Propositions:

1. The joke was incredibly tasteless and offensive.
2. When you make this sort of joke about a conservative woman (and her family) you often get a pass, versus making this sort of joke about a non-conservative (and his or her family)
3. The double standard irritates.
4. His first apology was pathetic.
5. His second apology was better, but still somewhat half-assed (and said only with the intention of preserving his job).
6. Letterman is a jerk, or at least a jerk on this sort of issue, etc.
7. I (to speak for myself) like Sara Palin, and think that she has been very badly treated in general, etc., etc.
8. She was right to counter-attack Letterman as she did.

9. People (conservatives or anyone else) are wrong to lobby that Letterman should be fired for this.
10. For a variety of (I would hope) obvious reasons.

She's a Public figure. She deserves it (asking for it).

Is the Governor palling around with journalists again?

We've already beat this issue up elsewhere. Why do we need to do it again.

Oakes, I'd rather hear why you like Sarah Palin.

Didn't this happen, like, um, like last week?
It's like, so, like last week.

I ask in all seriousness, why are our news cycles taken
up with this crap? News stories about jokes. Yeesh.

This whole episode has become so pathetic that I am now actively rooting for Letterman to prevail over hordes of Palin devotees.

Actually, I thought it was an interesting issue concerning free speech. And the apology versus firing thing happened in the last few days. But I guess I pressed the Palin button, after which all rational discussion is impossible.

>7
I don't think it's just the Palin button. There's also the question of whether any entertainer, however crap he or she might be, should lose a job over remarks made about a politician. I shudder at the idea that a politician's discomfort should be so influential.

I like Sarah Palin, too. I agree with Oakes, especially his first two points:

1. The joke was incredibly tasteless and offensive.
2. When you make this sort of joke about a conservative woman (and her family) you often get a pass, versus making this sort of joke about a non-conservative (and his or her family)

It's just so...low. So...hateful. When a person who has as many followers as Letterman does, then uses his platform to make cruel jokes, it DOES matter. "Haha I was only JOKING. Don't you get it, loser?"

Jasper, surely you jest? Asking for it? That is SO sick.

There's also the question of whether any entertainer, however crap he or she might be, should lose a job over remarks made about a politician.

That was exactly my point, Krolik, which is why I set it up by stipulating that I agree with the all of the other claims of the Anti-Letterman people. On the other hand, if one thinks that it's harmless and fun to make jokes about that right-wing Christian Talibanist bimbo slut Palin and her bimbo slut daughters (not that there's anything wrong with it), then the pure free speech question becomes less interesting, no?

Message edited by its author, Jun 17, 2009, 1:27am.

>10, 11

Sorry, not sure if you're addressing my post, but in the event that you are, well, no, I'm not suggesting that invective is necessarily harmless and fun. I'm not trying to say that. Free speech often has an uncomfortable and sloppy price. But I think it's better than the alternative.

We're posting at the same time, in real time, so there are some cross signals here. I won't delete my most recent post above but trust that what I'm trying to say will be more or less clear, even if we don't totally agree about certain particulars.

SaintSunniva: Someone commented that Letterman (and often other comedians) want it both ways. In some ways comedians are political pundits. We may not like it, but that's the way many people view them. Or at least the effect of their jokes or claims, or whatever is to add to the general heap of punditry. More people get their political "news" from comedians than read the newspaper, etc. But when they're called on it, they retreat to the defense that they are "only" comedians, or "only" tell jokes, etc.

But, to repeat or restate, I think marching with signs and saying that someone should be fired for one instance of this sort of thing is, well, a tad fascist.

I'm not suggesting that invective is necessarily harmless and fun. I'm not trying to say that. Free speech often has an uncomfortable and sloppy price. But I think it's better than the alternative.

I know you're not suggesting that, and I agree. (The "one" was not you.) And I'm not even sure what the particulars are that we supposedly disagree on, except perhaps this: The anti-Palin people couldn't have been busting the post for being anti-free speech, or if they were, then their anti-Palinism led them to not read what I actually said.

But that of course, is irrelevant to the original claim I was making.

I think both his apologies (even the second one) sort of sucked. But I am uncomfortable with the whole he must make an apology thing. Should he (in the moral sense) apologize? Of course. But must he, to keep his job, or whatever? I am uncomfortable with that. And of course, what is the significance of such an apology anyway, if it is made under such a threat?

God, I would love to see an apology in this sort of situation before there was any pressure to. Are there any examples of that?

Message edited by its author, Jun 17, 2009, 3:53am.

God, I would love to see an apology in this sort of situation before there was any pressure to.

Well, you still owe me an apology. Now would be fine.

Although none of the sordid details have made it over to this side of the pond, I think I've now seen enough comment online to get the gist, which appears to be similar to a couple of recent cases in the UK.

It is an interesting point about free speech, a basic 'right' even if not exactly enshrined in our laws.

Tasteless comments will always be made about high profile figures, and it's likely that even caveman Ug made crude comments to Urgh and about BossUg's daughters behind his back. Is there a difference between two guys in a bar making a comment and some shockjock making a comment? Is it possible to draw a line and say this is allowed and this isn't?

What about the response of the target? I think here Palin didn't do well. If you are (want to be) in a position of authority you have to develop a very thick skin. What would be a decent response? - "That's not funny. Next question?"

Is there any area that a comedian shouldn't be allowed to make (funny)jokes about? - unfunny jokes of course should be banned everywhere.

>1 2. When you make this sort of joke about a conservative woman (and her family) you often get a pass, versus making this sort of joke about a non-conservative (and his or her family)

I don't think just conservatives kids are at risk: even Chelsea Clinton, who was largely allowed her privacy, took a few ugly swipes during her gawky teenager stage. No politician's kid should have private life invaded for yuks--unless like Mario Cuomo's son they are public figures in their own right. Allowing a young adult to enter public debate for a cause like abstention comes pretty close to the line, although I'm undecided whether Bristol crossed.

Not just conservatives, but ALL women in the public arena can be subject to unwarranted, tasteless swipes based on gender, age, looks. For example,

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Octopussy ad),

Justice Ginzberg (cartooned as Oz witch on a broomstick as target for duck-hunting VP Cheney), and

Secretary Madeline Albright (a bondage joke).
(BTW, Secretary Albright's moment came at the hands of a (liberal?) public radio host.)

Anyway, I bet most women, at least, always think a little less of the originators of such "jests". Usually the only possible response is a frosty "not funny", although it was interesting to watch Palin's supporters push back. I don't like the vigilantism, usually, but Letterman did eat his words.

Message edited by its author, Jun 17, 2009, 9:28am.

I finally read up some on this, were the jokes tasteless? Yes, was it worth a dust up? No. Palin was more than willing to use her children as a political tool, and she expects them to be off limits for others...

Also I am pretty sure that Hilary has had to put up with much more than that.

As said before this isn't any better or worse than the jokes at any other prominent female political figure. But Palin seems to make people think she needs protecting, because she's a cute mother just trying to do her job don'cha'no'.

One thing that continues to render this discussion pointless is that so many people just ignore what happened here.

Bristol Palin was not at the ballgame and therefore could not have been knocked up during the seventh inning stretch by A-Rod.

Sarah Palin's fourteen year old daughter Willow was at the game. Thus the butt of this joke was a fourteen year old girl who most Americans had no idea even existed. Please if you wish to continue talking about this, don't assume this joke was directed at an eighteen year old girl who, due to her mother's ambitions, has had her rather less than exemplary private life splattered all over the "news". And, please, stop trying to insinuate Bristol Palin into the issue. It is intellectually dishonest, exactly the kind of crap the Republicans do.

Willow Palin is in no way in the public eye, nor has she been with the exception of standing at her mother's side during some campaign appearances.

