# Is Sarah Palin dumber than Ronald Reagan? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 21, 2010, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-sarah-palin-dumber-than-ronald-reagan/561453 "2010-11-21T17:10:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2010, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-sarah-palin-dumber-than-ronald-reagan/561453/101 "2010-11-22T05:08:34Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > I don’t think Palin is stupid. I think she’s uneducated and incurious. Reagan knew what he believed, but he knew why he believed it. Palin just knows what she believes. Palin hides from tough interviews - Reagan sought them out. He loved debate, and the tougher the opponent, the better. He was totally confident of his ability to defend his ideas. I agree with the above. It’s Palin intellectual _habits_ that make her the inferior to Reagan (or any other “serious” presidential candidate I can think of in my lifetime.) P.S. I heard very little “Reagan is dumb” when he was running for, and was in, office. There was a lot of “Reagan is wrong-headed, " voodoo politics” (thanks H.W.Bush, and “is he going senile” but no “Reagan is stupid.” ---
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2010, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-sarah-palin-dumber-than-ronald-reagan/561453/102 "2010-11-22T05:13:29Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > All your base are belong to us. We’re not gonna do that [cat/cheezeburger](http://icanhascheezburger.com/2007/01/11/i-can-has-cheezburger-3/) thing, are we? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2010, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-sarah-palin-dumber-than-ronald-reagan/561453/103 "2010-11-22T05:20:22Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > The idea of a Sarah Palin _candidacy_, on the other hand, would be like a blessing directly from the Almighty. I wonder if liberals are considering re-registering as GOP to cast helpful votes for Ms. Palin. Since the Tea Party prides itself on its ecumenical appeal to all Americans, this might not even attract much suspicion. Though it might be fun to watch the civilized world gasp in disbelief were Ms. Palin to become the GOP nominee, I don’t think, FWIW, it’s worth the risk. Recall H. L. Mencken’s comment: > [@](#): > > Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2010, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-sarah-palin-dumber-than-ronald-reagan/561453/104 "2010-11-22T05:45:42Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Consider this: > Obama is said to be a top graduate of the Harvard Law School (he was editor of the law review). > Curiously, no one seems to have any record of anything he authored while on the review. > As for his professional career-he was a “community organizer”-can someone define what he did in that capacity? > Aside from a part-term Illinois senator, what elective office did he hold? > I remember his pronouncements upon the “57 US states”-perhaps his grasp of US geography is not too great? > He does read well (from a teleprompter)-I’ll grant you that! I don’t come around here all that much anymore, but I’m sure I remember correctly that this place has a higher standard than spewing idiotic talking points without any proof or backup. “No one seems to have any record of anything he authored while on the review”? Where do you get that nonsense from? First of all, as editor, his job was to edit, not to write, but there was an article he wrote which dealt with fetal rights issues and it can be found on page 823 of Volume 103 of the Harvard Law Review, which is available in libraries and subscription-only legal databases. [Cite](http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12705_Page2.html) As for his professional career, he was, indeed, a Community Organizer. If you don’t know what one is, and what he did as one, you could read an article he wrote about _that_, too. **Obama Writes Chapter on Community Organizing** \*"In theory, community organizing provides a way to merge various strategies for neighborhood empowerment. Organizing begins with the premise that (1) the problems facing inner-city communities do not result from a lack of effective solutions, but from a lack of power to implement these solutions; (2) that the only way for communities to build long-term power is by organizing people and money around a common vision; and (3) that a viable organization can only be achieved if a broadly based indigenous leadership – and not one or two charismatic leaders – can knit together the diverse interests of their local institutions. This means bringing together churches, block clubs, parent groups and any other institutions in a given community to pay dues, hire organizers, conduct research, develop leadership, hold rallies and education cam paigns, and begin drawing up plans on a whole range of issues – jobs, education, crime, etc. Once such a vehicle is formed, it holds the power to make politicians, agencies and corporations more responsive to commu nity needs. Equally important, it enables people to break their crippling isolation from each other, to reshape their mutual values and expectations and rediscover the possibilities of acting collaboratively – the prerequi sites of any successful self-help initiative. By using this approach, the Developing Communities Project and other organizations in Chicago’s inner city have achieved some impressive results. Schools have been made more accountable-Job training programs have been established; housing has been renovated and built; city services have been provided; parks have been refurbished; and crime and drug problems have been curtailed. Additionally, plain folk have been able to access the levers of power, and a sophisticated pool of local civic leadership has been developed."\* > **[edwoj.com](http://ww38.edwoj.com/Alinsky/AlinskyObamaChapter1990.htm)** > > This domain may be for sale! But he did more than just that. He was also a Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. _“From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.”_ > **[Media Inquiries | University of Chicago Law School](https://www.law.uchicago.edu/media)** > > The University of Chicago Law School handles media requests through the University of Chicago News Office. The Law School is happy to work with the media to provide access to our faculty members, who are experts on myriad subjects, or to provide... He was a civil rights lawyer for 11 years, and he was an Illinois Senator for **8 years** before becoming a United States Senator representing the State of Illinois. But go right on denigrating his professional experience and continue to make yourself look like a jackass who can’t even operate a search engine, let alone understand the results you get. > [@Agnostic\_Pagan](#): > > I certainly do not fear Palin. I loathe her and her followers for celebrating ignorance and incompetence. ^^This!^^ > [@mhendo](#): > > I agree with basically your whole post, except this sentence. > > I dispute the whole notion that liberals think Reagan was dumb. It’s clear that by the end of his life, and even by the end of his presidency, he was having some cognitive difficulties, but this isn’t a measure of intelligence. Almost everyone i hang out with is a liberal, and the vast majority of them are liberal academics, plenty of whom teach US history and politics. And not one of them thinks Reagan was dumb. Same here. > [@pravnik](#): > > I would bet ten dollars she can now name any number of U.S. Supreme Court decisions she both agrees and disagrees with. I’ll take that bet. On June 25th, 2008, then-Governor Palin was **[ON THE NEWS](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5H-26MOxH34)** decrying the Supreme Court ruling that severely reduced the punitive damages to 32,000 plaintiffs as a result of the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Puget Sound. Not only did she completely forget about that ruling, a mere 3 months later, when Couric asked her if there were any Supreme Court decision with which she disagreed, but when she sat down to write her book when the election was over in November, she had the unmitigated gall to **[take credit for playing a part in the “successful” ruling](http://blogs.reuters.com/frontrow/2009/11/18/palins-exxon-valdez-account-draws-guffaws/)**! If she’s not stupid for forgetting the facts, she’s stupid enough to believe she can get away with outright lying about it. And trust me, constituents care more about lying than stupid. Just ask Hillary, Bullet-dodging, Clinton. > [@SenorBeef](#): > > I’m not a big fan of democrats. I think they’re wrong on a lot of issues. But this sort of attitude is exactly a demonstration of why I cannot even fathom siding with republicans anymore. > > You people would want to see American burn if it meant that the liberals would be pissed off in the process. If you had any shred of dignity and honesty and concern for the country whose flag you wrap yourself up in, you’d be saying “I still support Republican ideals, but this woman represents the worst of us, I can’t support her”. I mean, for fucks sake, this board has some very intelligent conservative leaning folks, and despite this woman being the opposite of intellectual, curious people, you line up to support her because supporting your partisan tribe is more important than anything else. > > But instead, your attitude is “Well, she pisses off liberals, so she must be good!” - This is why level headed people who would otherwise be sympathetic to the ideals that republicans supposedly stand for are disgusted and leaving. You are so rabidly partisan that you’ll support anyone, no matter how worthless, if she carries a little R next to her name. > > Or, in your particular case, maybe you aren’t actually just knee-jerk supporting