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.”
We’re not gonna do that cat/cheezeburger thing, are we? 
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:
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
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
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.”
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 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!
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.
Shayna, you should come around here more often (again). That was brilliant.
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.
Palin is dumber than Reagan but plenty of people fall into that category. It isn’t like it makes her special.
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.
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
I mean, just watch that video; look at how big an idiot he seems.
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.
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.
Hey! Reagan didn’t dye his hair, he was a natural orange!
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.
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.
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
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.
Though if Palin wins, I’d have to agree that we have no chance to survive make your time.
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:
(From here, 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.
(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.
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.