Lost On The Stupid
By Mitch Berg
Talking Points Memo on why lefties hate Michele Bachmann:
Michele Bachmann (R-MN) sat down for an interview with MinnPost, and among other things was asked why she is the object of so much loathing among liberals.
“I don’t know. I’m a lovable little fuzz ball!” said Bachmann.
I am starting to get the impresison that Bachmann has the one thing any conservative woman must need to stay in the game without going nuts; the ability to keep her most deranged detractors firmly in perspective.
Which is a nice way of saying “mocking them”.
“I have no idea what they would have to fear. I guess you would have to ask them; they would have the better answer to your question. I am doing my job. That’s what I was elected to do. I don’t fear the left, and maybe that’s part of the loathing that they feel toward me. I’m not afraid to speak out on conservative positions and on issues.
Which is, of course, the problem for the left; wimmins are supposed to be barefoot, pregnant and dewy-eyed over Obama.
Eric Kleefeld, the writer, tries to answer Bachmann’s question – sort of:
Bachmann has previously wondered why Democrats don’t like her. We’ve collected some of the reasons — such as her having called for revolution against President Obama’s Marxist tyranny, and calling upon conservatives to slit their wrists and become blood brothers in the fight against the Democrats on health care, and many other examples.
I”m always fascinated that the party of “nuance” gets so flatly literal when a conservative woman talks.
But here’s a serious question: whenever a woman “comes out” as a conservative, she is instantly branded “teh crazee”, “extremist”, “stupid”, and the whole range of petty defamations. For Bachmann, of course, it’s old hat – her detractors date back to before her time in the State Senate, when she started the Maple River Education Coalition; the regional left has been sputtering over Bachmann for over a decade. The contradiction is grating; Bachmann is vastly more accomplished than Betty McCollum, and no more “extreme” to the right than McCollum is to the left.
But I am assured by various liberal friends out there that “there are consevative women that we can respect”.
And I disagree. Until we reach some critical mass of conservative women in this country, I suspect that every single woman who comes to prominence as a conservative will draw the attentions of the liberal machine. I can not thing of a single woman of any prominence as a conservative at any level, from local through national, that doesn’t draw the same exact response.
So prove me wrong. Name a conservative woman of any prominence that hasn’t gotten smeared beyond reason. And by “conservative”, I mean conservative; not Christine Todd Whitman or Olympia Snowe.
Ready? Go.
December 11th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Terry, only 6 words, what kind of “stupid” neanderthal are you? How crude and wude! 😉
…. …. ….
“I think you cross a line however into unfairness in suggesting that conservative women have received worse treatment than women who avow other positions in the political spectrum.”
Please, DogNAGit, step away from the Kool Aid.
They really raked Ferraro through the mud. 😆 😆 😆
Seriously, DG, you still can’t stop talkin’ and bitchin’ about Palin’s clothes, yet nary a word on Ms. Obama’s clothes buying scandal.
I am being more than fair, balanced, and not at all partisan. And I await your admission that I proved you wrong, again.
…. …. ….
Then let’s try this part again, shall we:
Now if DG could only admit that Bachmann and Palin are not “teh crazee”, “extremist”, “stupid”
Come on, DG, try to show us you aren’t a moonbat liberal.
December 11th, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Is this the long and windy way of expressing “I didn’t do it”?
Wait, I thought you were a moderate, Dog Gone. So now you’re a lefty in order to score points? Hmm …
December 11th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
K-rod — yes, she said it.
December 11th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Troy says:
“Is this the long and windy way of expressing “I didn’t do it”? ”
It’s my way of saying that Mitch is incorrectly defining what is an attack, and that conservative women are different from each other, individuals, not a monolithic group.
and Troy said
Wait, I thought you were a moderate, Dog Gone. So now you’re a lefty in order to score points? Hmm ”
I don’t feel a need to score points;we’re not keeping score. I described myself as left of Mitch; that’s ‘lefty’ of him.
You’re right Terry, I am a snob in some respects, but not necessarily in the way you might be thinking.
December 11th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Right-wingers are defined by their resentments, Dog Bone. Don’t worry when they call you a snob or an elitist. It’s a compliment. It means they’re envious of the other guy’s awesome double-wide or mastery of fancy third-grade book larnin’.
December 11th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
“Snob” is not a complimentary term, Angry Clown.
December 11th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
So when I call Clownie irrelevant and pathetic it’s a complment!
December 12th, 2009 at 3:48 am
DOg Gone-
I think this paragraph is a good example of snobbery:
An awful lot of very intelligent people, some of them highly educated, have nevertheless made terrible errors in judgment. George Bernard Shaw was a very strong proponent of eugenics. Ezra Pound was _the_ founding Father of 20th century English-language poetry. He became a propagandist for Mussolini. In our own Noam Chomsky, a highly educated, very intelligent professor of linguisitics, admires the government of Kim Il Jung.
That it is impossible to imagine Prejean or Palin making this kind of error means that they are, of course, more intelligent than Shaw, Pound, or Chomsky.
December 12th, 2009 at 9:30 am
Plus what does it say about a person when they feel perfectly comfortable judging the intelligence of those they’ve never met, based on hearsay and second-hand information?
If you firmly believe that you are really, really smart, you might want to get a second opinion.
December 12th, 2009 at 11:49 am
I’m gonna go along with Terry, here.
