The worrying thing is that this actually appeals to the anti-intellectual sections of the right-wing.
That's because Condi isn't stupid. I say this as someone who disagrees with her on most things related to politics. She is the Right's Joe Biden but with much more political power. When Biden decides to barf his latest thought, nobody takes him seriously. When Palin does it, it becomes gospel word. What is wrong with Sarah Palin is that everything she does seems to be for attention. That maybe not what her intent is, but those are her actions. Frankly, she pales in comparison to many female politicians. I only have to point to the other big female politician in the news lately for an example of a politician who truly cares about the people and not what the people think of her. I would be more 'scared' of her if she was the GOP Chairman. She would be a great pick for that job and would do more damage to the Democrats in 2012 (including Obama) than in any other position, IMO.
When people use "anti-intellectual" in a derogatory sense, what they really mean is "anti-smug, academic elitists who can't function in the real world but still presume to dictate terms to those who can." And they use it in the pejorative because they are one of said academic elitists, and resent anyone who doesn't lovingly embrace their "enlightened" ideals.
That's what I've been trying to say. Everyone elevates what they identify as, downing everyone else. Now, if people can get over that, maybe proper talks can occur. maybe some progress can happen. as a political cartoonist wrote once, "We need THEM, because it justifies US." Stop it. (Don't get me wrong, I do it too, bit I can see past it.)
Well, that's nice and circular. I can't observe that Palin is ignorant of history, world politics, economics or any of the other important things that one needs to know about in order to run a country without being a "smug, academic elitist" in your eyes. The reality is that there is a certain amount of knowledge that one is required to possess to be competent as a leading politician. Palin does not meet that standard in my view.
For history, I can't say. I'm not sure I'd pass your historical minutae pop quiz, either. Though I would emphasize the difference between practical knowledge necessary for leadership, and that which is merely necessary to appease people who play dumb shit "gotchya!" political games. You even invoking the subject of economics is highly suspect, though. What you would call "ignorance" will actually be a refusal to buy into your parasitic, redistributionist agenda much of the time.
Probably not, but then you're not campaigning to be President. Nope. There are lots of Republicans, Democrats and others that I would find "competent" in the sense of knowing exactly what they're doing. On Obama, whom Asyncritus brings up, I think he does pass that test. That doesn't mean that I have to like what he's doing. (I don't.)
Just a thought, though. Given the choices (and that "none of the above" is an option) wouldn't McCain/Palin have been better than Obama/Biden by this standard?
If the accent is on "by this standard," then, yes. Having an incompetant in a do-nothing job like VP is not all that bad (look at how little Biden is hurting the country). Having an incompetant as President is much worse. However, other considerations also entered into it. All things considered, trying to decide, even in hindsight, if Obama/Biden or McCain/Palin was worse is kind of like choosing between the firing squand or the gallows. I'm still convinced that my write-in vote for Ron Paul was correct. At least I voted for someone with whom, though I don't agree 100%, I am at least enough in agreement that I would have been satisfied to see him as President. That would not have been the case with McCain any more than with Obama.
I've (previously, at least) always held the opinion that a write-in for president with no chance was a wasted vote. If I just wanted to protest, there were more vocal, more public ways to do so. Otherwise, I was hurting the lesser of two evils. My real efforts should've been expended well before election day (for Ron Paul or whoever) but if they didn't pan out then I'd better go with the best option available. The nature of the system is that a third party that splits one or the other of the two majors only strengthens the third. We could change the fundamentals of our system, I suppose, but that's a much more involved process. The better option is to change the party we're more closely aligned with. We're never going to get 100% of what we want anyway but we can work to make our choices better.
I'll go for the "lesser of two evils" choice when the difference is enough to really make a difference. In this case, it wasn't.
My "bias toward the left" is hardly in doubt. Nevertheless, the recognistion that Obama is significantly less ignorant than Palin has nothing to do with it. I'd say that same of John McCain, for example.
It has everything to do with it. Of course one thing is definite. You pick and choose what you are going to listen to and believe.
