve the very best we can find.
Average Joe/Josephine? I'm sure s/he's fine to have a beer with, but the world's a complicated place and I'd prefer to have the best and the brightest considering all the options.
I'm not sure why anyone would want to settle for less.
BTW, the Bushes were as elite as anyone since Kennedy. Carter and Nixon however were from pretty regular families. The founding fathers were all wealthy land-owners. Lincoln grew up poor. The Roosevelts were rich. Not sure one can actually make a causal connection between being a good president and family history/background.
Odd, isn't it, that the American dream is to reach for the very highest, to achieve the very highest accomplishments. And when someone does so, some folks just want to tear them down for not being average enough. Seems like jealousy to me. Or perhaps insecurity. Or perhaps a smokescreen for the party of the elite (the GOP) to pretend to be something it isn't in order to fool people into getting their votes.
And I'd never want anyone who isn't the top of the heap to be President. I think this country deserves better than mediocre or fair-to-middlin', someone who gets by with a gentleman's C.
You mean like FDR?
I certainly would not dispute that the Bushes are elite. And your Lincoln example is a fine one. Maybe Andrew Jackson would be another.
But the dynastic polics: Bushes, Kennedys, Clintons, Tafts, Dodds...it's not healthy for our Republic.
Nor do I think that being very well educated prepares one for the Presidency. The most educated people seem to be just as capable of behaving foolishly as people who went to state universities.
I don't want a President who thinks that he's smart enough to solve all of our problems. I want one who thinks that the spontaneous orders of a free society are too complex for any one person or team of people to manage without screwing them up.
Quick: did you go to Yale and Harvard, like George W. Bush?
When it comes to picking who to vote for, "qualifications" matter far less to me than ideology. That is, I not impressed if a politician has a lot of experience in office, creating agendas and passing legislation, if I think that the ideology will take us in the wrong direction.
Which is why I was never bothered by Obama's lack of experience in elective office. Or Palin's.
Anyway, an experienced politician is like an experienced prostitute -- not neccessarily a desireable trait (no offense to prostitutes who may feel defamed by this comparison).
"Nor do I think that being very well educated prepares one for the Presidency."
Meh. It can't hurt. It's pretty hard to argue that, between two otherwise equal choices one would for any reason pick the less educated person to be President.
Now the dynasties are something altogether different. I'm not fond of the idea of daddy buying the presidency for his son. But that's not what I meant by elite.
Meh. It can't hurt. It's pretty hard to argue that, between two otherwise equal choices one would for any reason pick the less educated person to be President.
We don't. I was responding to your suggestion that education doesn't prepare one for the Presidency. Just education alone doesn't, but given the choice between educated and not, education is going to be a check in the yes column every time, in my book. It might be outweighed by other factors, but it's certainly not the immediate negative that many the Republican Party want to make it seem.
But then being an educated liberal, I'm not a "real American", so what do I know? *wink*
30 comments:
Caribou Barbie.
Funny (and quick to the draw) but I was thinking more about her "higher calling" press conference...
Ah, I was offline all weekend and didn't hear it.
And frankly I can't be bothered to listen to her, though I heard it was a rambling mess.
!! You MISSED this?
Palin has resigned as Gov of Alaska to pursue and undefined "higher calling..."
And yes, it was a DELIGHTFULLY rambling mess, so I guess you have heard at least the big news.
Man, you can't buy entertainment like this.
Oh, I heard about the resignation, just not the reasons. Given that she's a conservative Republican I initially figured that she probably had an affair, but then conservative Republicans who have had affairs don't resign (Vitter, Sanford, Craig, Ensign, etc., etc., etc.).
So maybe she's just a quitter, or had some wolves to shoot, or another of her daughters is pregnant, or she just wants to spend more time sitting around the cement pond, etc.
Reminds me of Morticia's line from the Addams family movie: "I'm just like any modern woman trying to have it all. A loving husband. A family. It's just ... I wish I had more time to seek out the dark forces and join their hellish crusade."
Do any of you even remember why you don't like her?
"Don't like her??" I love her! She's hilarious! (That is, as long as you don't take her seriously...)
So your answers is “I just want to be trendy”. You should feel proud that you and Lindsey Lohan have the same political philosophy
It’s one thing to criticize public figures, but with your juvenile “cheap shots” you show yourself to have the mental depth of shows like SNL and Stewart.