The joke was thoroughly tasteless and if you watch the tape of Letterman telling it, you can see that he knows it is a mistake even as it is coming out of his mouth. He was right to apologize, he should have done it sooner. Actually, he should have had sense enough not to tell it to begin with. The Palin family accepted his apology, recognizing the role of America's troops in allowing him to make the joke. Should he be fired? No. Should Bill Maher have been fired for his joke? No. We Americans are a nation of hypocrites and narcissists, everthing is about me. If someone does, says, plays, encourages, anything that I don't agree with they should be fired. That's bullshit.

To recap:

The joke involved a fourteen year old girl about whom little or nothing is generally known, certainly not by Letterman's joke writers

The joke was tasteless and nasty

Letterman knew it was a mistake even as he was telling it

Letterman apologized twice, the second, I think, was a true apology

Sarah Palin turned both apologies into political opportunities

Letterman should not be fired

Sarah Palin needs to let it drop before her reaction backfires

I am far more interested in why people like Palin's politics than this stupid non-issue. This is the kind of stuff that is rife throughout the history of nations on the decline. When the major news story of the day is that Ashton Kutcher (whoever the f**k that is) beat Larry King to a million followers on Twitter this nation is in real trouble.

The twenty-four hour news cycle will kill this country. As far as I can tell there is way less than twenty-four hours of news most days.

Can't we grow up, just a little? Elevate the level of discourse? Jack Paar would never have dreamed of telling that joke, nor, I believe, would he have wanted to if he could. Neither would Steve Allen. Both told jokes to intelligent adults, not the lowest common denominator. Maybe some things about the fifties were better than they are today. Being able to tell a funny joke without turning to sleaze and personal attack for a punchline is one of them.

And where does the line get drawn? Could a political cartoonist make the same joke and get away with it? Could Saturday Night Live? Where does the definition of "offensive" begin?

During the election, candidates and media people alike tried to throw bones at Obama, trying to get him to bite and be "offended". They would say things like, "Some say we're not quite ready for a black President. Do you think that's fair?" and he would just sidestep it--talk about the positives of the voting system, about how everyone gets to participate. . He never wanted to be a victim: even when it meant a free ride, he never wanted to be pampered with sympathy because he didn't feel he needed to defend himself. He needed to defend his viewpoint, perhaps, but never had to counter anyone who "put him down".

What's next?--GM says they're failing because pundits are making fun of them and "it's not fair... we can't sell up against a media that's against us" ? What will it be like when no one can say anything that offends ANYONE?

Did ARod receive an apology?

The line is most certainly south of a fourteen year old girl who has done nothing to deserve that joke.

Jeus, there is something called common decency. Common decency dictates where the line is drawn.

This is interpersonal relations, not rocket science. We used to have a general sense of respect for one another. I realize that all those born after 1967 don't remember such a time, but it was certainly preferrable to the atmosphere of oneupsmanship we live in today.

As Tim tells us, often without success, it's fine to argue with someone's ideas and opinions, but not to engage in ad hominum attacks. This was such an attack by Letterman on an innocent little girl. Get that part of it through your thick little skulls.

Enough with the whining. At the risk of sounding downright genegian, conservatives can never take what they give. As Margd pointed out (in post 18), Chelsea Clinton "took a few ugly swipes during her gawky teenager stage." More specifically, she was called "the White House dog" by Rush Limbaugh when she was only 13... I'm sure that was great for her self esteem. In politics, there is always collateral damage. That said, I've yet to hear one left-of-center individual guffawing over Letterman's joke; the same can't be said for the antics of the likes of Limbaugh (or, say, Coulter), be it in reference to the "White House dog," Michael J. Fox, "Barack the Magic Negro," etcetera, etcetera.

22
The odd thing is that, to my ears, and understanding that I rarely watch Letterman, it seemed to be more of an A-Rod joke. My understanding is that Rodriguez (as well as Palin, to be fair) has often been the butt of Letterman's jokes.

It's the cynic in me, but I think the Palin camp's attempts to milk this will ultimately be to their detriment. Is this really the kind of crap anyone is worrying about right now? Is it anything more than a continuing episode of that dysfuctional family soap opera? "Hey, I'm about to loose my house but, wow! Sarah Palin has it sooo bad!!"

(Yeah, I know I dropped an "n" in "dysfunctional", but I like the sound of it.)

25>
This ARod bit was part of a top 10 list about Palin's visit to NYC. ARod was thrown in to juice up things a bit (pun naturally unintended). As far as I can tell from snippets I've seen of the Governor's response, she initially expressed outrage about an inappropriate comment made about her daughter. But she then milked it for political purposes with a line about how out of touch NYC and Hollywood is with the rest of America (i.e., real America. Like Alaska). And so the episode is now part of the "culture wars" so beloved by the cultural conservative base.

26
I stand corrected.

24: And Limbaugh caught shit for his swipe at Chelsea, and Fox, and so on. Just because a conservative jackass with (at most) a few hundred thousand listeners says something stupid doesn't mean everyone on that end of the political spectrum agrees with him.

And the beat goes on... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orm9lcNCp...

>20, 23
Tell it, Gene. It was nasty when it was done to Chelsea and it was nasty when it was done to Willow.

Oh, sure, throw the "gorilla" thing in our faces!!

Hello!!! The topic, may I remind you, is Sarah Palin, America's sweetheart! Hasn't the poor woman suffered enough? By the way, when that mean ol' Mr. Ahmedinijad (sp?) says something mean about Ms. Palin after she wins in 2012, what's she gonna do? Lock herself in her room and refuse to come out? That's OK!! Todd will be a real man and challenge that baddie to fisticuffs! Maybe he'll take off his shirt!! Oh, what I wouldn't give for some real Americans in the White House!

Paid for by the Committee to Keep the White House White

31>
You don't monkey around do you! We need a prez who can balance the budget and field dress liberals who wander into the Rose Garden at the same time.

In some ways comedians are political pundits. We may not like it, but that's the way many people view them.

Kind of like Limbaugh's repeated claim that he's only an entertainer.

28> Exactly. So you can stop the belly-achin' about how the liberals can get away with it but the conservatives can't.

Re: Justice Ginzberg (cartooned as Oz witch on a broomstick as target for duck-hunting VP Cheney)

That's a great example that opens up a host of interesting questions.

Now, I know I'm going to catch hell for this, but quite honestly Ginsburg looks like a witch, (and Gingrich and Limbaugh look like inflated dough boys, and Nixon had a big nose, etc., etc.) It's obviously not her fault that she does. (It is Limbaugh's fault; as much as I like him, he should eat less and exercise more.) But political cartoonists tend to like latching onto a visual characteristics and exaggerating them for their cartoons. So I don't think one cartoon portraying her as a witch, or whatever, is necessarily offensive or sexist, etc. I would think that if she had been constantly portrayed as an ugly witch from the get go, so to speak, that would have been nasty. So I think it sort of depends on the context, the frequency, etc.

But suppose that everyone believed that Ginsburg was a horrible person--a new fascist or whatever. Suppose she was such a person? Would such a set of cartoons have been unfair then? Would it have been "unfair" to portray Hitler as a strutting little boy scout with a weird mustache (as was done), or whatever? I'm not equating Ginsburg to Hitler (obviously) or saying that Hitler was unfairly treated (obviously). Rather, I am saying that if you think someone is a demon--beyond the pale of most reasonable or moral people--beyond whether you simply agree or disagree with them politically--then all bets are off. And of course, some people (Hitler) are demons. Ginsburg isn't, and neither is Palin. But the fact that some people seem to think that Palin is (I don't know whether anyone thinks this of Ginsburg) leads them to excuse and justify all sorts of nasty things.

Many other interesting angles on this topic. I'm not sure about the Albright bondage thing. Did this have some teeny tiny thing to do with some alleged property of Albright, or was it just a, so to speak, random idea? Was she supposed to be bossy or something? I have no idea.