I can see how you might feel that way. I'll give you that Biden/Palin might've been a wash but I felt, and still do, that there was plenty of difference between McCain and Obama. McCain wasn't my first choice but he was and is better. On budget issues alone, "lesser of two evils" by far favors McCain.
You're an idiot. Seeing as I am often extremely critical of Obama and seeing as I apply exactly the same principle to John McCain, the only conclusion here is that you're unable to place me outside of the repugnant Democrat/Republican dichotomy that your brain is stuck in.
Nobody knows everything there is to know about everything. No matter who anyone picks for president, they are going to be ignorant about one thing or another. If a presidential candidate is good at economic policy, he or she may be a klutz as a diplomat. If they are good at writing bills, they may be horrible at getting two sides to work together. Choosing a president then, is an operation in deciding what is important, and what isn't. Every candidate will have shortcomings. It's choosing whether you, and the country at large, can live with those shortcomings. To me, Palin seems like she needs a lot more overall knowledge before she stops tripping on words and talking filler when discussing an issue. Book smarts have a little to do with it, but that's never the be all and end all of how 'smart' a person is. I'm not knocking a university education, but I find that so called intellectuals value it more highly than it really is worth. I've met some brilliant people who are university educated, and I've met high school students who were a lot more knowledgeable about the world than some doctor with a PhD. There are certain degrees of intellect and stupidity people will tolerate in a presidential candidate, but once a candidate has reached the level of wisdom people are comfortable with, it should more be a matter of focusing on their core beliefs. Like, is this person a fiscal conservative? Where would the person put spending priority? Is this person a champion of social justice? What is their stance on environmental issues? They don't need to know everything there is to know on these issues, but their core beliefs should be scrutinized and examined. In my opinion, Sarah Palin has the right politics (for me), but doesn't have enough world knowledge for the job, and Obama is too inexperienced and has the wrong core politics for my liking, though he makes an excellent ambassador on the world stage. I think I'd rather have McCain as president over either of them. His politics are something I would disagree on (not as much as Obama), but he has enough charisma to not embarrass the US on the world stage, and enough experience as a politician to play the game in Washington. Hopefully the next president will be someone boring. I personally think America is still a great country, and really, it doesn't need such a radical change. If it did, why was it #1 in everything for so long? If the person can keep the country status quo and improve a few things here and there, you guys should count your blessings.
Not convinced. With a Pelosi/Reid congress, the former senator who voted for the bailout would have a huge deficit. And it would get blamed on the President instead of the Congress, which would have meant two more years of Pelosi as Speaker, to do even more damage. It may even have been better as it is.
I don't think that's true, either. For a couple of examples... Porkulus would never have appeared. Even if it had, a divided government would've been more likely to spread it around rather than just buy votes in Democratic districts. Out-and-out pandering to unions wouldn't be so blatant and so expensive. Afghanistan would probably be winding down in a controlled fashion by now rather than a low-grade Vietnam-style spiral. While McCain is, indeed, a moderate, he would've provided at least some braking power on the out-of-control spending and other extreme ideas of this past Congress. There is something to be said for the shock value of the last two years but the damage done is going to prove to be beyond any possible value gained by it. The real answer is a continuously motivated populace that works to elect the best leaders and/or move our parties in the directions we need them to go. If we were doing that all along, we wouldn't be stuck with bad/worse choices such as this. Since we can't be bothered, we have your false choice of throwing away our vote or holding our noses to go with something we don't really like.
Bullshit. Obama has displayed, unequivocally, demostrably, that he does not possess the facility required to competently discharge the job for which he was elected. Love him or hate him for his positions, McCain's ability, for experience alone, would have made him a better President than Obama. That he'd have been any more effective is debatable. That he would have been less of an embarrassment, is not.
I agree with you BUT in terms of the long term health of the country, having McCain take a much slower journey down the same path might actually have been worse because there would have been two potentially deadly consiquences: 1. no "shock" - that it, bigger budgets but no so MUCH bigger that ta large segment of the population DOESN'T wake up and say "now wait just a damned minute!!!" 2. voters blaming (rightly to some degree) the Republican president for spending issues and being more inclined to trust a Democrat to do better...at a point where we'd be closer to the cliff.
