The American Spectator

CactusWren| 11.21.08 @ 11:48AM

RE: bumper sticker

If only that were true.. as it is the Arrogant Meritocacy is all set to steal MY lunch money.

Captain America| 11.21.08 @ 12:11PM

I know I'm not worthy. But, then again, I'm a low information admirer of Gov. Palin.

Bob| 11.21.08 @ 2:26PM

That's it, McCain. Join the idiocracy along with Rush, Hannity, Palin, the real McCain, etc. You obviously have nothing but contempt for Romney, Jindal, and Newt. This emphasis on anti-intellectualism has led the party to losses. I would think we'd want the best and the brightest in the White House, but you want average. You probably believe in ID as well. Just today, I listened to Rush make dumb statements about the economy comparing the situation today with the situation when Reagan took office. He doesn't understand concepts like credit availability, the collapse of the housing market, the effect of derivatives on on the flow of capital, etc. If you want idiots to run our country, the party deserves to disappear.

Bob| 11.21.08 @ 5:54PM

I've got to tell you, RSM, I'm still angry at your idiotic statement. Perhaps we should use the very successful (cough, cough), Bush administration as an example. Both Bush and Cheney were C/D students in college. There were 150 graduates of Regent University -- more than any other school -- in the administration. For those of you who don't know, this is Pat Robertson's school which is among the lowest ranking schools in the U.S. Perhaps we should talk about the stunning intellect of Brownie or Alberto.

Bush has, de facto, proven your point, RSM.

As Republicans, let's try and put a smart and educated group of people in the White House for a change.

Interested Conservative| 11.21.08 @ 11:16PM

Gee whiz Bob - did you read RSM's comment? Do you not understand the difference between credentials and accomplishments? How about cleverness and wisdom? Any truth to the old saw that Harvard law has more graduates that are criminals than criminal lawyers? How about "diversity"?

Someone once said if everyone is thinking alike not everyone is thinking.

This administration is shaping up to be full of strong willed personalities who pretty much agree on everything. Interesting to see what happens with SecDef.

Jason| 11.22.08 @ 2:14AM

Let's not get away from the idea that America should be a meritocracy. That won't help.

Obama didn't win on merit. He won because he is the media darling.
http://rightklik.blogspot.com/

WendyG| 11.22.08 @ 9:42AM

>>>As Republicans, let's try and put a smart and educated group of people in the White House for a change.

Nobody here believes you are a Republican Bob.

Bush's college grades are on a par with Kerry's and Al Gore's.

Biden on the other hand plagiarized a law review article for a paper he wrote in his first year at law school, (and a speech when he was running for POTUS years ago) and Ted Kennedy was caught paying someone to take his Spanish exam at Harvard. Two of the most "respected" Democrats. (cough, cough)

So the "smart and educated" Obama picked a twice-caught plagiarist as his VP. Not a very impressive choice.

Bob| 11.22.08 @ 9:44AM

Interested Conservative -- you did not read RSM closely. He was talking about ACCOMPLISHED Ivy League graduates in the Obama administration. By the way, all administrations, Democratic and Republican, have individuals who agree on basics. They are not elected, they are chosen by a President who wants his/her policy instituted.

I'm railing against this passion of conservatives, especially the social conservatives, to bring in people of limited intellect to lead this country. They don't seem to understand economics, seem to be against technology, have no comprehension of science, and think that belief should be more important than reason in the public square. Our country was founded on some of the best thinkers of their time and has devolved in the Republican party.

RSM is wrong in calling this "populist". You can be a populist and be smart. He is arguing for continuing stupidity. For example, I constantly hear Republicans, my party, railing against higher taxes and they use the parochial federal income tax as an example conveniently leaving out the the more regressive taxes. They talk about "trickle down" with no econometric proof that it works in today's economy. If you let idiots run the country, then you deserve the result.

Bob| 11.22.08 @ 9:52AM

WendyG

"Nobody here believes you are a Republican Bob."

Of course not. Limited minds beget narrow thoughts. That's the problem we're discussing.

By the way, I thought Kerry was a well spoken dunce and Gore only slightly better. Biden? He seems to be a hair smarter than Barbie Palin, but neither have significant intellect. I supported Romney -- a smart and accomplished individual who understood business and the economy -- but the mental midgets who called themselves social conservatives torpedoed him.

WendyG| 11.22.08 @ 10:00AM

Well Bob, it seems your genius President has plans to employ the well-spoken dunce and has put the insignificantly intellectual Biden one heartbeat away from the Presidency.

So he's just a political hack after all. Handing out jobs to dunces who only had to endorse him at the right moment in exchange for a good gig in his administration.

But have no fear Bob. There are smart, educated Republicans in important positions. Most especially on the Supreme Court. Scalia, Thomas, and Chief Justice Roberts, for instance. And all three are social conservatives. And they are lifetime appointments. ;)

Bob| 11.22.08 @ 10:30AM

Wendy G -- agree on Scailia and Roberts, but Thomas is sub-par. I also think Alito is good who you didn't mention. Obama will replace the aging libs on the court with very young jurists who believe in a living Constitution. That will protect Roe for at least 40 years. Scalia is 72 and might not last through an Obama administration. Enjoy.