I will say that however much most of us do not like it, people treat male and female public figures differently. And without pronouncing on the net effect either way, I think that there are positives and negatives for both sides. Men can often be sexist; they can also be (overly?) chivalrous. Though I suppose you could say that that was sexist. It isn't necessarily evil to harp on a belief that so and so is a bimbo (or the male equivalent) if so and so is or has acted as if she (or he) is one. I don't think Palin has done this. Though I understand why reasonable people might disagree. On the other hand, to imply that she is a slutty bimbo (or as Letterman put it--a "slutty stewardess") is another thing entirely.

Again, context matters. If you call her a slutty bimbo on, say, that great and funny show Red Eye, then you're doing so in a context where they are making snarky and obviously unfair comments about everyone. That's part of the joke, and the joke is on the tellers, and the sort of fun and irony involved, etc. as much as the targets. The Letterman context is a bit different.

And of course, in the Letterman case, the daughters were targeted as well.

But hold up on the signs and marches, please.

Message edited by its author, Jun 18, 2009, 1:15am.

from above - "The joke was incredibly tasteless and offensive." "The joke was thoroughly tasteless"

Wow, must be quite a joke, but when I look it up online I only find this line:

"One awkward moment for Sarah Palin at the Yankee game, during the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez"

Am I missing something?

The problem was the daughter at the game was her 14 y.o. child. That's pretty low,even for late night TV

I think Letterman's writers were too stupid to figure out that Piper (or was it Willow?) is not Bristol. Or maybe not. Maybe the joke was that all her daughters were sluts. Some joke.

But I remember Limbaugh showing a picture of the White House dog, and then flipped to a picture of Chelsea Clinton.

The joke was not about rape, as the Palin's contended at first. It was about sluts. Either way, the joke was pretty lame, and in bad taste, but joking about the rape of a 14 year old is a different matter than joking about the sexual actions of 14 year old, given that her older sister is the poster child for unmarried teenage motherhood.

Tasteless invective is not limited to political orientation. Bad jokes are not limited to politicians.

Palin wants to play in the big leagues. The Republicans want her there. Each has to live with the consequences of that choice.

There will be tasteless jokes. She was a good sport for going on SNL with Tina Fey.

I look forward to hearing Governor Palin during the Republican primary debates in 2012.

38: Sex between an adult (Alex Rodriguez) and a minor (Willow Palin) would be statutory rape, no matter how willing the 14 year old might be. That's where the issue of rape came into play.

Well, you do have a point there. For me rape is a pretty loaded term, not that being statutory makes it any better.

Well, it's been a while, think I'll mosey on over to CNN and see if anything has "outraged" Alaska Governor Sarah Palin lately......

Hmmmmm, hmmmmm, oh yes! There it is, the outrage du jour....

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/200...

desecration?

iconic?

Message edited by its author, Jun 25, 2009, 6:41pm.

So if she became the GOP candidate in 2012 a simple post about one of her kids her on LT could totally distract her, awesome. Nothing says future president like verbal pissing matches with people named "Celtic Diva."

The thing is, it wasn't "about" her kid. She just chose to make it "about" the kid.

She (and by she I mean SARAH Palin) has become a spectacle of sorts; when she is in the news, it's not for a great decision she's made or even anything to do with the state of Alaska. It's just about her--her reaction to someone's opinion of her, someone making fun of her, someone who's related to her, etc. It was funny for a while, but it's lost its luster, frankly.

45>
I think she's mastered the new political medium created by 24/7 cable news, blogs, etc., an over-caffeinated world in which half-truths, spin, winking falsehoods, and simmering status resentment constitute a fair and balanced communicative style. She is a celebrity, hence her life, her private life, is as much a part of her political brand as her policy positions and accomplishments in Alaska. Her propensity to respond to what appear to be trivial snipes, things ordinary politicians would ordinarily ignore, is a continuation of the persona that was presented last summer: hockey mom, maverick, western tough gal. She's anything but an ordinary politician. Her legend is enhanced by (1) the fact that she's a 'target' and (2) that she responds in kind (she's no weak-kneed libral). In the play book of contemporary Republican politics, if you're a target of ridicule in the mythical MSM, you are part of the real America, you are an authentic conservative (not one of those country club types who speak in sonorous tones -- and in complete sentences -- on the floor of the Senate), and you are a promising presidential candidate. I can easily imagine a Republican ticket of Palin/Prejean in 2012.

Message edited by its author, Jun 26, 2009, 12:37am.

46>

Forgive the comparison, but using the Britney Spears/Paris Hilton formula, they start off as singers/actresses, but eventually their image almost surpasses what they actually do--if they do anything at all. In the end, it doesn't matter if they belong to a category OTHER than being famous for being famous.

I'm wondering: is THAT where Sarah Palin is ultimately headed?

47>
I think Andre Agassi's tag line in the Canon ads "Image is everything" fits the new political reality. I think, at this point, Palin is famous for being famous and not much else. It is an open question of whether this "category" can sustain a presidential candidacy through the Republican primaries and debates. It appeared to me that the candidacy of Fred Thompson, which flamed out because he seemed to lack energy and interest in politics, was premised on being famous. Palin doesn't lack energy or a willingness to joust. It might come down to the question of which candidate is more likely to keep Republican primary voters awake during twenty two-hour debates: Romney, Pawlenty, or Palin? I'm betting on the Alaskan Governor.

Message edited by its author, Jun 26, 2009, 1:04am.

48>

I've said too, that if Obama does well enough he'll probably be the favorite in 2012. As you know, the other party still has to put someone in there (if only to lose). It's like when a 3-13 team in the NFL hires a minority coach: as long as they're going to lose the next season anyway, they might as well get credit for giving someone a chance, right? Might that be what the GOP is doing--propping her up so that if 2012 does look unwinnable, they can at least say they gave a female candidate a chance?

49>
I hadn't thought about it that way. However, that would be a repeat of the 2008 strategy, when it was apparent that no Republican could win in the wake of the Bush years; hence, McCain was "given" his turn. It might be a better strategy to run someone who could actually win in 2016 if Obama looks impregnable.

50>

Yeah, but if they give her a chance in 2012 and she loses, won't they then seem justified in going with a white male in 2016?

51>
I don't think playing such a "PC" game would come naturally to Republicans. After all, they'll want to prove Sotomayor wrong! But I could be naive about such matters.

My word if that woman doesn't know how to create straw men and red herrings...

She can take anything that pisses her of personally and twist it into some abuse of 'decency'.

La di da, not much happening....let's see what's up on the Palin front...

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/...

She has more important things to do than perform the duties to which she was elected. Let us remember hereafter: She's a quitter!

Singing: "brave sarah ran away away, oh brave brave sarah...."

Message edited by its author, Jul 3, 2009, 5:07pm.

Shorter Sarah Palin:
"I got more important things to do than hang around this podunk state."

Honestly, are there any Republicans out there worth taking seriously anymore?

The spin on her resignation could cause whiplash!

:-)

Don't ever misunderestimate the willingness of the American public to play the fool. As long as she is alive (and for God's sake, this is not a death threat or any such thing), but as long as she is alive she is a threat to America. I am already making plans for where I'm going to live if she gets elected in 2012 or 2016.

"Why did she resign?" is the question of the day.

If this were a just universe, I would assume that she resigned because she woke up in the Governor's mansion and realized "Wow, I'm just ludicrously out of my depth here, aren't I?"

This being the real world, I'm guessing she quit to clear the decks for 2012.
But I wouldn't be much surprised if a scandal breaks soon.

My first thought was scandal, either her or her immediate family, and she's trying to get ahead of it.

It just doesn't add up. She wants to "effect change outside of government." If that's true, why run for President? Doesn't that just signal that what she's really saying is that Alaska is just too small for her. It stinks of selfishness, abandoning her state during an economic crisis.

Also, she advertises the fact she won't seek re-election in 2010, then bemoans that this makes her a "lame duck", when she could have just as easily kept quiet about the re-election bid.

Along with the other little brush fires she has ignited recently (look no further than up thread), I can't help but think that - to anyone but a diehard dead-ender - it is the sign of a very erratic personality. It comes down to crazy like a fox or just plain crazy.