her in a partisan way, and you actually like what she is. Then you’re an asshole and an idiot, and not just a partisan hack. > > Liberals aren’t scared of Palin because OMG HER BRILLIANT IDEAS WILL SHOW US ALL HOW WE’RE WRONG you fucking idiots. They’re scared because of people like you, who will vote for a fucking incurious simpleton who wants to join [this church](http://gawker.com/5681802/sarah-palins-favorite-tweet-is-about-our-taliban-muslim-illegally-elected-president), who doesn’t know shit about anything and is proud of it. The scary thing is that people like you will support anyone who pisses off liberals, disregarding the reason she pisses off liberals is because she’s a hateful moron. > > You disgust me. Well, you may not like me because I’m a Democrat, but I completely agree with you on this. As Senator Murkowski said, “I just do not think [Sarah Palin] has those leadership qualities, that intellectual curiosity that allows for building good and great policies. . . I don’t think that she enjoyed governing. . . I don’t think she liked to get down into the policy. I want somebody that goes to bed at night and wakes up in the morning thinking about how we’re going to deal with [important issues]” As far as I’m concerned, that was polite, when the truth is that Sarah Palin is a self-centered, self-serving, lazy, arrogant, anti-intellectual who couldn’t tell you what she had for dinner last night, let alone talk about things like treaties, nuclear armament, economic policy or myriad other critical issues she’d have to deal with as President. The Bush Doctrine? “In what regard, Charlie? His world view?” :rolleyes: Even during his period of dementia from Alzheimer’s, President Reagan could make _mincemeat_ out of Sarah Palin. I hated him as President, but she could work until she’s 98 years old and she’d never come close to having the intellect he possessed. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2010, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-sarah-palin-dumber-than-ronald-reagan/561453/105 "2010-11-22T06:05:19Z")
**Shayna** , you should come around here more often (again). That was brilliant. ---
**Author:** ![IdahoMauleMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/71c47a/32.png) [@IdahoMauleMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IdahoMauleMan)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2010, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-sarah-palin-dumber-than-ronald-reagan/561453/106 "2010-11-22T06:35:13Z")
> [@Shayna](#): > > I don’t come around here all that much anymore, but I’m sure I remember correctly that this place has a higher standard than spewing idiotic talking points without any proof or backup. > > “No one seems to have any record of anything he authored while on the review”? Where do you get that nonsense from? First of all, as editor, his job was to edit, not to write, but there was an article he wrote which dealt with fetal rights issues and it can be found on page 823 of Volume 103 of the Harvard Law Review, which is available in libraries and subscription-only legal databases. [Cite](http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12705_Page2.html) > > As for his professional career, he was, indeed, a Community Organizer. If you don’t know what one is, and what he did as one, you could read an article he wrote about _that_, too. > > **Obama Writes Chapter on Community Organizing** > > \*"In theory, community organizing provides a way to merge various strategies for neighborhood empowerment. Organizing begins with the premise that (1) the problems facing inner-city communities do not result from a lack of effective solutions, but from a lack of power to implement these solutions; (2) that the only way for communities to build long-term power is by organizing people and money around a common vision; and (3) that a viable organization can only be achieved if a broadly based indigenous leadership – and not one or two charismatic leaders – can knit together the diverse interests of their local institutions. > > This means bringing together churches, block clubs, parent groups and any other institutions in a given community to pay dues, hire organizers, conduct research, develop leadership, hold rallies and education cam paigns, and begin drawing up plans on a whole range of issues – jobs, education, crime, etc. Once such a vehicle is formed, it holds the power to make politicians, agencies and corporations more responsive to commu nity needs. Equally important, it enables people to break their crippling isolation from each other, to reshape their mutual values and expectations and rediscover the possibilities of acting collaboratively – the prerequi sites of any successful self-help initiative. > > By using this approach, the Developing Communities Project and other organizations in Chicago’s inner city have achieved some impressive results. Schools have been made more accountable-Job training programs have been established; housing has been renovated and built; city services have been provided; parks have been refurbished; and crime and drug problems have been curtailed. Additionally, plain folk have been able to access the levers of power, and a sophisticated pool of local civic leadership has been developed."