It’s safe to say you don’t like Palin because someone told you not to like her.
Now that I think about it, politically you’re in lock-step with Lindsey Logan, John Steward and the like. How can you even claim to have ever drawn an original opinion?
Late night television is for entertainment Dan not for adopting political opinion.
Alas, I waste my time. . . If people didn't rely on late night talk shows and celebrities for political advice then you would be calling her Vice President Palin.
Actually, Edwin, I neither like nor dislike Sarah Palin. That requires a level of familiarity that I do not have. I find her politics to be dangerously ill-informed, her practice to be the equivalent of the Senior Cheerleader elected class President because everyone likes her, who goes on to make sure all her friends get on the homecoming decorating committee.
Had history not been against her and her running mate, I doubt we'd have called her "VP" for very long. She couldn't take the heat of an Alaskan summer. Having lived through four DC summers, I can tell you that the midnight suns of Alaska are nothing to the swamps of DC in July and August.
Face it. She couldn't handle the heat, so she turned tail and ran. Good riddance, as far as I'm concerned.
BTW, check out a post I did on her resignation; there's a link to some social science data that show her inclusion on the Republican ticket was the reason it tanked. I know that goes against conventional wisdom ("It's the economy, stupid!"), but the data are pretty clear; even the authors of the study are stumped. After an initial bump, after the rough outlines, with some detail, of her political beliefs and practices became clear, the Republican ticket collapsed like a bridge in Minnesota. It wasn't AIG that killed McCain's chances, it was Moose Lady.
McCain killed McCain's chances. Palin was the only decent choice he made.
You can't even describe Palin without using terms like cheerleader and moose lady. It's been so ingrained into your thinking (by late night talk show hosts and celebrities) that you can't help it.
I've never met Sarah Palin, so I don't like nor dislike her, Eddiebaby. Unlike you, I don't waste my time liking or disliking complete strangers.
I realize that for someone like you, voting for President (or in this case VP) is no more involved than voting for Prom King and Queen, and is simply a matter of "liking" someone or not. It's just a popularity contest for you.
However, Eddie, for those of us who actually spend time carefully considering our choices, Palin added nothing to the McCain ticket and in fact, given her positions, detracted from it. I voted for McCain in the primaries because he was much more centrist than the rest of the field. Adding Palin to the ticket -- with her one heartbeat away from the presidency with a guy who is no spring chicken -- meant that we'd have a far-right reactionary VP, who couldn't name any significant Supreme Court cases other than Roe, who couldn't name a list of places she got her news, who was being investigated for ethical violations, and with whom I disagreed on a number of issues (based on her own statements at the VP debate.) There are plenty of other reasons I didn't vote for McCain, but she's definitely one of them, which has nothing to do with what anyone else had to say about her.
Now we see that she's a quitter. If she couldn't handle the relatively sedate world of Alaskan politics, she'd have completely imploded in DC. So it turns out that my choice was a good one. Again, based not on whether or not I want to go hunting wolves with her, but based on the actual evidence that she quit.
So you see, your 3rd grade concepts of who likes whom never entered into it.
If you want to vote for someone because you think they'd make a good Prom Queen, be my guest. But just because that's the yardstick you use doesn't mean that's how the rest of us make our choices.
All this from the guy who just hours ago called her "Caribou Barbie".
BTW, Eddie,
You seem to mistake poking fun at someone with holding a political opinion about someone. Some of us are able to separate the two. Just because you're unable to hold two such notions in your noggin at the same time doesn't mean the rest of us are similarly unable to do so.
So I can poke fun at someone with whom I do not agree with politically (ie. Palin) as well as someone I do (ie. Obama.) Your assumption that this thread is supposed to be some sort of well-reasoned, well-researched apologetic regarding Palin is a pretty clear misunderstanding of its obvious intent.
I know that reading can be difficult for some folks, but do try harder, won't you? Believe it or not, blogging isn't always about serious arguments and discussion, but sometimes it's just about joking around and having fun ... which I, for one, was having until you showed up.
Really, Kitten, you should try not to take everything so seriously and so personally all the time. Try not to troll around the internet always looking for a fight. Try actually having fun once in a while. You might find life can be a lot more enjoyable. And if something on the internet ticks you off, there's a handy way of dealing with it: close the window or hit the back button and move on. Not only will you be happier, but I suspect many others will be too.