But I wouldn't be much surprised if a scandal breaks soon.

That was my first thought.

My first thought was that she wanted to devote her time to being on the national stage, to extend her 15 minutes of fame, to remain important in the heady atmosphere of national politics.

Robert

But then again, she and Todd-o could make a mountain of money travelling around, preaching to their choir, doing a little rabble-rousing, maybe getting some book deals or a multi-million dollar radio contract sandwiched between Rush and Hannity. No longer having to submit to that inconvenient self-censorship, and no longer having to bear any responsibility for any crazy stuff that comes out of her mouth.

Who needs to be a civil servant? Show me the benjamins!

God help us if she's off for Argentina. I just couldn't take it.

Rather than trying to figure out why she quit, let's ponder what this suggests about the Governor and her future plans. Does she quit when the going gets tough? What kind of president would she make if this is the case? Troubles with Russia..."oops gotta go. Sorry." I think the quitter tag will be hard to shake.

She's apparently a magnet for charges of ethics violations. How would that work in the White House (Clinton version II?). Will she try to remain in the public eye? Most of the reason she's still on the radar screen is that's she's tabloid and late night comedy fodder, not for offering policy papers. How will she maintain her Q rating? Is there a new slot for a talk show host on Fox cable?

Now that she'll be out of office, will more knives come out within Republican ranks (the Vanity Fair piece is pretty much old news: we already know she's mavericky and a rogue). Will she "bravely run away" (thanks Makifat) again? Whatever happens, the next couple of years should be fun for Republican watching.

Off for Argentina? I heard she was seen hiking on the Applechain Trail.

Wow. I hadn't actually seen the video until this morning. Is this a joke? Bizarre and rambling. I especially like the thing about her son being "mocked and ridiculed", and the statement that the world needs more Trigs. What on earth is that supposed to mean?

No description can do it justice:

http://video.nytimes.com/video/2009/07/0...

"We're not retreating, we're advancing in another direction."

And the animal noises were a nice accompaniment. The geese honking (I assume they were geese, maybe it was Todd) gave the occasion a certain gravitas.

Message edited by its author, Jul 5, 2009, 12:14pm.

I like Gail Collins's summation in the NY Times:

"Truly, Sarah Palin has come a long way. When she ran for vice president, she frequently became disjointed and garbled when she departed from her prepared remarks. Now the prepared remarks are incoherent, too."

She reminds me of someone who gains fame on a reality series--once the fanfare is gone it's hard to grant her more than the 15 minutes of fame she's already had.

And while I'm not trying to bash her, I just can't remember seeing any real "accomplishments" since she hit the national scene. It's like her time in the limelight came out of nowhere and is headed right back there.

some one was trying to soften her decision to resign by saying something along the lines 'She became governor to affect change, bloggers and others are making it almost impossible, so she decided to move on'. WHAT, the going got tough and she quit? Think it will be any easier at a federal level?

What scares me is how many people still support her, and how much of that is out of pity. 'she's just a mother doing her best, give her a chance!'

She irritates me more than Bush ever did.

edited dumb spelling mistake

Message edited by its author, Jul 6, 2009, 12:56pm.

Money. It's always about money. As long as she is governor of Alaska, she can raise money for political uses (for her campaigns, for the Republican Party in general, etc.) but cannot accept any money herself. She's probably an in-demand speaker right now, and could make a ton of money doing personal appearances and this is the only way she can cash in.

Message edited by its author, Jul 6, 2009, 12:49pm.

either that or there is some really big scandal coming that she is trying to avert.

Message edited by its author, Jul 6, 2009, 2:02pm.

What's the story with her, from an Alaska perspective? I'm in the front of those who think she's not cut out for national office—at least the top national offices—but Alaska is a small state, and knowledge of foreign affairs is, despite Alaska's amusing proximity to Russia, hardly important. I don't know what the local issues are, but I can't imagine she's as clueless about them. Indeed, I get the impression that, prior to the McCain run, she was regarded as doing a good job. Did this change, and was she really doing a bad job, or did the national element swamp the local one?

Message edited by its author, Jul 6, 2009, 1:55pm.

She's going to run for president.

A reelection campaign for 2010 would distract her and her aides from developing a nationwide campaign. Since she only has a year left in her current term, she will likely use that remaining year as space for her 2012 run. Presidential campaigns start early, apparently.

Not many will hold her resignation against her. Why should they? Obama never finished his first term as senator and his wild band of white, Subaru owners never held it against him.

well, you are correct that Obama did resign from his Senate position, but only after he'd been elected our President. As a white person who does not own a Subaru and still voted for Obama, and will again, I find Palin laughable. I do not believe she will be voted in to any office, local, statewide, or certainly not nationwide, now that she has quit being governor. One further clarification of your post: Americans of every color and race voted for Obama, and, as luck would have, in much greater numbers than voted for McCain.

>72

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who ascended to the presidency with less than a full term as governor of a small state. Obama was light on experience, for sure, but that would be a really unusual resume. If she had some other qualification or her performance had cut against that narrative, she might get by, but it fits it perfectly—she acts inexperienced and is inexperienced.

Message edited by its author, Jul 6, 2009, 4:00pm.

From the Far North:

Why did Palin resign? Here are some stabs at the answer.

A) Palin, so far, has presided over prosperous years. Oil prices went through the roof, which actually benefits Alaska. That is changing, and SOMEONE will have to make some very unpopular decision concerning either taxes or spending soon. That SOMEONE will not be Palin. Not now.

b) Remember that gas pipeline she told us she was building? Well contracts have not even been negotiated yet, and her plan (AGIA) is not looking really good right now. She will have make concessions she swore she would never make, if she wants a signed contract. But not now.

c) Seven Million Book Deal.

d) Being the governor of Alaska is kind of boring. She has political ADHD, and after her VP run, coming back to Juneau (the only state capital you cannot drive to) life must seem pretty boring.

e) Ethics violations are costing the state a bundle. HER ethics violations. Which is especially embarassing, because she ran on a "I gonna clean up Juneau, you betcha!" platform. Yeah, right.

f) She's a diva.

g) She finally figured out that the best thing for Alaska would be for her to become FORMER Governor Palin. (Except that now we will be negotiating pipeline deals from scratch, and will be at a distinct disadvantage, and the nickname for our new governor to be is Captain Zero.

H) She has no real political skills, only PR skills. In terms of getting her name out, this was perfect. In terms of 2012, this is a disaster. (I may regret those words.)

I) The Republicans need to get rid of their extreme right wing if they ever want to win a national election again. 2012 is probably a lost cause, so let's throw Sarah into the lion's den, and when she gets eaten up, people will finally see that that clock does not tick anymore. (Sorry for the mixed metaphor.)

J) She's a diva.

K) Todd told her to.

L) Something Big is going to come up (like maybe A-Rod did knock up one of her children, or her, or the sports complex deal really was a deal) and she is bowing out so she will not be charged as a sitting governor.

M) She wants to spend more time with her family. No, really. She does. Ok, I'll stop laughing if you will. (The way she treats her kids is an on-going joke up here. More than once someone was left babysitting one of her young' uns, on the fly, while she was off being a diva. She could at least hire baby sitters, rather than depend on someone taking care of them when she has left them in the lobby of the hotel. By themselves.)

N) She is an idiot.

Obama neglected his duties in the Senate. Running for president takes much effort and energy. A person only has so much time and energy to dedicate toward effort for a given end. Obama could not reasonably perform his duties in the senate while simultaneously running for the most sought after office in the United States. If Obama had put as much effort into his senate position as he did his campaign for president, he would have lost the election.

But you guys voted for him anyway. If that is not illustrative that politics is not rational, then nothing will convince you.

Ted Kennedy killed a woman. But he is still a senator. Rationality, at least how the term is considered in this context, plays no role in politics. So to claim that because Palin did not finish her term as governor, she will have a difficult time being elected to higher office is bunkum.

