Yes she was a mayor. A mayor of Wasilla , a metroplis of 4 or 5000,for crying out loud. She spent her time deciding what books should go in the library and who she could get revenge on. If anyone is dumb enough to think that pads her resume for President, they have to be insane.
And when you consider that Gore won the popular vote and Kerry didn’t, obviously many people did the Gore/Bush split. Witness the power of incumbency and war.
Not necessarily. There was a greater turnout in 2004 than 2000 and Kerry ended up with some 8 million more votes than Gore. Undoubtedly, some people have made the Gore/Bush split, but it needn’t be many.
Interesting point, but the voter turnout was significantly higher in 2004. Kerry got 8 million more votes than Gore, while Bush2004 beat Bush2000 by about 11.5 million. I can picture some voters doing a Gore/Bush, but I don’t know that there was a significant migration.
Fair points - I didn’t consider the turnout factor. You can put me somewhere between Reagan and Palin if you’d like. I’ll even tell you what magazines I read, and a few SCOTUS cases I’m unhappy with. 
Although I really do think there was a decent number of Gore/Bush voters - basically the national security types, and the ones that 9/11 made a little loopy (Dennis Miller, for example?). Countered, but not enough, by the Bush/Kerry voters (like myself), who realized what cock-gobblers GWB and his crew were only after voting for him once.
Wrap yourself in redwhitenblue bunting, blubber crocodile tears over Our Heroes, and call the other guy an unpatriotic coward. Always works, never fails. Fuck.
I figured the smartest thing Kerry could have done when told about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is try to join them, reasoning that since he was a swift boat veteran who liked truth, he would fit right in.
It is if you don’t read any of them.
Palin quit. She walked off from a job she ran for and the voters, for some stupid reason, wanted her to perform. It is a promise to the electorate that you will do your best to do the things you promised. You do not walk off . That was completely inexcusable and a terrible transgression. There is no coming back from that. She is a selfish spoiled cunt who should never be given any respect at all.
Please do share with us your executive governing experience.
The OP makes a valid point, in that - current revisionism notwithstanding - the same types of arguments in favor of Palin’s stupidity were also made in favor of Reagan’s. (Mondale even referenced the issue in one of the debates.)
The point of which is that when you declare people to be stupid based on this type of silliness, it can gain a lot of currency when it’s a popular notion, but it often turns out to be untrue once passions die down.
My own opinion is that - AFAICT - Palin is pretty bright. Well above average, IQ-wise. But she has three things working against her.
-
Any governor is likely to be relatively ignorant of national issues. A governor who runs for president has the advantage of time for preparation. A VP candidate selected a few days before a national convention doesn’t. (I’ve read that Obama expressed skepticism of whether Palin would be able to prepare herself in the time she had to do it, noting that he himself had taken a year and a half to do the same.)
-
Once a public figure has a certain image it can be very difficult to shake. Any possible evidence - in or out of context, or even of dubious veracity - that fits in with this image will be trumpeted as evidence, while the same would not apply to others. Had Palin referred to the 57 states there’s no doubt this would be another example of her stupidity. In the case of Obama, that’s not his issue, so we look for other explanations. Similar to many other supposedly stupid politicians, e.g. Reagan, Dan Quayle and Bush II. Also similar to Al Gore and his inventing the internet and similar such.
-
Palin is a “victim” in this regard of the adoration of the right wing. She fell - IMO - for the temptation to play heroine to this audience, versus try to win the respect of the middle. This approach worked for her in that it made her a larger-than-life figure, sold many books etc., and increased her influence in these circles. But it’s not the approach that wins over the skeptical middle-of-the-roaders, let alone liberals.
BTW, for those interested, here’s a recent NYT article about Palin that seems to take a more measured approach.
I don’t believe the bolded part is true.
Oh, please. You can’t believe half of this.
Based on what? She went to four colleges, none particularly well-regarded. She did not get an advanced degree. Her pre-mayoral jobs were: beauty queen, sportscaster, fisher-woman. Her books (ghost-written) are hack-tastic. She has no particularly prescient or impressive articles or speeches that I am aware of (intelligence-wise, not politically, we are talking about IQ here).