An example, Carrie Prejean utterly fails to impress me as either articulate or very intelligent, and certainly not as very well educated. Palin isn’t as bad as Prejean, but she doesn’t particularly impress me either as being well educated or especially intelligent, which is not at all to say I find her stupid like Prejean. I think Palin is mediocre in this regard, unlike say, for a comparison Gretchen Carlson who graduated from a prestigious academic institution with honors, or Bachmann who has advanced degrees, although for the most part not on a par with Carlson’s in terms of academic ranking.
DG, you fall for the usually-but-not-always lefty affectation of confusing “schooling” with education and paper credentials for intelligence.
Because someone was adept enough at the paper chase in their teens, and/or otherwise blessed with the resources, to follow the traditional academic route starting at age 17 or 18, as opposed to someone whose life took some different jinks and curves in their teens and twenties, should never, ever be confused with, much less used as a benchmark to compare, intelligence with people who’ve actually gotten their lives established.
Algore went to Harvard. Clinton went to Yale. Obama went to some other Ivy League cesspool
Ronald Reagan on the other hand worked his way through Eureka, a college on par with my obscure little alma mater, and probably a notch or two “below” Palin’s various colleges.
Reagan was vastly more intelligent and successful, and had vastly more integrity, than Algore; he had a vastly greater positive impact on the world than the three Ivy Leaguers combined.
Please, please stop mixing up paper credentials gained in someone’s 20s with accomplishment, much less intelligence.
December 12th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Republicans keep trying to recreate Reagan, Boys from Brazil-style, but unfortunately not every undereducated draft-dodger is going to be as successful as he was.
December 13th, 2009 at 4:37 am
Oh, please, Angry Clown, let’s talk about Reagan’s qualifications versus Obammy’s. Please?
December 13th, 2009 at 8:23 am
Whatever you think of Reagan, Terry, the point is that maybe you wingnuts should be looking for intelligent, talented conservative candidates instead of simple-minded extremists. Or not. You want to leave all the three-digit IQ’s to the other party, that’s fine with Angryclown.
December 13th, 2009 at 8:34 am
Sure, Terry: Let’s see, Bedtime for Bonzo, WWII service was limited to Hollywood, illegally funded Central American rebels with money from arms sold to Iranian “moderates,” shrewish wife who helped him make decisions through the use of modern astrology. Also, excellent at sitting on a horse and playing cowboy and did a damn fine job reading a Polly Noonan speech. I’m not sure those were all teleprompter jobs either – I imagine sometimes he actually had to read a paper script.
GWB had the dumb part and the cowboy part down. Turns out that isn’t enough.
December 13th, 2009 at 8:36 am
They called Reagan a simple-minded extremist.
At any rate I don’t think that Angry Clown is a reliable judge of who is and who is not a ‘simple-minded extremist’. You are just afraid of a woman who can use a gun.
December 13th, 2009 at 10:08 am
We are talking about qualifications for the office of president, AC, not what either Reagan or Obama has done as president.
Reagan was a film star, was married to two Hollywood starlets, president of the screen actors guild. and two time governor of California, the most populous state in the Union. Or was NY #1 back then?
He defeated an incumbent to win the presidency.
Reagan was in the Army, active service, ’42-’45, made the rank of captain. Reagan made over 400 training films for the AAF while he was in the service. He had an undergrad degree in economics from Eureka college.
Obammy, on the other hand, slept through Occidental & Columbia, got an affirmative action admission to Harvard where he edited a student-run legal journal. Won a seat in the Illinois state senate by default, served in that capacity for seven years, then defeated a carpet bagging Alan Keyes to become the junior senator from Illinois. Before he finished his first term he beat Hillary for the D nomination and won the 2008 presidential election.
There is no comparison.
December 13th, 2009 at 10:22 am
Terry said: “You are just afraid of a woman who can use a gun.”
Duh.
December 13th, 2009 at 10:44 am
Terry: “You are just afraid of a woman who can use a gun.”
Clown: Duh.
A bit of a culture shift, here. West of the Hudson, “woman who can use a gun” is a symbol of competence, self-reliance, confidence and empowerment.
East of the Hudson, it means “Your girlfriend, Angie Scunzilli from Long Island City, thought she heard you were sexting with Gina Rizzo, and is looking for you so she can shoot your yarbles off with a .25”.
It’s an understandable flub.
December 13th, 2009 at 11:15 am
We warned you about Gina Rizzo. And stay away from that Nikki Sivolella.
December 13th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Males East of the Hudson are still interested in women? Besides becoming one? Who knew?
December 13th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Mitch Berg Says:
December 13th, 2009 at 10:44 am
Terry: “You are just afraid of a woman who can use a gun.”
Clown: Duh.
A bit of a culture shift, here. West of the Hudson, “woman who can use a gun” is a symbol of competence, self-reliance, confidence and empowerment.
East of the Hudson, it means “Your girlfriend, Angie Scunzilli from Long Island City, thought she heard you were sexting with Gina Rizzo, and is looking for you so she can shoot your yarbles off with a .25″.
It’s an understandable flub.”
Geeze Mitch, you aren’t a regionalist, stereotyping, sexist – dareI say it? – SNOB of some kind, are you? It’s very messy removing yarbles (yarbles?????? where did you come up with THAT euphemism?) with a .25; a sharp blade is much qicker and cleaner, although of course you have to get close enough to grab them first.
Terry wrote “Because someone was adept enough at the paper chase in their teens, and/or otherwise blessed with the resources, to follow the traditional academic route starting at age 17 or 18, as opposed to someone whose life took some different jinks and curves in their teens and twenties, should never, ever be confused with, much less used as a benchmark to compare, intelligence with people who’ve actually gotten their lives established.”