\* > > [http://www.edwoj.com/Alinsky/AlinskyObamaChapter1990.htm](http://www.edwoj.com/Alinsky/AlinskyObamaChapter1990.htm) > > But he did more than just that. He was also a Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. > > _“From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.”_ > > [Media Inquiries | University of Chicago Law School](http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media) > He was a civil rights lawyer for 11 years, and he was an Illinois Senator for **8 years** before becoming a United States Senator representing the State of Illinois. > > But go right on denigrating his professional experience and continue to make yourself look like a jackass who can’t even operate a search engine, let alone understand the results you get. ^^This!^^ > > Same here. I’ll take that bet. On June 25th, 2008, then-Governor Palin was **[ON THE NEWS](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5H-26MOxH34)** decrying the Supreme Court ruling that severely reduced the punitive damages to 32,000 plaintiffs as a result of the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Puget Sound. Not only did she completely forget about that ruling, a mere 3 months later, when Couric asked her if there were any Supreme Court decision with which she disagreed, but when she sat down to write her book when the election was over in November, she had the unmitigated gall to **[take credit for playing a part in the “successful” ruling](http://blogs.reuters.com/frontrow/2009/11/18/palins-exxon-valdez-account-draws-guffaws/)**! > > If she’s not stupid for forgetting the facts, she’s stupid enough to believe she can get away with outright lying about it. And trust me, constituents care more about lying than stupid. Just ask Hillary, Bullet-dodging, Clinton. Well, you may not like me because I’m a Democrat, but I completely agree with you on this. > > As Senator Murkowski said, “I just do not think [Sarah Palin] has those leadership qualities, that intellectual curiosity that allows for building good and great policies. . . I don’t think that she enjoyed governing. . . I don’t think she liked to get down into the policy. I want somebody that goes to bed at night and wakes up in the morning thinking about how we’re going to deal with [important issues]” > > As far as I’m concerned, that was polite, when the truth is that Sarah Palin is a self-centered, self-serving, lazy, arrogant, anti-intellectual who couldn’t tell you what she had for dinner last night, let alone talk about things like treaties, nuclear armament, economic policy or myriad other critical issues she’d have to deal with as President. > > The Bush Doctrine? “In what regard, Charlie? His world view?” > > :rolleyes: > > Even during his period of dementia from Alzheimer’s, President Reagan could make _mincemeat_ out of Sarah Palin. I hated him as President, but she could work until she’s 98 years old and she’d never come close to having the intellect he possessed. That’s a nice post. But I’ve read a lot about Obama’s past, and watch him live, and still don’t understand why everybody thinks he’s “brilliant”. It’s almost like if they repeat it enough times, they will convince themselves and everyone else it’s true. His resume above reads like a typical, middle of the road political hack. Neither too high nor too low. I hate to burst anyone’s bubble, but being a non-tenure track lecturer is not evidence of brilliance. Go click on some of the bio’s of the non-tenure track lecturers at any major university. They aren’t that impressive. If Obama wanted to use the HLR or his position at the UofC as a platform for his brilliance, it was certainly there. The facts are that his contributions were fairly humdrum and minor over many years. And there is that little detail of him not releasing his grades, when every other President has. To me, the clearest signs to me that suggest he isn’t “brilliant” are that (1) He can’t think on his feet very well when really challenged live, off the teleprompter (same with Palin…Reagan was actually quite good at this in his younger days) (2) His galling narcicissm and self-absorption is a fatal weakness that will lead him to discard facts, ignore other perspectives and jump to wrong conclusions (might be the same with Palin…definitely not true with Reagan) (3) He is absolutely wedded to the idea of central planning of the economy. It’s clear from his off-the-cuff comments, as well as his prepared ones, that he truly believes government creates wealth and jobs. He has absolutely no idea how the private sector operates. Nor does he seem interested in understanding it. The last point is especially interesting because Reagan started out as a big government, pro-union man. His employment with GE was a pivotal moment in his life and many of his assumptions about economics, freedom, wealth creation and the role of government were challenged and reversed during this time. That, perhaps, is the true sign of intelligence…having previously held assumptions changed in the face of learning. I hope to God our current President proves me wrong, and has some of that in store. ---