Lighten up, Drood. Is making fun of the opponent only an option for the Right? Yes, I know I should be more mature and not engage in a bit of silly joking, but Palin (as noted righteously by Alan and Geoffrey) was/is SO FAR out of her league and yet SO PROUD of herself and SO WRONG when she whines that she is being attacked ("because I'm a Christian, because I'm a conservative, because I'm a woman..." name the reason) that it is fitting to engage in a bit of mocking at times, it seems to me.
Was Jesus wrong to mock/joust with the pharisees at times ("You white-washed tombs! You snakes! You hypocrites!...")? Or, would I be correct in thinking that you believe a bit of mocking is called for at times? Are you not seeking to mock some here today?
"Just want to be trendy"? Is that the best you got? How is making fun of Palin because of her ineptitude and arrogance "trendy"?
And if you suggest I only have the "mental depth" of Jon Stewart again, well, I'll have to thank you, as he strikes me as exceedingly wise and witty.
And, as always, Alan and Geoffrey have responded much better than I have. Thanks, fellas...
"All this from the guy who just hours ago called her "Caribou Barbie"."
Yup, which shows that I can make fun of her AND have an informed opinion about her at the same time. Again, just because you can only show slavish devotion to those politicians you "like", doesn't mean the rest of us aren't able to poke fun at someone and have a serious opinion about them at the same time.
Not only that, but unlike you, we're able to tell the difference between a real opinion based on evidence (such as the one I offer above) and a simple joke like "Caribou Barbie". I'm sorry you're unable to do so, but please don't assume we're all as incapable as you are.
Drood said...
McCain killed McCain's chances. Palin was the only decent choice he made.
Following Geoffrey's offer to check out some SCIENCE-based research into why McCain lost. I'm not sure of Brother Drood bothered to look at the research or if he just dismissed it as being too "researchy" and "science-based," but by all means, support Palin. Run her again in 2012. Run her in 2016.
Hell, I may send some money her way (for the entertainment value, if nothing else). Keep ignoring crazy things like "evidence" and "reality," and insist that it's all the media's fault and the Left wing haters of America.
I figure if you bang your head against the wall long enough, you'll either pass out or wise up.
I hope you wise up, but bang away and find out...
You know, more generally ... I just don't get the trolling.
OK, if you don't enjoy reading someone's blog, if all you're going to do is grouse and whine and pout, if even silly joking posts lead you to start foaming at the mouth ... then why the heck would you visit that blog? (And I'm not speaking to/about Eddie only, but in general.)
No one forces anyone to come here, or my blog, or Geoffrey's, etc. So what the heck? I don't intentionally pound my hand with a hammer because it hurts and it's not much fun. So why would I spend my free time going to blogs that just irritate me? If I did spend time intentionally pounding my hand with a hammer, wouldn't someone rightly assume that I had some sort of a mental problem? And if people intentionally visit blogs just to get ticked off, well doesn't it seem like they have a similar sort of problem?
That's why I don't visit the Amerikkkan Descenter's blogs (and at least a zillion other blogs on the internet.) Either they're stupid, uninteresting, unfunny, or all 3. Why waste my time? I have no doubt they feel the same about my blog, so they don't visit (thankfully!). Great!
In other words I have better things to do with my time then go somewhere just for the purpose of getting pissed off at a complete and total stranger whose opinions I couldn't care less about anyway.
I wonder why it's so hard for some grown adults to get that.
I'll miss Sarah Palin. She always pissed off the right people. All the inbred snowbilly jokes -- they showed the contempt that much of the Left has for flyovercountry and non-Ivy League America.
I'll miss Sanford even more. He was the only potential GOP candidate who really expressed the importance of small government.
I live in flyover country, and I made just as many of those jokes.
Frankly, I think attempting to portray her as somehow representative of "real Americans" (whatever she means by that) is what really shows contempt for those of us us in the fly-over states. She and her supporters assume that it isn't possible to be intelligent and rural; to be from humble roots and Ivy League educated. And of course they assume that one cannot be educated, liberal and be a real American. Education is treason. Liberal politics are treason. These were the themes she just exploited. I found her to be far more condescending than any of her detractors.
True, it's possible (and common) to depict people from major cities with Ivy League educations and/or inherited wealth and prestige as non-Americans. The contempt can cut both ways.