Hey, Terry, Carlson wasn’t born with ailver spoon in her mouth; her family owned a car dealership. I credit her with both brains AND hardwork in achieving her accomplishments. It’s a word that some on the right would do well to learn: M E R I T. Which is why it is such a shame she goes along with having to play dumb in order to work on Fox, but she is at least shrewd enough to understan her audience, much like Bachmann.The right could do a lot worse than persuade Carlson to run for office.
Kermit wrote:
“Kermit Says:
December 12th, 2009 at 9:30 am
Plus what does it say about a person when they feel perfectly comfortable judging the intelligence of those they’ve never met, based on hearsay and second-hand information?”
Who says I’m judging on heresay or second-hand information? I made my evaluations on first hand observation of their relative statements in interviews, which I viewed.
You wouldn’t be judging me on second hand information without actually knowing me would you? Yeah, I thought not.
December 13th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
DG,
Geeze Mitch, you aren’t a regionalist, stereotyping, sexist – dareI say it? – SNOB of some kind, are you?
Nope. Being a native of “west of the Hudson”, I feel perfectly capable of making a social observation. Especially given that it’s for Angryclown’s consumption.
It’s very messy removing yarbles (yarbles?????? where did you come up with THAT euphemism?)
Lileks 3:16.
Terry wrote
It was actually me.
“Because someone was adept enough at the paper chase in their teens, and/or otherwise blessed with the resources, to follow the traditional academic route starting at age 17 or 18, as opposed to someone whose life took some different jinks and curves in their teens and twenties, should never, ever be confused with, much less used as a benchmark to compare, intelligence with people who’ve actually gotten their lives established.”
Hey, Terry, Carlson wasn’t born with ailver spoon in her mouth; her family owned a car dealership. I credit her with both brains AND hardwork in achieving her accomplishments.
I said nothing about “silver spoons”; I said “adept at the paper chase”. It’s a huge distinction. The resources I’m talking about aren’t financial (although that certainly helps; Algore certianly didn’t get into Harvard on his intellectual merits) as much as commitment from the student, his/her family, and the society around them. There are kids in ghettoes around the country who become math whizzes and get engineering scholarships to MIT; there are kids from rural South Dakota who get straight “A”s and excel at debate and win scholarships to Dartmouth. Kids who adapt to, and show merit in, the classroom environment from the very beginning, and whose families and cultures push that form of development. Nothing wrong with that, but it’s not how everyone develops intellectually; it’s not how everyone’s families are wired; it’s not how every part of our culture ascertains “merit”.
Getting into most “elite” undergraduate schools involves being *intensely* focused on the classroom/academic track very early in life – in one’s mid-teens. I’m here to tell ya – the mid-teens are a lousy time for an awful lot of kids. And not every intelligent, meritorious kid comes from an environment where “achivement” and “merit” is measured by the sort of academic milestones that’ll get someone into Stanford or Brown or Cal Poly when they’re 18. It’s not just the ghetto (although “urban” society’s devaluation of education is a huge problem); on most of the Great Plains and the Deep South, for example, people are encouraged to “aim low”, subtly, from childhood on – to not really shoot for the big prize. Many people from those environments develop their interest in education – and the “merits” thereunto appertaining – later in life. Long after the “Stanford Undergrad” train has left the station.
My point in my response, really, is the absurdity of comparing the “merits” of two 40-something adults by a piece of paper that reflects where they were and what they were about between the ages of 14 and 22. Which is what comparing Carlson’s and Palin’s college degrees is, in their specific instance – and in general is also pretty much a textbook case of snobbery based on something that is utterly irrelevant to most of the adult world. As if having gotten straight A’s when one was 17 is better, more meritorious, than not just juggling four kids and an emerging political career, but doing it really really well, isn’t “meritorious”. I suppose if your focus is entirely on paper credentials obtained before age 23, it might make sense; I’d like to think the world is a little bigger and broader than that.
Indeed, I know it is. More in a bit.
It’s a word that some on the right would do well to learn: M E R I T.
We don’t need to learn it, we live it. It’s why we conservatives look past things like “the institution on your diploma” or ones’ skin color or gender to actually focus on what someone’s done to ascertain merit.
And merit is a hot button topic for me; when I was getting started, I with my BA in English from a very obscure college had to compete for a job with a guy from Dartmouth. Dartmouth sneered down his nose at me; the nerve of me, a mere “hick” (!), to even waste my time by considering going up against a Dartmouth grad! But I worked five times as hard as him, and started with a lot more talent, and I got the job in the end.
So yeah – that’d be one big reason I’m sympathetic with Palin on this particular discusson; not only do us mere proles frequently not give up one iota of talent, hard work and actual “merit” compared to the “elites” (as judged by the institution on their diploma), we are often a whole lot better – because we’ve had to be.
Which is why it is such a shame she goes along with having to play dumb in order to work on Fox,
Now you’re accepting Jon Stewart’s word for it?
I think you’ve been absorbing too much of Penigma’s approach to analysis… :-\
but she is at least shrewd enough to understan her audience, much like Bachmann.The right could do a lot worse than persuade Carlson to run for office.
Nah. Leaving aside the fact (and it is a fact) that the lefty smear machine would instantly start calling her “teh crazee” and “dumb” the moment she showed any political interest, the media is actually a lousy jumping-off point into politics. With few exceptions, it doesn’t work well.
December 13th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Oh, yeah:
Geeze Mitch, you aren’t a regionalist, stereotyping, sexist
Let’s submit this for approval.
Clown? How far off was my description of Ms. Scunzilli and Ms. Rizzo?