**Author:** ![LouisB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dfb087/32.png) [@LouisB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LouisB)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2010, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-sarah-palin-dumber-than-ronald-reagan/561453/107 "2010-11-22T06:56:18Z")
Palin is dumber than Reagan but plenty of people fall into that category. It isn’t like it makes her special. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2010, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-sarah-palin-dumber-than-ronald-reagan/561453/108 "2010-11-22T07:14:23Z")
> [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > That’s a nice post. > > But I’ve read a lot about Obama’s past, and watch him live, and still don’t understand why everybody thinks he’s “brilliant”. It’s almost like if they repeat it enough times, they will convince themselves and everyone else it’s true. It’s more like you believe that if you repeat that everyone thinks he’s brilliant, you’ll convince yourself that that’s what others really say. Most people don’t think he’s brilliant, just that he’s more brilliant than most. After all, most of us aren’t law professors, or editors of prestigious legal journals, or POTUS. > [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > To me, the clearest signs to me that suggest he isn’t “brilliant” are that > > (1) He can’t think on his feet very well when really challenged live, off the teleprompter (same with Palin…Reagan was actually quite good at this in his younger days) Yeah, the way he stumbled and couldn’t complete his sentences at the Republican House retreat last year sure showed that, didn’t it? [cite](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/29/transcript-of-president-o_n_442423.html) I mean, just watch that video; look at how big an idiot he seems. > [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > The last point is especially interesting because Reagan started out as a big government, pro-union man. His employment with GE was a pivotal moment in his life and many of his assumptions about economics, freedom, wealth creation and the role of government were challenged and reversed during this time. > > That, perhaps, is the true sign of intelligence…having previously held assumptions changed in the face of learning. I hope to God our current President proves me wrong, and has some of that in store. Ronnie changed his politics when he married Nancy, who’s adoptive father, Loyal Davis, was a wealthy man heavily involved in conservative politics. Ronnie just went where the money was, that’s all. It wasn’t ideology, it was cold hard cash that caused him to change his stance. ---
**Author:** ![BlankSlate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blankslate/32/80_2.png) [@BlankSlate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlankSlate)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2010, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-sarah-palin-dumber-than-ronald-reagan/561453/109 "2010-11-22T07:16:12Z")
> [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > …His galling narcicissm and self-absorption is a fatal weakness that will lead him to discard facts, ignore other perspectives and jump to wrong conclusions (might be the same with Palin…definitely not true with Reagan)… Hilarious that you post that like some commonly accepted fact. You might want to reconsider your definition of narcissism to include men in their 70’s dyeing their hair. Reagan had a lot of dumb ideas like supply-side economics and star wars and he stuck to them. What do you thing he was, a bi-partisan bridge-builder? Please. ---
**Author:** ![IdahoMauleMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/71c47a/32.png) [@IdahoMauleMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IdahoMauleMan)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2010, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-sarah-palin-dumber-than-ronald-reagan/561453/110 "2010-11-22T07:46:54Z")
> [@BlankSlate](#): > > Hilarious that you post that like some commonly accepted fact. You might want to reconsider your definition of narcissism to include men in their 70’s dyeing their hair. Reagan had a lot of dumb ideas like supply-side economics and star wars and he stuck to them. What do you thing he was, a bi-partisan bridge-builder? Please. I absolutely think that. We could ask Tip O’Neill. But unfortunately, he’s dead. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2010, 7:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-sarah-palin-dumber-than-ronald-reagan/561453/111 "2010-11-22T07:55:53Z")