I use "Subaru" very broadly. "Subaru" could in fact mean Volvos (any type, but especially the older, box station wagons), Toyota Priuses, older Toyota Land Cruisers, Land Rovers, etc.

Palin as president scares me too. She has shown herself to be as bloodthirsty and warring as Obama and Bush. The last thing this nation needs is another warmonger as president.

I hope she doesn't get elected. I hope her challenger doesn't either. But that's a different topic.

Message edited by its author, Jul 6, 2009, 5:55pm.

the only state capital you cannot drive to

Driving from the other end of Oahu to Honolulu counts?

ok, I see your point. But if you land on the island where the capital is, you can drive to it. There are roads that lead to other cities. Not so with Juneau. No roads into or out of the city.

But yes, I cannot drive to Hawaii. I stand corrected.

Since Oakes started this thread, and admitted to liking her, I would really like to see his response.

That's why Juneau is such an inbred city.

I hope you're not being judgmental, Cody.

Purely descriptive, Carny.

I can vouch for that. Purely descriptive. Self-evident.

>76 In the last election, voters had a choice between two senators who were neglecting their office to run for president...and I'm pretty sure Obama had a better record of actually showing up than McCain did.

Message edited by its author, Jul 6, 2009, 7:50pm.

ok, I see your point. But if you land on the island where the capital is, you can drive to it. There are roads that lead to other cities. Not so with Juneau. No roads into or out of the city.

But yes, I cannot drive to Hawaii. I stand corrected.

You can get to Augusta, the Capital of Maine, but you cahn't get theyah from heeah.

"Resigning" from an elected post without providing any type of clear reason strikes me as a huge betrayal of the citizenry and democracy itself. It absolutely boggles my mind that anyone would ever consider voting for a person that had deserted their state in such a way. Being required to resign because of some scandal or crime or because of promotion to higher office is absolutely not comparable. I'm surprised so few people seem similarly offended.

I also completely fail to understand how anyone can think this is a good way to prepare for a presidential bid. Her vague reasons are even more suspect - people were too mean and the job was too hard? Good thing everyone is so unfailingly nice to the president, who has such a cushy job where no one ever tries to stymie their work

"Resigning" from an elected post without providing any type of clear reason strikes me as a huge betrayal of the citizenry and democracy itself.

So, on some level I agree with you. My problem here, and with much political debate, is that, given how you feel and how you express it, I'm 99% certain of what you thought of Palin before: You didn't like her, a lot. Something tells me this is a factor in how you feel here.

Am I wrong?

Message edited by its author, Jul 6, 2009, 9:37pm.

Among the possibilities that Arctic alluded to was the big book deal she signed in May. It was one of the first things to cross my mind. Maybe we're misunderestimating that. As a governor and parent she must already be pretty busy, and now on top of that she's supposed to write a book, which by her desription will set things straight.

To get it written and out on the shelves in 2011 in time for the 2012 primaries is already a fairly tight schedule, in publishing terms. Her publisher surely hopes that it will do as well an Obama book. If Palin does have 2012 ambitions, then it could also make political sense to devote herself to creating a personal narrative of her choosing with the attendant publicity and distribution that would surpass anything she could achieve as a state governor. (She'll be getting plenty of exposure on the talk show circuit just before the primaries, and it wouldn't cost the campaign budget a dime.)

And even if it doesn't accomplish as much as hoped, the pay-out is certainly better than state politics.

So here's a follow up interview, in waders no less,

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/07/p...

two parts of the article that seemed odd to me..

No legal "bombshell" or personal scandal lies behind Palin's resignation, but off-color jokes by talk-show host David Letterman contributed to her decision to step down, Thomas Van Flein (Palin's lawyer) said.

and

The governor needed a break after being "on duty now for two and a half years solid," he (Van Flein) said.

My reaction is simply. Really?!! David Letterman, a hack comedian, and two and a half years of work did you in. I don't get it.

Assuming she is running for president in 2012 (which everyone and their mother knows she is). Assuming she wants to win, why would she give these reasons. They make her sound lazy and extremely easy to rattle. I admit she's always seemed a bit nutty to me, but now she seems irresponsible and weak. What happens in 2015 is the economy goes south or the Dems start bashing her, or Dane Cook makes a joke about Trig does she quit the presidency, run away after 3 years on duty. I doubt it, but that's how she coming off through these interviews.

Why not come out and be honest and say something like, " I feel I can serve this country as it's president and serve it well, but to do that requires years of intense campaigning, an amazing difficult travel schedule, and enormous amounts of time spent on the road in the lower 48. I cannot honestly do that and be a responsible governor here in Alaska. Every American has a right to chase their dreams, and that's what I'm doing today. Those of you who have done so, know that sacrifices and hard choices have to made along the road to reaching our goals. I'm saddened that I can no longer serve you as your governor, but I hope that someday I can proudly serve as your president."

She would catch flack for this no matter what, but it's far easier to defend a decision to run for president, than this sorry song and dance she's doing right now. I admit I don't like her, and I never really have, but I could at least respect her decision if she could be even a little honest about it. Can anyone honestly say what she is doing makes her looking more appealing as a president?

Message edited by its author, Jul 7, 2009, 7:44am.

Maybe it's better if she leaves meaningless reasons, allowing us to explain her for ourselves. Then we will come up with our own words which we're more likely to believe, and which have a chance of being flattering in our eyes. Those who like her will justify and then really believe an argument which they now have ownership. Those who don't like will criticize - further inspiring those who like her to defend. Reason suddenly isn't a big player here.

#89, "Why not come out and be honest and say something like, " I feel I can serve this country as it's president and serve it well, but to do that requires years of intense campaigning, an amazing difficult travel schedule, and enormous amounts of time spent on the road in the lower 48. I cannot honestly do that and be a responsible governor here in Alaska. Every American has a right to chase their dreams, and that's what I'm doing today. Those of you who have done so, know that sacrifices and hard choices have to made along the road to reaching our goals. I'm saddened that I can no longer serve you as your governor, but I hope that someday I can proudly serve as your president."

Because something like that would never occur to her?

#87

The people who did not like Palin (like myself) see this as just one more evidence of her nuttiness, but her friends up here are quickly becoming former friends.

I have talked to more than a few people who supported her, voted for her, even contributed to her campaign. Right now, they are pretty pissed off at her.

WARNING, to Palin lovers in the lower 48. THIS IS A PATTERN. What she did to us, she will do to you.

From the two threads:

Maybe she's "going Appalachian Trail" on us...

Maybe she just found out she is pregnant again...and knows that her hubby is not the father. And that this will be obvious when the baby is born a different color.

I don't think she's going away. She's very dangerous.

My genuine fear is that she aspires to be the Queen of the far right militia movement, fully activating all her ties to the Alaska Independence Party, and proceeding to issue fatwas against liberals, big government, pagans, and all things ungood. Whether she does this from a throne on FOX news or by twittering from a mountain retreat is immaterial.

She's a Public figure. She deserves it (asking for it).

Palin was more than willing to use her children as a political tool

Palin is famous for being famous and not much else.

as long as she is alive she is a threat to America. I am already making plans for where I'm going to live if she gets elected in 2012 or 2016.

She's apparently a magnet for charges of ethics violations.

What scares me is how many people still support her, and how much of that is out of pity. 'she's just a mother doing her best, give her a chance!'

She irritates me more than Bush ever did.

I'm in the front of those who think she's not cut out for national office

I find Palin laughable.

She's a diva.

Something Big is going to come up (like maybe A-Rod did knock up one of her children, or her, or the sports complex deal really was a deal)

Palin as president scares me too.

The people who did not like Palin (like myself) see this as just one more evidence of her nuttiness

Or, to sum up one set of rational and well-argued claims from three of the threads:

1. We hate her.

2. She screwed us by resigning.

3. She'll do it to you.

The above thread was started to initiate a discussion on censorship, the ethics of insults, etc. It (of course) quickly turned into a Two-Minute Hate (well, okay, it has lasted a bit longer) against the enemy/target of the moment.