December 13th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Dog wondered “You wouldn’t be judging me on second hand information without actually knowing me would you? Yeah, I thought not.”
Well no, you haven’t been subject to the unique form of autopsy our “media” reserve for people who espouse conservative veiws. Therefore, since I have only your unfiltered opinion, I can’t give you the “Palin Treatment” people like Clownie are so fond of.
If you feel that you are guilty of judging on heresay or second-hand information, then I leave it to you to deal with that on your own terms.
December 13th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
I remember seeing an interview between Palin and some female journo — can’t find it with google, tho I suppose I could if I had to, it wasn’t Couric — and the journo laid out some of the fundamentalist statements of some of the members of the church she attended or had attended in Alaska, then triumphantly asked Palin how she could belong to such a church.
Palin told the journo that she had attended the church but was not a member of it. This journalist was undoubtedly highly educated, certainly had a more elite degree than Palin, but she was taken aback. Apparently she didn’t know the difference between belonging to a church and attending a church.
Charles Murray (degrees from Harvard, MIT) wrote a blog post on the subject of American elite culture, accompanied by a very telling graph: http://blog.american.com/?p=4259
It shows that since 1969 the intellectual upper class of whites has grown dramatically more liberal while all other classes of whites have grown (slightly) more conservative. Who are the intellectual upper class?
It was the intellectual upper class who deigned to pass judgment on Palin, and because they control pop culture they were able to make that judgment stick, at least in the minds of the snobs and wannabe snobs who value the opinion of a very small group of very atypical citizens. Obama is very much a member of the intellectual upper class, Palin is not. Neither is McCain.
If we become a people who believe that only members of a certain social class are fit to rule then we will have consented to rule by aristocrats.
December 13th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
Terry blathered: “This journalist was undoubtedly highly educated, certainly had a more elite degree than Palin, but she was taken aback. Apparently she didn’t know the difference between belonging to a church and attending a church.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Not only do you far-right nuts lack the ability to make jokes, but you are completely without any sense of irony.
Google “Jeremiah Wright,” you ridiculous kooks.
December 13th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Mitch queried: “Clown? How far off was my description of Ms. Scunzilli and Ms. Rizzo?”
You are certainly within the comedic license in which Angryclown operates when describing those lovely ruminants you call “Midwestern ladies.”
December 13th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
What are you blathering about, Angry Clown? Obama was a member of Wright’s church. Are you brain dead?
December 13th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
In other words, “a resounding yes”.
Gotcha, thanks.
December 14th, 2009 at 6:44 am
No, Terry, Angryclown just doesn’t read your posts all that carefully. They’re rarely worthwhile.
As in this case. You carefully drew your little Venn diagram to include Obama and exclude Palin, without addressing the specifics of either case. More silly partisan wingnuttery.
December 14th, 2009 at 7:09 am
That’s because I wasn’t commenting on Obama (rolls eyes).
My wife hates it when I give her the eye roll.
December 14th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Terry very inacurately wrote: “Obammy, on the other hand, slept through Occidental & Columbia, got an affirmative action admission to Harvard where he edited a student-run legal journal. Won a seat in the Illinois state senate by default, served in that capacity for seven years, then defeated a carpet bagging Alan Keyes to become the junior senator from Illinois. Before he finished his first term he beat Hillary for the D nomination and won the 2008 presidential election.
There is no comparison.”
The facts differ significantly from Terry’s revisionist conservative history. I wanted to take the time to look them up before commenting, just to be sure of my facts.
Obama graduatred with honors from Columbia with a specialty/ emphasis in international relations – meaning he was in the top 10 % of his class – hardly ‘sleeping through’ his academic career. Then he not only was editor and subsequently president of the harvard law review – far more prestigious than being ‘just a student-run legal journal’, then he graduated Harvard law Magna Cum Laude, again, in the top 10% of his class. That doesn’t happen without intellect and effort.
He was elected to the IL state senate, a district with 210,496 constituents, compared to Palin’s time as Mayor of Wasilla, population 5,469, for which she still had to hire a professional city manager. Obama served as one of the two senators for IL, population 12,852,548, before leaving the senate to serve as President, compared to Palin’s partial term as governor of a state with only 683,478 people in it. No one knows Palin’s high school or college gpa or general info about her grades, because she has kept them secret, unlike Obama, or Biden or McCain. Purely speculation, but it is unlikely this is because those grades are distinguished; it is a matter of record that she did not graduate with honors from U of Idaho, nor does she appear to have had a distinguished academic career at Hawaii Pacific, which her father (allegedly) says she left because there were too many asians and native born islanders for her to feel comfortable, nor were her years at North Idaho Community Colege or Matnuska Sustina Community College apparently distinguished either. She left U of I with a BA in journalism to be………what?
And the differences pre-politics / post college years? Palin was a sportscaster / sportswriter before getting into politics. Obama was many things in his community, including a Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School.
Which list of comparative accomplishments puts Obama as far more qualified to be president than Ms. Palin the quitter, no matter how much Terry and others on the right would like to dismiss those qualifications.
And at least Obama was qualified to write his own three books, unlike Palin who needed a ghost writer, which frankly seriously casts doubts on her ability to write anything longer than a tweet. And there are questions as to whether she even writes those herself.
Mitch wrote:”“Because someone was adept enough at the paper chase in their teens, and/or otherwise blessed with the resources, to follow the traditional academic route starting at age 17 or 18, as opposed to someone whose life took some different jinks and curves in their teens and twenties, should never, ever be confused with, much less used as a benchmark to compare, intelligence with people who’ve actually gotten their lives established.”