See, people don’t call her stupid because she doesn’t know national politics like the back of her hand (although by know she should know more than she does). They call her stupid because she doesn’t know what magazines she reads. Because she reverses herself constantly, either because she can’t remember her position or she doesn’t have enough mental acuity to care. Because she has outright hostility towards expert opinion in any field.
Granted, as far as it goes. Once you are deemed lacking in the intellectual department you must do something to shake that belief. A series of policy speeches. Some debates with pundits and/or experts. Hell, a policy book. A TV series won’t cut it. Neither will a feel-good book.
Nah, I don’t buy it. She isn’t “playing dumb”. She just is who she is. It’s what folks like Susanann love her for, sure, but it’s genuine.
She certainly has talents. And she has parlayed a rather small political career into more money and influence that she could have dreamed of. That is a type of intelligence, to be sure, but perhaps not the one we should most desire in our leaders.
All true, in general.
But what this ignores is the specifics of Palin’s ignorance. “Name a Supreme Court case other than Roe v. Wade you disagree with.” That’s not “national issues,” especially since one prominent example was directly relevant to Alaskans: the Exxon Valdez case.
It’s not an unfair question. You’re asking the voters to name you as the President of the legislative body that confirms federal judges; you have to be able to articulate SOMETHING about how those judges do their jobs.
I certainly disagree with this. At least one of us has a wildly incorrect perception of “average” intelligence.
I might be willing to credit her with average intelligence stymied by profound incuriosity compounded by a lifetime of living in the sticks. Above average intelligence? Nuh uh.
The Mondale quote is here - search the page for Will Rogers.
My feeling always is that if someone has a reputation before they were trust into a highly partisan situation and their reputation subsequently undergoes a radical change, the pre-partisan reputation is most likely the more accurate one.
And you can knock being governor of Alaska, but she dealt with other intelligent people there, in the legislature and business community. And she emerged from this contact without the reputation of a moron. If she was genuinely a moron, this would have showed itself in such dealings as she had in Alaska, and she would not have been chosen as VP candidate.
And it also appears that people who know her believe she’s very bright - see the NYT article linked above.
If you looked closely enough you would find these same types of issues regarding anyone, including but by no means limited to Obama. (Obama apparently thinks Austrian is a language, haha, what a dummy.
There’s no one in the world who doesn’t slip up on these types of things on a regular basis. It’s when you’re looking to fit things into a pre-existing image that you highlight them.
Agreed.
I don’t think she’s playing dumb. She’s playing populist. Populism comes off as dumb to people who don’t share that brand of populism.
[I agree that she is in fact a populist so she’s not “playing” in the sense of faking something. What I mean is that she’s emphasizing the “rah, rah, let’s take back the government” angle, over a more measured and thoughtful approach that might appeal more to the center.]
You’re making a bigger deal out of this than it deserves, no doubt in part because of your own interests and mindset.
If you take anyone at random and ask them a lot of random questions about things they know they’ll draw a blank on some of them. See above.
Beef, all I can say is…and I mean this in the kindest way possible…BITE ME, YOU IGNORANT SON OF A BITCH!
Your post is an absolutely perfect example of what I was talking about and you proved my point exactly. You clowns are living examples of Joseph Goebbels’ statement: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
Palin is not stupid. She is not a hateful moron. But she was slammed and denigrated by the left from the moment she was announced as the VP candidate and now you bozos believe your own lies about her.
To quote you with a modification: " But this sort of attitude is exactly a demonstration of why I cannot even fathom siding with liberals anymore."
You mean the *dumb *brand?
Or, ya know, people who aren’t dumb.
I’m pretty sure that “populist” doesn’t actually mean “not measured or thoughtful”.
I once saw Hannity blubbering because some of us weren’t fawning over Bush. He blubbers while Coulter brays.
I cancelled my cable service because of that crew. :mad:
My feelings exactly. No one was really even pressuring her to get out. Her wah wah explanation speech was a joke.