I recommend Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism—conveniently now out in paperback.

Message edited by its author, Jul 8, 2009, 4:32am.

>94

I agree that some remarks in this thread are mean-spirited and small. But there are plenty of others that are simply horsing around or speculation. There's more going on here than hate.

>94 Oakes - My read on all this is that the libs were seeing Palin as the front-runner in 2012 and thought Obama would easily defeat her. So they're disappointed in her disappearance - if that's what it is - and are trying to keep the good times alive for a few minutes longer.

#94 "The above thread was started to initiate a discussion on censorship, the ethics of insults, etc"

Come on man, the thread's trajectory has been very predictable. Palin and/or the media does something really stupid ... and we complain about both. Shocking turn of events. If you want a serious discussion, use a serious example.

Message edited by its author, Jul 8, 2009, 8:30am.

"Some have argued that the term "fascism" has become hopelessly vague in the years following World War II, and that today it is little more than a pejorative epithet used by supporters of various political views to attempt to discredit their opponents. This view dates back to George Orwell, British writer and author of Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm, who famously remarked:

'...the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else ... Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathisers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.'" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions...

94>

The bigger problem for me is the realization that we've dumbed-down as a culture--that we might actually elect people because they're "interesting" or "fascinating". We no longer want intellectuals who bore us. Sure, it's good if they sit around for 18 hour days and think about banking and legislature, but it makes for bland headlines. We want people who never run out of surprises and make CNN exciting every time we tune in.

That's what scares me. People are not voting for issues as much as they're voting for entertainment, and Sarah Palin fits that description.

99: We've never wanted intellectuals as leaders. Look at the catalogue of Presidents and though few of them were stupid, very few of them would qualify as any kind of intellectual.

#100 - Maybe off topic, but "never" is too strong a word. Here is my guestimate*** list of exceptions - 12/44 or 27% - that's significant. (***I'm not a scholar, this list isn't accurate in any way. There are quite a few names I know nothing about.)

2. John Adams
3. Thomas Jefferson
4. James Madison
5. James Monroe
6. John Quincy Adams
16. Abraham Lincoln
27. William Howard Taft ?
28. Woodrow Wilson
33. Harry S Truman ?
35. John F. Kennedy ?
42. William J. Clinton
44. Barack H. Obama

And, for completeness, the notable non-intellectual presidents - well, no comment on whether or not they actually were intellectual, but they definitely were not elected for being intellectuals:

7. Andrew Jackson
18. Ulysses S. Grant
29. Warren Harding
30. Calvin Coolidge ?
39. James Carter
40. Ronald Reagan
43. George W. Bush

Message edited by its author, Jul 8, 2009, 12:48pm.

101: Your list is somewhat flawed.

Monroe dropped out of college to fight in the Revolutionary War. He never returned to study.

Lincoln was mostly self-educated, and reviled as a hayseed rube. McClellan famously looked down on Lincoln due to Lincoln's lesser education.

Truman never went to college and was an army officer and haberdasher before he became politically active. I don't think he qualifies as any kind of intellectual.

Other than attending Harvard, Kennedy has no accomplishments that would mark him as an intellectual.

Most every President, no matter his educational qualifications, has had to downplay them and emphasize his "commonness". Those that have played up their education have been viciously attacked for it: John Quincy Adams, for example, was particularly reviled for his education.

So what does the list look like?

Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Q. Adams, Wilson, Clinton, and maybe Obama (his intellectual qualities are doubtful, he did attend Harvard Law School, but what we know of his record there shows him to be a competent student, but not a particularlly intellectual one).

So, 7 out of 44. That's a pretty weak record for intellectuals.

And who are the regarded as the most popular, influential, and "best" Presidents? The anti-Intellectuals: Jackson, Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, FDR, Eisenhower, Reagan, and so on.

#103 - thanks for the post. Interesting. Lincoln throws me, because looking backward he is the epitome of the intellectual president.

I would still qualify Kennedy with his "Best and Brightest" as definitely on the intellectual side - regardless of his actual intellect. And I would quality Obama too as his record in Columbia comes up quite a bit. (W's record at Yale is mostly mocked.)

Message edited by its author, Jul 8, 2009, 12:58pm.

Republicans have made much political hay by bashing "liberal intellectuals" over the years. Interestingly, conservatives in other lands are not disqualified by having "intellectual" credentials. For example, both Helmut Kohl and Angela Merkel hold doctorates (in history and chemistry respectively). However, I can't think of a politician who has attempted to turn her lack of knowledge of the world, and policy choices within it, into a virtue more than Palin. Ed Douthat captures this well in a comparison of Palin and Obama:

"...she really is the perfect foil for Barack Obama. Our president represents the meritocratic ideal — that anyone, from any background, can grow up to attend Columbia and Harvard Law School and become a great American success story. But Sarah Palin represents the democratic ideal — that anyone can grow up to be a great success story without graduating from Columbia and Harvard." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/opinio...

94
It (of course) quickly turned into a Two-Minute Hate (well, okay, it has lasted a bit longer) against the enemy/target of the moment.

I entirely agree. Even though the Alaska Governor's office apparently has a team to scour the media and intertubes for the most insignificant slights to dear Sarah so that they can bring such slights to our attention by regular press releases, I think it's time to leave her alone (after all, politicians are so thin skinned!).

So, let's take our leave of the "haters" and leave her in peace, so that we may go back to spending our time disparaging muslims, homosexuals, and those horrible smelly homeless people.

104: Lincoln has about one year of formal education. His image as a railsplitter was originally used as a political attack against him. Many Easterners considered everything about him: his life as a country lawyer, his lack of formal education, his folkys anecdotes, and so on to be a mark that the Union was doomed by his stupidity.

Other than attending Harvard, Kennedy has no accomplishments that would mark him as an intellectual.

Well, he sort-of wrote Profiles in Courage, and he surrounded himself with intellectuals.

The anti-Intellectuals ... T. Roosevelt

Roosevelt had a common-man thing going, but he also wrote a shelf-load of books. Among other things he was fairly serious and respected author, starting with The Naval War of 1812. He was apparently the president of the American Historical Association for a time.

It would be interesting to see which president had the most books on LibraryThing. Some of the top ones:

Jimmy Carter 3,671
Bill Clinton 2,623
Thomas Jefferson 2,290
Ronald Reagan 1,159
Theodore Roosevelt 1,126
John F. Kennedy 1,303

108: No one said that the men who have been president were not smart - I don't think any of them could truly be classified that way. But most of them haven't intellectuals in the sense of being deep thinkers who contemplate weighty issues of academia and policy. Teddy was certainly smart, but it is a real stretch to say he was an intellectual. Teddy's writing is of a pragmatic nature, rather than, say the intellectual musings of Wilson. What is more important is the political positioning of Teddy Roosevelt, which was decidedly anti-intellectual.

As for Kennedy, surrounding yourself with intellectuals is probably a good move, but it doesn't make you one.

Message edited by its author, Jul 8, 2009, 2:28pm.

Kennedy's IQ was 119, just barely one standard deviation above the mean.

(A Question of Character, pg 42)

Message edited by its author, Jul 8, 2009, 2:33pm.

>110

I see your point, although I'm not sure I want to reduce intellectualism to an attitude toward intellectual labor. Roosevelt wrote a serious work of history, drawing on primary sources, and it became the standard work for some time. He was president of the AHA. There's a huge gap between that and, say, Johnson, whose top aides said he never picked up a book in his life.

I'd like to argue for some sort of continuum. In some sense no American president was an intellectual, possibly excepting Jefferson. By some prototype measure, being an intellectual involves attitudes and life styles incompatible with what it takes to be a politician. But a number of presidents did serious intellectual work and had original, bright ideas. At some point that has to be part of it, or intellectualism is just a style.