Looks to me like comparing the two potential Presidential candidates for 2012 that there are siginificant differences in their accomplishments. And significant differences in the accomplishments of Palin compared to other conservatives for that matter, like Bachmann and Carlson. I don’t think “different jinks and curves” really fairly negates the actual acoomplishments of the others covered here. You assume they had no challenges to their lives?
How about, bottom line, they just buckled down and DID more. Jinks or no ‘jinks’, curves or whatever other excuse you try to formulate.
One of my issues with what is passing for the conservative right is that they will advance without critical thought anyone — anyone — who will give lip service to their conservatve agenda, their culture war positions, regardless of merit or other qualifications, apparently utterly uncritically.
December 14th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Obama graduatred with honors from Columbia with a specialty/ emphasis in international relations – meaning he was in the top 10 % of his class – hardly ’sleeping through’ his academic career.
Well, that’s just great: he was a good student, 30+ years ago. Good for him!
Then he not only was editor and subsequently president of the harvard law review
He was apparently a less than stellar HLR president, for what it’s worth.
He was elected to the IL state senate, a district with 210,496 constituents,
With the aid of a suffocating, corrupt party machine.
compared to Palin’s time as Mayor of Wasilla, population 5,469, for which she still had to hire a professional city manager.
Er, leaving aside the, yes, snobbery of saying “his district was bigger than her city” – he was a legislator. She was an executive. Completely different jobs.
And she didn’t “hire” a manager; she convinced the Wasilla City Council of the need to hire one. And she paid for it by consolidating out a lot of other administrative deadwood.
Honestly, DG – I dont know where you get your talking points from, but I’ve had about 15 months practice knocking ’em down. You need to work on your A game, here.
Obama served as one of the two senators for IL, population 12,852,548, before leaving the senate to serve as President,
Which is, again, irrelevant; leaving aside that he was an extremely mediocre Senator, the Senate is a deliberative, not executive, body. They don’t make decisions. Being a Senator is only incidentally preparation for executive office. Being a mayor and governor is directly germane.
compared to Palin’s partial term as governor of a state with only 683,478 people in it. No one knows Palin’s high school or college gpa or general info about her grades, because she has kept them secret, unlike Obama, or Biden or McCain. Purely speculation, but it is unlikely this is because those grades are distinguished; it is a matter of record that she did not graduate with honors from U of Idaho, nor does she appear to have had a distinguished academic career at Hawaii Pacific,
And let me say it bluntly: WHO CARES?
Someone’s grade point average at age 20 is of ZERO relevance to their adult life. NONE. They are a measure of how well someone chased grades when they were twenty, and perhaps their personal situations.
Need we add that Palin was working to put herself through school, the entire time? Which doesn’t always mix well with getting a super GPA…
…which, by the way, is utterly irrelevant for those of us who have no interest in graduate, medical or law school. I was one of those; my GPA was in the B range, because I was more interested in what I learned (lots) than in the grades I got for it (which I knew, correctly, would be irrelevant to my adult life approximately one second after I got my diploma).
which her father (allegedly) says she left because there were too many asians and native born islanders for her to feel comfortable,
Really? Who “alleges” that? Check your sources.
She left U of I with a BA in journalism to be………what?
Someone who earned a living in the private sector – something Obama has never done – while raising a family.
And the differences pre-politics / post college years? Palin was a sportscaster / sportswriter before getting into politics.
As was what other politician with “mediocre grades” from an “undistinguished college” who had to work in the private sector in a non-political field before going into politics, who was routinely slandered as “crazy” and “unqualiified” and “dumb”?
That’s right. Ronald Reagan. Started in radio. As a sportscaster. Then became an actor. And then a governor. And then the best president of either of our lifetimes.
And he got the same exact flak; “he never went to Yale or Harvard!”. As if it mattered.
Obama was many things in his community, including a Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School.
Let’s take off the pretty wrapping; Obama was on the “professional politician” track from the word go. It’s ALL he’s done.
Which list of comparative accomplishments puts Obama as far more qualified to be president than Ms. Palin the quitter, no matter how much Terry and others on the right would like to dismiss those qualifications.
Sorry, DG, but you’re the only one doing the dismissing. You are obviously comfortable with the elitist position that paper credentials and the professinal poiltician track is the only valid route to leadership. It’s palpable balderdash.
And at least Obama was qualified to write his own three books, unlike Palin who needed a ghost writer, which frankly seriously casts doubts on her ability to write anything longer than a tweet.
Only among people who’ve never dealt with the publishing industry or politics.
Seriously – that claim is a non-starter, for reasons I’ve already explained. Please let that one go.
Looks to me like comparing the two potential Presidential candidates for 2012 that there are siginificant differences in their accomplishments. And significant differences in the accomplishments of Palin compared to other conservatives for that matter, like Bachmann and Carlson. I don’t think “different jinks and curves” really fairly negates the actual acoomplishments of the others covered here. You assume they had no challenges to their lives?
You assume that a paper credential and a number that reflects a 22-year-old’s ability to regurgitate information for tests is a dispositive, or even useful, comparison of what a group of 40-something adults are capable of?
How about, bottom line, they just buckled down and DID more. Jinks or no ‘jinks’, curves or whatever other excuse you try to formulate.
How about it? Because it’s not the “bottom line” at all. It’s not irrelevant, but it’s not especially indicative of merit in any objective sense.
You call it “excuses”; I call it “real life”.