Hey! Reagan didn’t dye his hair, he was a natural orange! ---
**Author:** ![IdahoMauleMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/71c47a/32.png) [@IdahoMauleMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IdahoMauleMan)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2010, 8:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-sarah-palin-dumber-than-ronald-reagan/561453/112 "2010-11-22T08:02:31Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > It’s more like you believe that if you repeat that everyone thinks he’s brilliant, you’ll convince yourself that that’s what others really say. Most people don’t think he’s brilliant, just that he’s more brilliant than most. After all, most of us aren’t law professors, or editors of prestigious legal journals, or POTUS. > > I mean, just watch that video; look at how big an idiot he seems. > > . I guess we’re in the Pit, so we can flame and/or ramble away. I’ve read the cite. I’m not seeing what you’re seeing. I’m seeing a guy who had a standard set of talking points that were prepared for the half-dozen or so questions that he knew were coming. When someone really presses in, and asks a follow-up question (like Paul Ryan) with some real detail, he brushes it away. Look at the Medicare question about 2/3rds of the way down the page. Some interesting foreshadowing in there, by the way, with references to trade agreements and South Korea. As well as Obama himself mentioning the Gipper and Tip O’Neill working together. That’s a nice touch. ---
**Author:** ![IdahoMauleMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/71c47a/32.png) [@IdahoMauleMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IdahoMauleMan)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2010, 8:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-sarah-palin-dumber-than-ronald-reagan/561453/113 "2010-11-22T08:03:57Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Ronnie just went where the money was, that’s all. It wasn’t ideology, it was cold hard cash that caused him to change his stance. But’s that kind of the whole point, isn’t it? Why don’t we all go to where the money is, then? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2010, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-sarah-palin-dumber-than-ronald-reagan/561453/114 "2010-11-22T08:30:15Z")
> [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > But’s that kind of the whole point, isn’t it? Why don’t we all go to where the money is, then? Because we don’t all have the fucked up attitude that money equals “morally correct” or “superior” or “success” or “be-all & end-all of the game of life”. Ronnie had it, tho, and that’s why he changed his stance: he wanted buckets of money to call his very own, no matter what he had to do to get it. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2010, 9:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-sarah-palin-dumber-than-ronald-reagan/561453/115 "2010-11-22T09:34:43Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Because we don’t all have the fucked up attitude that money equals “morally correct” or “superior” or “success” or “be-all & end-all of the game of life”. > > Ronnie had it, tho, and that’s why he changed his stance: he wanted buckets of money to call his very own, no matter what he had to do to get it. This is nonsense. You don’t get “buckets of money” by leaving the movie business and devoting six years to the presidency of the Screen Actors Guild, eight years to the governorship of California, and eight years to being President of the United States. At the time Reagan took office as president his total net worth - house in Hollywood and Santa Barbara ranch included was estimated to be 3 million dollars, a paltry sum by Hollywood standards and the circles in which he and his wife moved. The year before he took office, Reagan reported a taxable income of $515,878 - mostly from speeches and radio commentaries - and paid taxes of $230,886. In the meantime, Carter, whose net worth was estimated to be $893,304 in 1979, earned $275,136 and paid income taxes of only $64,944. [Cite](http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,924347,00.html) The idea that Reagan switched parties and lived the rest of his life as a avid conservative simply to gain favor with Nancy’s father is so ridiculous as to be laughable. Seriously. Reagan was fond of reciting Winston Churchill’s observation that “_Anyone under thirty who isn’t a liberal has no heart, and anyone over thirty who is not a conservative has no brain_” :D, and he attributed his political conversion accordingly to the maturity that comes with age. ---