Steve Sailer: Does IQ Matter in A President?

As for Kennedy, surrounding yourself with intellectuals is probably a good move, but it doesn't make you one.

That's exactly right. But it furthered the (in many ways false) Kennedy mystique that he was sort of a dashing renaissance man, along with the alleged fact that he could read 5,000 words a minute, or whatever, and of course the Profiles in Courage fraud.

112: Well, given that we are including Obama and Clinton as "intellectuals", the definition seems to be moderately lax. The more salient issue is how a politician positions his public image. Other than Wilson, no president I can think of successfully ran for the office using a "I'm the smartest man in the room" type of campaign. Many more have run (and won) with a "I'm the guy you could hoist a beeer with" attitude.

On the other hand, political attacks on politicians for being dumb are pretty common: Bush 43 was routinely compared to a chimp. Reagan was supposedly clueless and out of touch. Truman was mocked for being nothing more than a haberdasher. A. Johnson was mocked for being self-educated. Lincoln for being a hayseed rube. And so on. Americans, it seems, want their politicans to be smart, but not too smart.

I'd say the only true intellectuals in the roster are probably Jefferson and Wilson. There are a lot of smart educated guys in the bunch: both Adams', Taft, even TR, but they were more men of pragmatic intelligence rather than intellectualism, and most of the well-educated candidates have spent a lot of time trying to downplay their education.

Reagan:a Life in Letters debunks the view that he was simply an actor reading his lines, or whatever. Indeed, it turns it on its head. I doubt, for example that any of the last ten presidents could have matched Reagan in the efficiency and fluency that he composed, say, a personal letter, a newspaper column or a script for a radio monologue.

116: The issue is not entirely which former presidents were actually smart guys, but whether they were perceived as being smart guys. Reagan was probably quite intelligent and well-read. He was not, however, perceived that way.

I note also, that the two unquestionable "intellectuals" who have served as president did so with decidedly mixed results.

117 Well if you use a rigid definition, who besides Woodrow Wilson would qualify?

118: Probably only Jefferson.

And that's part of the point. To get to any appreciable number of "intellectuals" having held the Presidency, you have to water the definition down a fair amount.

For example, I wouldn't consider Obama to be an intellectual in the normal course of life. Someone like Richard Epstein is an intellectual, whereas Obama is just a reasonably smart guy. But when we talk about "intellectual" presidents, the pool is so shallow that Obama should probably be counted as being on that end of the spectrum.

And that fact should tell us something about the kinds of leaders Americans have elected over the years. "Intellectual" is not high on the list of priorities the electorate seems to desire in a president.

James Garfield was a college instructor in Latin and Greek.

Many consider Grant's Memoirs to be an American literary classic.

Can a non-intellectual be a great writer? (That wasn't rhetorical. I'm not really sure what I think.)

Message edited by its author, Jul 8, 2009, 3:20pm.

120: Sure. One need not be an intellectual to be a great writer. In many cases, being an intellectual seems to impede being a great writer.

Perhaps. I don't know. Can you give a few non-presidential/non-political examples?

Message edited by its author, Jul 8, 2009, 3:21pm.

>118

Thomas Jefferson was plainly a serious political philosopher.

(Someone is bound to mention that he penned paens to freedom but owned slaves, but I'm talking about the ideas he articulated, not whether he lived up to them.)

In fact, tons of the people who participated in The Great Debate around that time - cf. the Declaration of Independence, the Constitutional Convention, the Federalist Papers, etc. - were serious political philosphers. (I'll leave it to people less lazy than me to figure out which of the participants in The Great Debate eventually became President.)

122: Examples of what?

One side note: Grant wrote his memoirs because he needed money. That's neither here nor there on the "was he an intellectual" scale, but the interesting thing is why he needed money: when he became president, Grant was forced to give up his army pension.

Grant I'd put in the middle category: he was smart enough to get into and graduate from West Point (quite difficult at the time), but that makes him a military engineer, not a deep thinker. His career between West Point and taking command as a brigadier of volunteers in 1861 is one of mostly failure with a lot of drunkeness thrown in for good measure. Do his accomplishments as commander of Union forces, a fairly weak presidency and writing a book of memoirs qualify one as an intellectual? I don't think so.

Message edited by its author, Jul 8, 2009, 3:39pm.

Does Hemmingway qualify as a great writer? Was he an intellectual?

How about Steinbeck or London?

Message edited by its author, Jul 8, 2009, 3:40pm.

What the fuck is an intellectual?

Re: Hemingway, Steinbeck, London, etc.

Some (most? all?) artists may be very deep in some areas and shallow in others.

By definition, a good artist has a gift at something--perhaps describing or representing the world in a particular way, for example--but he may sometimes not be very good at explaining, describing, or perhaps at some level even understanding what he is doing.

Must an intellectual be smart, or deep, or curious, or articulate, or whatever about everything?

Then of course there is the hedgehog versus fox issue. Can one be a sharp but shallow intellectual? Or can one be sort of non-sharp but deep?

But I'm a bit uncomfortable with a definition of "intellectual" that, say, excludes Hemingway. Hemingway certainly wasn't a bookish nerd, but then neither was Sir Richard Burton. In what way was Hemingway not an intellectual?

Message edited by its author, Jul 8, 2009, 4:03pm.

I think Burton was a little more classically bookish—and also more manly!—but if Hemmingway doesn't qualify, then we're talking about a very narrow definition of intellectual. He was a great author, and his books are hardly devoid of deep and complex literary merit. His LibraryThing library has more than 7,000 books, and they ain't all fishing guides.

As I remember from Nabokov: The American Years, when Nabokov was considered for an English post at Harvard the crushing blow came when, after Nabokov's astouding mastery of literary criticism in three languages was dismissed, one of the professors said that he was also a very fine writer. Another professor retorted that the biology department didn't hire elephants.

As for Roosevelt not being one, I suspect that, if he didn't also run around the world fighting people and killing animals, his intellectual attainments would not be in question.

As far as I know, the United States is the only country in the developed world that makes a virtue out of the ignorance of its leaders.

As Stuart Smalley would say, "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and dog-gone it, people like me."

That's all it takes to become President. Just ask George W. Bush.

>129

Nonsense. Lots of foreign politicians have failed when they seemed too cerebral, and not in touch with the people.

I'm sorry, I didn't say anything about their cerebrality. Ignorance, in America today, is a choice, not a quality. A choice, as I said, apparently many Americans celebrate. Knowing too much just muddies the clarity between black and white. It just makes too many heads hurt thinking about.

131>
An old book that is probably still timely: Richard Hofstadter, Anti-Intellectualism in American Life.

geneg>

Of course you had to make the Stuart Smalley reference the week Stuart Smalley actually BECAME a politician. :)

As for defining "intelllectual", we can say that Grant wasn't and Teddy Roosevelt wasn't, etc. They're still miles ahead of Palin any way you want to look at it.

And I wasn't using "dumbing-down" as a cliche'--I was literally saying that we've lowered our intellectual standards when deciding who can and who can't do the job. When Palin literally KNEW what questions she'd get asked during the campaign she stumbled. There's a difference between being able to memorize simple rote responses and not even knowing how to get out of your own way. People of mediocre intellect can memorize answers. Palin can't even do that much.

>126 What the fuck is an intellectual?

Yeah, it's about time that word was retired.

Palin's new use for her children - as props for fear-mongering:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/200...

Didn't she say before that she resented "the media" putting her children in the limelight?

Palin spent most of the past week in New York City with her family, sightseeing and meeting with her book publisher.

hmm, didn't her daughter's ex-fiance mention something about a lucrative book deal?

hmm, didn't her daughter's ex-fiance mention something about a lucrative book deal?

Don't believe anything that no-account bastard says!

"In Egypt, 43 percent of people think Israel was behind the 9/11 attacks in America, a poll by WorldPublicOpinion.org found last year.

In the United States, six percent of Americans say the moon landing of 40 years ago was staged, according to Gallup.