In fact, I will shout this from the mountaintops – not necessarily with reference to Palin vs. Obama, but in general: all other things being equal, I will take a leader whose taken the unconventional path to leadership – through troubles, travails, career changes, kids, PTA meetings, and real life – over someone whose entire experience is an academic and political credential-punching paper chase. And I’ll do it with confidence that I’m getting the better leader out of the deal – because the former will be a better, more empathetic, better-rounded, more experienced human being.
Clear enough?
One of my issues with what is passing for the conservative right is that they will advance without critical thought anyone — anyone — who will give lip service to their conservatve agenda, their culture war positions, regardless of merit or other qualifications, apparently utterly uncritically.
And not only is that an incredibly patronizing – dare we say, “snobbish” – thing to say (you really have the faintest idea how we decide our allegiances?), it directly contradicts another current lefty meme, that conservatives obsess over ideological purity tests. Which is kinda the exact opposite of what you posit…
…although both are inaccurate.
December 14th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
We – or at least I – started out comparing Palin and Bachmann and Carlson. I was perfectly willing to give the credit they are due to the accmplishments of Bachmann and Carlson; Palin’s were far less impressive.
Since all three women are wives and mothers, when you write “all other things being equal, I will take a leader whose taken the unconventional path to leadership – through troubles, travails, career changes, kids, PTA meetings, and real life – over someone whose entire experience is an academic and political credential-punching paper chase.” I find your assumption that apparently neither Carlson or Bachmann had to deal with the same challenges that Palin did, which I don’t find credible.
It also suggests to me that you don’t find the challenges of being a father to count as much as the challenges of being a mother, which sheesh, I’d never expect from you Mitch of all people.
And when Terry writes “got an affirmative action admission to Harvard ” as if implying that he wasn’t qualified, I’d like to point out that women are recruited to balance out and provide diversity to student bodies every bit as much as the basis of race and ethnicity, so it’s not like that gave Obama an advantage over someone else ——unlike for example, the preference George W. would have because of his family connections and the preferences given to the offspring of alumni.
When Mitch writes:”Sorry, DG, but you’re the only one doing the dismissing. You are obviously comfortable with the elitist position that paper credentials and the professinal poiltician track is the only valid route to leadership.” Not at all. However I am perfectly willing to give credit where credit is due for accomplishments, including academic accomplishments – regardless of political view point. I don’t think you can claim the same fairness.
I would disagree with you about the career Obama had prior to being elected president. He had a reasonably accomplished track record representing a considerably larger, more diverse electorate than Palin, which is more difficult to represent. And he successfully proposed legislation. Palin made minimal decisions as an executive – bridge to nowhere? incomplete pipeline? what are these exemplary executive decisions where she was a big fish in a very small pond? And then left the pond. Palin originally argued that she would be able to do the job of city manaer when she was mayor of Wasilla; it was only after she made a hash of it that she hired someone to do the job who was a competent professional. So……….what were these big accomplishments as mayor after she handed over the management of the town of Wasilla?
As to the purity test for conservatives, it reminds me of studying european history; I’m waiting for the modern equivalent of a Charlotte Corday to stop the right from more divisive turning on itself, as demonstrated by the NY 23 election they lost.
An example of promoting anyone who will give lip service to the conservative culture war positions? Prejean, the fake boob exploiting sex tape making inarticulate ex-pageant queen who is now exploiting the conservative position for her own gain. Yeah, great family values role model / spokesperson there. What was her talent competition again, btw?
And as far as your statement: “Only among people who’ve never dealt with the publishing industry or politics. ” No, publishers pretty much hire ghost writers for people who can’t themselves write, especially if they are shoveling money at the person they are promoting a book ABOUT rather than by. But apparently you only give credit to someone’s accomplishment as an author if it’s a conservative?
December 14th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Behold the blind adoration the left (yes that’s you DG) has toward The Obamassiah. In their eyes The One can do no wrong. He is A LightWorker, indeed!
…. …. ….
“I am a snob in some respects” – DG
snob:
2 : one who blatantly imitates, fawningly admires, or vulgarly seeks association with those regarded as social superiors
3 a : one who tends to rebuff, avoid, or ignore those regarded as inferior b : one who has an offensive air of superiority in matters of knowledge or taste
…. …. ….
“I await your admission that I proved you wrong, this time.” – DG
Followed by
“I don’t feel a need to score points” – DG
…. …. …. ….
“…the harvard law review – far more prestigious than…”
Cool, DogNAGit, please link to a few of his brilliant pieces he wrote.
And then there is the Nobel Prize he just got, sheeesh, that alone should be reason enough for a 2nd term, and 3rd term, and 4th term…
“Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School.”
Obama was a tenured Professor of Constitutional law? Really?
DG, when did Obama fulfill his oath to represent, as a US Senator, the people of Ill? Or did he quit?
“Obama was qualified to write his own three books”
And no one lifted a finger to help him, eh DogBoneHead.
I heard Bill Ayres wrote most of one of the books for him. Ha ha ha ha ha ha
…. …. ….
Mitch, you are just such a backward hick from flyover land and are just too stupid to realize that you are not as intelligent as people from a more dense population!!!
…. ….
“Please, please stop mixing up paper credentials gained in someone’s 20s with accomplishment, much less intelligence.”
“You are obviously comfortable with the elitist position that paper credentials and the professinal poiltician track is the only valid route to leadership. It’s palpable balderdash.”
Spot on!
What do they call a person that graduated from med school / PhD with a 4.0 GPA? What do they call one with a 2.5 GPA?
…. … ….
“I’ve had about 15 months practice knocking ‘em down.”