**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2010, 10:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-sarah-palin-dumber-than-ronald-reagan/561453/116 "2010-11-22T10:29:48Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > All your base are belong to us. Though if Palin wins, I’d have to agree that we have no chance to survive make your time. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2010, 11:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-sarah-palin-dumber-than-ronald-reagan/561453/117 "2010-11-22T11:24:28Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > I heard very little “Reagan is dumb” when he was running for, and was in, office. There was a lot of “Reagan is wrong-headed, " voodoo politics” (thanks H.W.Bush, and “is he going senile” but no “Reagan is stupid.” Ditto, with the additional observation that Reagan (like Thatcher) was someone who had a very particular worldview and tended to reject evidence that contradicted it. One of the more famous examples was his meeting with Dr Helen Caldicott and his daughter Patti: > [@](#): > > Dr. Caldicott : To break the ice, I said to him, “You probably don’t know who I am, do you?” And he said, “Yes, I do. You’re an Australian, you read “On the Beach” when you were a young girl, and you’re scared of nuclear war.” And I said, “Yes, that’s right.” He said, “Well I too am scared of nuclear war, but our ways to prevent it differ. I believe in building more bombs.” > > After we’d been talking for about an hour, he reached into his inside pocket and pulled a piece of paper out. And he’d written in this backhand writing of his “People who work for the nuclear weapons freeze are either KGB dupes or Soviet agents.” And I said, “But that’s from last month’s Reader’s Digest.” And he said, “No,” he said, “it’s from my intelligence files.” > > Patti Davis: There was so much around, around that visit and in the background of that visit that made it impossible for it to be an open dialogue. > > Dr. Caldicott: Patti didn’t really participate, she was deeply involved watching, except at one point where I had a document I wanted to show him, and I was bending down to my briefcase to pick it up, and she said, I heard her say, “Daddy I know that what the doctor is saying is correct because I’ve got a 1982 Pentagon document to prove it.” And he looked at her and he said, “That’s a forgery.” I mean he didn’t even ask her where it is. You know, what document it was. Anything. He just said, “That’s a forgery.” I was stunned. (From [here](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/40_reagan/filmmore/filmscript.html), since it’s the most complete source I could find online.) Someone like John Bolton would terrify me as president in that he would take the country in a political direction to which I am deeply opposed. Conversely, Sarah Palin as president would terrify me in the way that a toddler holding a loaded Uzi would terrify me - she would be pleased and self-absorbed at the attention she was getting but utterly unaware of the huge potential for death and misery that she could inadvertently cause at any moment. ---
**Author:** ![Norse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a9adbd/32.png) [@Norse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Norse)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2010, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-sarah-palin-dumber-than-ronald-reagan/561453/118 "2010-11-22T12:10:40Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > Dr Helen Caldicott and **his** daughter Patti (bolding mine) Where in the whole wide world is “Helen” a male name? Or did you just assume that a “Dr.” had to be a “he”? ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2010, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-sarah-palin-dumber-than-ronald-reagan/561453/119 "2010-11-22T12:13:32Z")
> [@Norse](#): > > (bolding mine) > > Where in the whole wide world is “Helen” a male name? Or did you just assume that a “Dr.” had to be a “he”? Fie on pronoun-antecedent agreement! Fie, I say! Patti Davis is Ronald Reagan’s daughter. ---
**Author:** ![Norse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a9adbd/32.png) [@Norse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Norse)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2010, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-sarah-palin-dumber-than-ronald-reagan/561453/120 "2010-11-22T12:38:58Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > Patti Davis is Ronald Reagan’s daughter. Ah, mea culpa. Being from the other side of the pond, I don’t know the names of any of your (current or previous) President’s daughters. Keep walking, folks, keep walking. Nothing to see here. We will now return to our scheduled program. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-sarah-palin-dumber-than-ronald-reagan/561453.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-sarah-palin-dumber-than-ronald-reagan/561453.md?page=7)