And in Alaska, the former governor, a woman who was nearly a heartbeat away from the presidency, now tells followers that “Obama death panels” could decide if her parents and her baby, Trig, who has Down’s Syndrome, will live or die." http://egan.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/09...

138
And she rails against "media" disinformation. I'm glad she can now spread her own disinformation without that pesky media filter....

As a Republican Senator might say, she's got "some 'splainin' to do.

I believe there were advisory panels during the 60s and 70s which had to decide which patients were deemed most worthy of receiving kidney dialysis, a procedure which was relatively new. They weighed factors such as age, intelligence, productivity, family commitments, etc.

But universal healthcare will work here just like in Canada or Sweden. So we will not have to worry about such things.

We already have that:

In the United States, a patient who wants an organ transplant from a cadaverous donor must become part of an elaborate nationwide organ distribution system. This system, known collectively as the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN), is operated by the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), an independent nonprofit organization working under contract with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

UNOS maintains a database of eligible transplant patients awaiting organs as well as detailed information on all the organ transplant centers around the country. Additionally, the UNOS board of directors, primarily made up of transplant doctors, transplant patients and organ donors, establishes the policies that decide who will get which organs.

And don't insurance companies already decide if a particular patient gets a particular treatment. So, it's ok for a heartless corporate entity to decide if you will live or die, but not for the gov't to do so?

Yes. It's okay for heartless corporate entities to make these decisions than the single-payer, heartless entity that is our government.

More to the point, there are competing corporations vying for your business. If one says "we're going to let all left-handers die," left-handers can do business with some other corporation. There aren't competing US Federal governments.

Hmmm, maybe we should start one. The LibraryThing Senate (TM) and LibraryThing House of Representatives (TM) will be holding elections November 2009...

No, there aren't competing governments there are things called elections that can add and/or remove the people who make those rules.

There may only be one heartless government, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that heartless government would do a much better job of providing health care than the current system whose main goal is making money, and I stand by my statement earlier, with actual health care being a secondary or tertiary goal.

For the last twenty years I have watched health care costs increase as the stock market has gone up. At the turn of the century, when the dotcom bubble burst, health insurance costs doubled. Why? Was care more expensive, somehow? No, but the stock market wasn't paying the dividends it had been and the shortfall in profits had to be made up somewhere.

The government may take my money, but I usually feel I'm getting something for my taxes. When the health insurance industry takes my money I get next to nothing for it while they make fortunes off of my basic healthy status. (I see two doctors twice a year each for maintenance purposes and pay about $6,000 a year for this. I would rather give my money to the government to use to pay for my four doctors visits than someone whose going to make a mint off of me. But I must. I don't know what will happen in five minutes making it a necessity for me to be gouged for no services rendered 10 of 12 months on the chance that I will need it.)

Yes, I embrace the opportunity to use the efficiencies of government to drive the private insurance sector out of business. What kind of business doubles its prices while slashing its product and stays in business? If the insurance industry had REAL competition from a non-profit organization they would be out of business next week. I know it, you know it, and most importantly, they know it. I am counting on my government to take the hands of the health insurance industry out of my pockets.

Between the Birthers and the Deathers (i.e., those who believe that the health care reform bill under consideration includes "Obama death panels"), it's difficult to find a rational discussion emerging from the vox populi as it is represented at town hall meetings. If, as some believe, postmodernism is based on emotionalism, then postmodernism is alive and well in "middle America". One can only marvel at the sea of white hairs and blue hairs at the meetings (does anyone under age 65 attend these civic soirees?), who denounce a "government takeover" of health care, yet fail to remember that they will be (or already are) covered by Medicare and Medicaid. Especially moving was the gentleman who today declared to Arlen Spector that (paraphrasing) "god would judge him!" (negatively, one presumes) for supporting this proposed legislation. The only things missing so far are pitchforks and torches, and a Senator or Representative holed up in some decrepit mill that is finally set on fire, devouring the Monster-Legislator and the evil its presence entails.

The anger expressed at the meetings is impressive for the fact that it is excessive, entirely out of proportion to the stakes of the legislation itself. It only confirms the blessed "Founders" distrust of direct democracy; perhaps they were wise to set up a quasi-aristocratic institutional brake on it: the electoral college.

The longer I live, the more I realize the absolute genius of the electoral college.

It's alive and well in this thread.

>146
Certainly. And if 51% of your fellow citizens want to impose something on you...

(Excuse me, 51% neglecting complications due to the Electoral College.)

"The next morning, I met (Orly) Taitz in a Cracker Barrel parking lot outside of Louisville. She was joined by a small group of Kentucky citizens, and they were the nicest people you could imagine — warm and welcoming, quiet and modest, dressed as if they were going to church: a tweed jacket for the homeschooler teaching six children, a flowered shirt for the woman who was a delegate to the last Republican convention, a row of medals for the small white-haired man who once commanded a Navy submarine, a white cowboy hat for the pastor of a Children of God church.

"It gets worse and worse and worse," one said. "Did you see Obama bowing to the Saudi Prince yesterday?"

"They financed his Harvard education," said another.

"That's his sugar daddy right there," said a third.

We set off in a flotilla of cars. When we got to the state office complex an hour later, it took less than ten minutes for us to get badges and pass through security. A man named George Wilding, the manager of Kentucky's Public Corruption Unit, led us to a conference room. A few minutes later, we were joined by Bob Foster, Kentucky's Commissioner of Criminal Investigations.

Then Taitz began to talk, and she did not stop for 15 solid minutes: Obama forged this and his campaign forged that and these are his false addresses and here's something very strange that Justice Scalia told her at a book signing and here are the 500,000 signatures collected by WorldNetDaily magazine demanding an investigation...

Finally Wilding held up a hand. "Let me just stop you right there. What applies to Kentucky?"

One of the citizens starts showing him documents. "This is clearly his school record that shows that he was a citizen of Indonesia..."

"I don't understand what that has to do with the Kentucky attorney general's office," Wilding repeated.

"He was on the ballot here in Kentucky," Taitz said.

"That was a federal election. There are federal-election laws. The FBI investigates those. So I believe that your best venue and jurisdiction lies with the U.S. district court and the FBI."

That's when Taitz lost it. "I can see that you are hell-bent on doing absolutely nothing," she said, eyes flaring. "You want to pass the buck."

"No ma'am. I'm trying to follow the law."

"I'm going to the FBI and not only reporting Obama, I'm going to report you for refusing to investigate crimes. You have a duty to investigate those crimes! Why are people paying salary for this whole office of attorney general of Kentucky? To do nothing?"

"I think we're finished," Foster said.

But Taitz wasn't finished. She marched her troops straight over to the secretary of state's office and did the exact same presentation all over again. Then she headed to the FBI to do it a third time. And the whole time, she never stopped talking:

Goldman Sachs runs the treasury.

Obama is a puppet.

There's a cemetery somewhere in Arizona where they just dug 30,000 fresh graves, which wait now for the revolution.

Baxter International — a major Obama contributor — developed a vaccine for bird flu that actually kills people.

Google Congressman Alcee Hastings and House Bill 684 and you'll see that they're planning at least six civilian labor camps.

Google an article in the San Francisco Chronicle about train cars with shackles.

The communist dictator Hugo Chavez way back in 2004 purchased the Sequoia software that runs our voting machines and the mainstream media won't report any of it — not even Fox because Saudi Arabia bought a percentage of Fox in 2007."
http://www.esquire.com/the-side/richards...

Maybe I'm strange, but the thing that leaped out at me was "30,000 fresh graves, which wait now for the revolution".

I'm thinking "Only 30,000? In a nation of 300 million, a revolution overthrowing the government is being planned by the evil Obama administtration that will only cost 30,000 lives? That's what? 0.01% of the population? Wow, they must be better at planning than I thought."

But maybe I'm just odd.

Message edited by its author, Aug 12, 2009, 2:21am.