Mitch, that might make you more qualified than President Obama, but it is not really an accomplishment you should brag about. We would expect you to knock it out of the park when you play Tee Ball.
December 14th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Mitch explained: “Er, leaving aside the, yes, snobbery of saying “his district was bigger than her city” – he was a legislator. She was an executive. Completely different jobs.”
Yeah, Palin had to make sure Andy and Barney didn’t get their monthly paychecks switched. Not to mention the monthly bring-your-own-meth potluck down at the VFW hall.
December 14th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Yes, DogNAGit, the conservatives did NOT win NY 23; so what should they have done differently?
December 14th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Oboy:
I find your assumption that apparently neither Carlson or Bachmann had to deal with the same challenges that Palin did, which I don’t find credible.
Well, good – because I wasn’t comparing the three of them. I was comparing Palin – and by extension, all of us who didn’t attend Ivy League schools and put all of our efforts into getting a big GPA – to Obama and the alleged “qualifications” that issue from having gotten a slip of paper with a big number when one was 22 years old.
I’ll assume that you flubbed the focus accidentally. I’d certianly hope so, anyway.
It also suggests to me that you don’t find the challenges of being a father to count as much as the challenges of being a mother, which sheesh, I’d never expect from you Mitch of all people.
Assertion based on facts not in evidence. I mentioned “raising kids” obliquely; you didn’t mention it at all!
And when Terry writes “got an affirmative action admission to Harvard ” as if implying that he wasn’t qualified, I’d like to point out that women are recruited to balance out and provide diversity to student bodies every bit as much as the basis of race and ethnicity, so it’s not like that gave Obama an advantage over someone else ——unlike for example, the preference George W. would have because of his family connections and the preferences given to the offspring of alumni.
We weren’t really talking about Bush; even if we were, neither he nor his supporters ever made his academic credentials or GPA an issue (although he had a better GPA than Algore, since it seems to matter).
Not at all. However I am perfectly willing to give credit where credit is due for accomplishments, including academic accomplishments – regardless of political view point. I don’t think you can claim the same fairness.
Nonsense. I give credit where it’s due. Graduating magna from an Ivy is certianly an achievement. But by age 48, I think we can ask “what have you done for us lately?” People who are in their forties who carp about their college records remind me of those high school quarterbacks and homecoming kings who peaked at age 18; get over it, guys!
I would disagree with you about the career Obama had prior to being elected president. He had a reasonably accomplished track record representing a considerably larger, more diverse electorate than Palin, which is more difficult to represent.
Difficult? Irrelevant – executives don’t “represent” anyone.
And he successfully proposed legislation.
That’s like saying “Mitch Berg successfull published blog posts”. What does he want, a cookie? It was his job!.
Palin made minimal decisions as an executive – bridge to nowhere?
Er, what “decisions” did Palin make re the bridge? It was USDOT project and a federal earmark. She didn’t have dictatorial control over it.
incomplete pipeline? what are these exemplary executive decisions where she was a big fish in a very small pond?
You keep harping on the “small pond” aspect – as if leadership is entirely, or even especially, dependent on the size of organization that’s being led. (And let’s not forget – Senators, state or federal, don’t “lead” at all; they deliberate. Nothing but).
And then left the pond. Palin originally argued that she would be able to do the job of city manaer when she was mayor of Wasilla; it was only after she made a hash of it that she hired someone to do the job who was a competent professional.
So she can admit her mistakes and fix them. That’s the sign of a good leader. You think Obama will be as wise with the hash he’s making of our healthcare and financial systems?
Please substantiate.
So……….what were these big accomplishments as mayor after she handed over the management of the town of Wasilla?
You mean, besides bucking an entrenched (since statehood) old boy network and running for and winning the governor’s office? And cleaning up a ton of corruption and waste that that network had left behind? Well, not being an Alaskan, and not really following Alaska poliitics, I’ll have to defer to this for now. More later, if needed.
As to the purity test for conservatives, it reminds me of studying european history; I’m waiting for the modern equivalent of a Charlotte Corday to stop the right from more divisive turning on itself, as demonstrated by the NY 23 election they lost.
Look. I’ve tried to explain how wrong you and the rest of the lefty chattering classes are about that particular bit of damage-control spin. Conservatism didn’t lose that election. But since it does directly contradict what you said above, go for it.
An example of promoting anyone who will give lip service to the conservative culture war positions? Prejean, the fake boob exploiting sex tape making inarticulate ex-pageant queen who is now exploiting the conservative position for her own gain.
No, Prejean the pageant contestant whose considered, personal answer to a loaded question infuriated an anti-Christian bigot (Perez Hilton) who whipped up a media firestorm, which has included the most scabrous invasions of privacy imagineable (and hypocritical, too; the party that declaims “you cant’ stop teenagers from having sex!” gets the victorian vapors when they find one of them actually doing it), and who’s been thrust into the position of being a conservative culture warrior, partly out of self-defense, partly from circumstances.
The Carrie Prejean situation illustrates the moral depravity of the worst of the American left. Please. By all means keep referring to it.
And as far as your statement: “Only among people who’ve never dealt with the publishing industry or politics. ” No, publishers pretty much hire ghost writers for people who can’t themselves write,
Really?
You got a source for that?
Because I write. I have been a ghost writer. I know not a few people who ghostwrite professionally. I know the publishing industry. And – as I’ve told you before – all sorts of “writers” hire ghostwriters; people who aren’t fundamentally first and foremost writers hire ’em; people who are writers hire ’em because they don’t have time to do the whole project themselves (check out all the ghosts that Tom Clancy has engaged for his spinoff projects over the years). Your claim, stated as an absolute, that “pubishers pretty much hire ghostwriters for people who can’t write” isn’t “wrong” so much as it’s so overbroad as to be meaningless. You have no idea whether Palin can write or not.