But for once, I'd like to see someone from outside of the elite make it into the White House.
By quitting to demonstrate that she's a fighter; by rambling on and on without coherence or even a vestige of thought, Sarah Palin no more represents "real Americans" than did our previous President.
For those on the right who wish to continue to insist that, somehow, evil coastal media elites tore Sarah Palin limb from limb before our very eyes, I would only ask, Edwin, once again, to check out the link on a post I did on the day Sarah Palin face-planted herself in history. The evidence is clear and convincing - she dragged McCain to defeat. She is, still, popular with the base of the Republican Party. Since this is the same group of people who think that our slide to socialism began with George W. Bush; that Barack Obama is a Marxist-gay-Muslim who is going to instill sharia to kill whitey, I suppose that says all that needs to be said, doesn't it.
Palin/Wurlzbacher 2012 - the only ticket the base will support, it seems to me, and it says all that needs to bee said about the Republican Party.
"But for once, I'd like to see someone from outside of the elite make it into the White House."
And I'd never want anyone who isn't the top of the heap to be President. I think this country deserves better than mediocre or fair-to-middlin', someone who gets by with a gentleman's C. We deserve the very best we can find.
Average Joe/Josephine? I'm sure s/he's fine to have a beer with, but the world's a complicated place and I'd prefer to have the best and the brightest considering all the options.
I'm not sure why anyone would want to settle for less.
BTW, the Bushes were as elite as anyone since Kennedy. Carter and Nixon however were from pretty regular families. The founding fathers were all wealthy land-owners. Lincoln grew up poor. The Roosevelts were rich. Not sure one can actually make a causal connection between being a good president and family history/background.
Odd, isn't it, that the American dream is to reach for the very highest, to achieve the very highest accomplishments. And when someone does so, some folks just want to tear them down for not being average enough. Seems like jealousy to me. Or perhaps insecurity. Or perhaps a smokescreen for the party of the elite (the GOP) to pretend to be something it isn't in order to fool people into getting their votes.
How are God and Barack Obama alike?
Heh. Neither has a birth certificate. :)
And I'd never want anyone who isn't the top of the heap to be President. I think this country deserves better than mediocre or fair-to-middlin', someone who gets by with a gentleman's C.
You mean like FDR?
I certainly would not dispute that the Bushes are elite. And your Lincoln example is a fine one. Maybe Andrew Jackson would be another.
But the dynastic polics: Bushes, Kennedys, Clintons, Tafts, Dodds...it's not healthy for our Republic.
Nor do I think that being very well educated prepares one for the Presidency. The most educated people seem to be just as capable of behaving foolishly as people who went to state universities.
I don't want a President who thinks that he's smart enough to solve all of our problems. I want one who thinks that the spontaneous orders of a free society are too complex for any one person or team of people to manage without screwing them up.
Quick: did you go to Yale and Harvard, like George W. Bush?
Now: in your opinion, who's smarter, you or Bush?
I want to expand upon a related thought.
When it comes to picking who to vote for, "qualifications" matter far less to me than ideology. That is, I not impressed if a politician has a lot of experience in office, creating agendas and passing legislation, if I think that the ideology will take us in the wrong direction.
Which is why I was never bothered by Obama's lack of experience in elective office. Or Palin's.
Anyway, an experienced politician is like an experienced prostitute -- not neccessarily a desireable trait (no offense to prostitutes who may feel defamed by this comparison).
"Nor do I think that being very well educated prepares one for the Presidency."
Meh. It can't hurt. It's pretty hard to argue that, between two otherwise equal choices one would for any reason pick the less educated person to be President.
Now the dynasties are something altogether different. I'm not fond of the idea of daddy buying the presidency for his son. But that's not what I meant by elite.
Meh. It can't hurt. It's pretty hard to argue that, between two otherwise equal choices one would for any reason pick the less educated person to be President.
Yes, but when do we ever have equal choices?
We don't. I was responding to your suggestion that education doesn't prepare one for the Presidency. Just education alone doesn't, but given the choice between educated and not, education is going to be a check in the yes column every time, in my book. It might be outweighed by other factors, but it's certainly not the immediate negative that many the Republican Party want to make it seem.
But then being an educated liberal, I'm not a "real American", so what do I know? *wink*
Post a Comment