11 comments

• 

  B

  9 months ago

  Yes, intelligence is not sufficient to determine whether somebody is presidential material. But are you implying that it's not necessary either?
  
  It's hard to pin down what we're thinking when we say `that person is smart.' Some just go by credentials, which I'd say you're right to question. Diction is also a lousy means of measuring intelligence (though in another sense of `diction' that's what the SAT does). But other measures make more sense, like having quick responses to surprises, or offering new syntheses of old ideas, or generally being able to quickly thread things together to form a complex thought. I would say that these sorts of intelligence _are_ necessary for a president (but still not sufficient).
  
  Meanwhile, Gov. Palin refused to go off-script in the debate ("I'm not gonna answer that question"), and has famously fumbled when attempting to do so. I want a President who has the intelligence/reflexes/social wit/whatever to go off-script and present ideas apropos to the situation.
  reply
• 

  mwendy

  9 months ago

  Did I miss something in these last couple of weeks. Sarah Palin's not running for President. This may be off topic here, but so is the "I want a President" line in the above comment. It's purposely muddy.
  
  Regardless, she can probably do the job at least as well as as JM, BO and JB. In fact, she's the only one in the bunch with "executive" experience.
  reply
• 

  BD

  9 months ago

  Counting the number of weaknesses an intelligent person can have does not indicate that it is not (or less) useful to a candidate. Surely there many other characteristics that a candidate should have, but this isn't a professorship or a middle management position. This is a Unique job within this government.
  
  As for Palin's political trajectory. To me it seems circumstantial, and not related to here experience or abilities, other that to rouse a far-right republican base to get to the voting booth.
  reply
• 

  Richard Bennett

  9 months ago

  Aside from her inability to form coherent English sentences, Palin is disturbing for her intellectually incurious nature. We've had some recent experience with persons of that sort, and it hasn't been good.
  
  Her rise to power seems to be predicated on her ability to rouse the passions of the religious conservative base and her willingness to stick the knife into her benefactors. Alaska is strewn with the corpses of politicians who helped Palin along her way. She's already doing it to McCain, publicly disagreeing with him on campaign tactics and strategy.
  reply
• 

  mwendy

  9 months ago

  Richard, methinks you're not of her political persuasion, so I wonder how you can come to such a quick conclusion on the passions she stirs. How would you know?
  
  I like her not for what you say (which I think is wrong anyway), but rather because I feel she represents a fresh face and change for a party that needs to reconnect with (or at least better communicate its worth to) average Americans.
  reply
• 

  Richard Bennett

  9 months ago

  Are you kidding? I was ready to vote for McCain before he tapped Palin, and wrote favorably about his tech policy vs. Obama's. There's much about Obama that disturbs me, especially his unsavory associations. Did you know he pals around with Larry Lessig, America's Greatest Living Charlatan?
  
  But Palin is such an extremely unsavory, reckless, opportunistic mess that I've been forced to set ideology aside to oppose any move that would bring her closer to the Oval Office.
  
  And I could not care less about the opinions of Average Americans. I realize they have a say in who governs them, but that doesn't mean that we need one a heartbeat away from the nucular codes.
  
  And it's hardly a "quick conclusion" after 6 weeks of watching her interviews and seeing how she gets the Faithul aroused at her rallies. She's lately been as much as urging people to assassinate Obama, which is way over the line, needless to say.
  
  Is she a conservative? No, she raised taxes on oil companies. Is she a libertarian? No, she wants "vigorous overseeing" of the financial sector. Is she a sensible person? Well, she's been freed of witchcraft influences, so that's a start.
  
  I understand the president doesn't need to be a genius, FDR wasn't one. But lacking that, she needs to have some character and a sane temperament, and I don't see that from the Republican side this year.
  reply
• 

  mwendy

  9 months ago

  Richard, I think the ad hominem makes cheap what you say. It makes me think of the BO San Fran speech about religion, guns and antipathy. Even after the NY Times/liberal media "interpreted" it, there's nothing positive there. When you trot out the religion lines, they're emotional, not designed to be anything more but pokes in the eye.
  reply
• 

  autodidact

  9 months ago

  Camille Paglia expresses roughly similar sentiments about Palin in her latest Slate column, though her enthusiasm is also related to what Palin means for feminism.
  
  http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/10/08/...
  
  And Paglia is confirmed in her support for Obama, BTW.
  reply
• 

  Richard Bennett

  9 months ago

  I didn't make an ad hominem argument (or even an ad feminam one,) mwendy, I directly addressed the person's character. You made an ad hominem argument when you tried to dismiss my critique of Palin on the grounds of my supposed Democratic Party membership.
  
  Literacy is fundamental.
  reply
• 

  Sneeje

  9 months ago

  Well, regardless, her point is still valid. Your arguments boil down to subjective, unsubstantiated, and vitriolic opinions. I agree with mwendy. As I read your comments, I cannot help picturing the commercial about the spot remover where the spot on the guy's shirt talks gibberish and drowns out whatever the guy is trying to say in his job interview. As I read pointlessly ignorant words like "charlatan, unsavory, reckless, and opportunistic mess" I just ignore any point you try to make.
  reply
• 

  Richard Bennett

  9 months ago

  It seems to me that judgments about politicians always boil down to subjective analysis, Sneeje, as we don't have a fact-checking authority to keep the unqualified off the ballot. Some millions of Democrats and Republicans nominated the heads of their respective tickets, and these men made subjective and personal judgments about who their seconds should be.
  
  I hope you don't mean to say that I don't have the freedom to dislike Sarah Palin or to doubt her preparation and temperament to hold high office, as that would be objectively anti-democratic.
  
  It's my judgment that she should not be on major party ticket, and I don't see anything like a coherent policy framework emanating from the various speeches, interviews, and debates that she's engaged in. Rather, I see a person who is skilled at manipulating the passions of certain crowds, and a person whose ambition is apparently boundless.
  
  I don't care for her.
  reply