But let me tell you; Obama may have written his books, but it’s a good thing he’s got a day job. He’s not very good. If he didn’t hire a ghost, perhaps he should have.
But apparently you only give credit to someone’s accomplishment as an author if it’s a conservative?
It helps.
December 14th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
You mean, besides bucking an entrenched (since statehood) old boy network and running for and winning the governor’s office? And cleaning up a ton of corruption and waste that that network had left behind?
*makes popcorn and waits for the Liberal Fascist show to start*
This should be funny! Think DG will answer my simple question? Heh heh heh *grin*
December 14th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
This is a very interesting discussion but I am afraid that I don’t have the time to fully analyze the arguments being made by DG & Mitch.
Dog Gone, I was purposely minimizing Obama’s accomplishments vs Reagan’s in a retort to AC’s ill-informed comments re Reagan’s qualifications to be elected president. I’m sure Obama is a very smart fella, but being in the top 10% of a crop of college students is not in itself particularly remarkable. If we had wanted to I’m sure we could have someone in the top 5% for the job.
The post of chief editor of the HLR is an elected position. It is not based on scholarship. Before Obama, no chief editor of HLR had ever gone on to become president. It traditionally has been a milestone on the path to becoming a SC clerk or justice, not President. I think there were good reasons for that.
Mitch Berg wrote:
. . . which, by the way, is utterly irrelevant for those of us who have no interest in graduate, medical or law school. I was one of those; my GPA was in the B range, because I was more interested in what I learned (lots) than in the grades I got for it (which I knew, correctly, would be irrelevant to my adult life approximately one second after I got my diploma).
There is a sharp divide between those who go into post-secondary education seeking only a baccalaureate and those who see a baccalaureate as a path to grad school. The grad-school folks tend to be more intently focused on playing the academic game. They can’t afford to be digressive and pursue knowledge that interests them rather than the grad school admissions committees. This is probably a good thing in engineering and the hard sciences. Politics? Not so good. I would be much more comfortable with Obama running the economy if he had spent a few years working as an executive in private enterprise. That might have cured him of his belief that the government is that from which all blessings flow.
December 15th, 2009 at 8:06 am
“The post of chief editor of the HLR is an elected position. It is not based on scholarship. Before Obama, no chief editor of HLR had ever gone on to become president. It traditionally has been a milestone on the path to becoming a SC clerk or justice, not President. I think there were good reasons for that.”
The posts of failed oil company executive and minority owner of a baseball team with your Dad’s friends aren’t traditional milestones on the path to the presidency either, Terry. Before Bush, no owner of the Texas Rangers had ever gone on to become president. But you boneheads voted for the guy anyway.
December 15th, 2009 at 8:11 am
Mitch misled: “But let me tell you; Obama may have written his books, but it’s a good thing he’s got a day job. He’s not very good. If he didn’t hire a ghost, perhaps he should have.”
Right. Like you read them.
December 15th, 2009 at 8:24 am
Only for the pictures.
December 15th, 2009 at 10:07 am
You are reading my comments, Angry Clown! Hmmm . . . Perhaps I should shun you.
December 15th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Nothing like a good old “shunning”!
😆
December 15th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
You never tire of singing that “But He Was Better Than Bush” tune, do you angryclown. It is really too bad that “you boneheads” really could not put up a candidate that was better than Bush when he was running for President. Don’t get me wrong, it’s too bad “we” couldn’t do that either, but at least “we” didn’t put up Gore and Kerry.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Yes, DG, the conservatives did NOT win NY 23; so what should they have done differently?
*crickets*
…. …. …. ….
DogGone, you also claimed Obama was a “Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School”; he was NOT, he was a Senior Lecturer.
I await your admission that I proved you wrong, again.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
DG,
Krod has a point; Obama was never a professor; he was a lecturer. He was, in fact, of no higher rank that I was at Metro State.
As to the NY23 bit – the notion that it was a defeat for conservatives (as opposed to the GOP) is a bit of pre-emptive spin the Dems put on the results, that you’ve apparently bought into.
Hopefully for the last time: The “Republican” ran to the left of the Democrat. Scozzafava was pro-choice, pro-single-payer-healthcare, pro-Card-Check – she basically rated a big fat ZERO on conservative issues.
Hoffman, in less than three weeks and with almost no money, nearly won the election. Indeed, Scozzafava spent more money against Hofmann than against the Democrat, AND more than Hoffman spent altogether. And he almost won.
So spin it as a GOP loss if you want – but the NY23 GOP was out of touch with the GOP base, and selected ultraliberal wife of a Democrat union leader as a candidate. It was a temporary GOP loss, a major victory for those of us who want the GOP to have a responsible, limited government, pro-security, pro-family, pro-liberty agenda.
And presming the GOP in NY23 is paying attention, we will win the seat back next year, and do it handily.
While there may or may not be a reason to reach toward the center, the GOP has to re-establish its identity. Being just like the Dems is not an identity.
To sum up: you can giggle and call NY23 a loss for us if you want; you undercut your own credibility when you do it. The big lesson of this past two elections: running as a moderate is a losing proposition; running as a conservative wins.
December 15th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
M, shouldn’t the liberals around here be calling you “Professor”?
December 17th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Or maybe “Skipper” and AssClown could be “Gilligan”.