Robert Stacy McCain| 11.22.08 @ 11:20AM

Bob wrote: "Both Bush and Cheney were C/D students in college . . ." False. Bush's grades were comparable to Al Gore's. While Cheney flunked out of Yale, he subsequently graduated from the University of Wyoming, where he also got a master's degree. Do universities grant grad-school admission to C/D students? I think not.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

Bob| 11.22.08 @ 11:41AM

RSM - here are the facts:

http://www.insidepolitics.org/heard/heard32300.html

More correctly they were middle C students with some D's and some B's. You conveniently forget to mention that. These are certainly not examples of academic excellence. You asked if universities would grant grad-school admission to C/D students. To C students? Yes, if they performed well in their chosen subject matter especially if they had financial backing. Would a Harvard, Yale, Northwestern accept C students? No. Would a University of Wyoming accept C students? Probably. Remember, Cheney could not compete at Yale yet do acceptably at Wyoming. The bright one in his family is his wife. I wonder how many papers she wrote/edited for him???????

You are entitled to your own opinion (which is wrong), but not to your own facts.....

WendyG| 11.22.08 @ 11:46AM

>>>Obama will replace the aging libs on the court with very young jurists who believe in a living Constitution. That will protect Roe for at least 40 years.

Bob, no Republican or Conservative I know gloats at the notion of libs being put on the Supreme Court, at Roe v. Wade being protected, nor do they want the Constitution treated as a "living document." You out yourself.

And I know it's fashionable among libs to maintain that Clarence Thomas is "sub-par." OTOH, maybe said libs are just racists.

WendyG| 11.22.08 @ 11:53AM

>>>>Would a Harvard, Yale, Northwestern accept C students?

Well Bob, by your admission, Yalies are among the best and brightest. I note that Clarence Thomas attended Yale Law School.

Bob| 11.22.08 @ 12:14PM

Well WendyG, if you grew up in a poor, black neighborhood as I did, you might have a different point of view. Those of us who are more libertarian Republicans do believe in a "living Constitution". You must hang around people with limited backgrounds. Regarding Thomas, I did not say he was dumb, only that he didn't match up to the intelligence and reasoning power of a Scalia (who went to Harvard) and Roberts (who also went to Harvard). Both of them graduated summa cum laude. They are the type of people that should be on the Supreme Court. Average need not apply.

Interested Conservative| 11.22.08 @ 12:20PM

Bob - you're projecting. RSM mentions neither "ACCOMPLISHMENTS" nor "limited intellect". His "disdain" concerns precisely those who are intent on such labeling, usually erroneously, while overlooking exactly those faults within themselves.

There's an entirely separate argument to be had trying to distinguish intellect from leadership, how infrequently they coincide, and how often they are completely unrelated. Several millenia of experience are hard to dispute.
and ill

helen| 11.22.08 @ 2:00PM

Everybody is talking here as if Obama was a good student at his high school of Columbia. Nobody knows his GPA at high school or Columbia, or LSAT for that matter. Do you think if his scores were high enough to be admitted to Harvard Law without affirmative action we would know them by now?
After all Obama himself admitted that all his academic career he benefited from affirmative action including his election to Harvard Law Review. And nobody even argues that Michelle Obama would be in Princeton w/o affirmative action.

http://media.www.hlrecord.org/media/storage/paper609/news/2008/10/30/Election2008/Record.Retrospective.Obama.On.Affirmative.Action-3515294.shtml

Bob| 11.22.08 @ 3:40PM

Obama graduated from Harvard Law magna cum laude. That is a reflection of grades and writing ability and not affirmative action. I doubt if affirmative action helped him at Columbia, but it may well have helped him get into Harvard. But I can tell you from experience, after you're in, affirmative action does not help with your grade point average.

Bob| 11.22.08 @ 3:53PM

Interested -- RSM shows disdain for intellect. I agree that you can have intellect and not leadership -- look at Carter. But when we lower our standards to elect leaders who were at the bottom of their class like McCain or have limited knowledge like Barbie Palin, we are going too far down the road to an idiocracy.

I plead guilty to projection in this case, but social conservatives have pushed the party too far away from intellect. I am tired of the mediocre running the country. The President should be one of the best and the brightest. I voted for Republicans my entire life until W as I had a connection with him when I was younger and couldn't vote for an incompetent. McCain showed neither competence, leadership or intellect. The management of his campaign proved that along with his records at Annapolis. Like I said, Romney should have been the right choice but you social conservatives are far to fickle. I am so angry at social conservatives and my party it is almost blinding.

Agent Orange Peel| 11.22.08 @ 6:03PM

we are going too far down the road to an idiocracy

The case can be made that America has been on "the road to idocracy" since late 1957:
The Four President Horsemen of the U.S. Apocalypse - Part 1

WendyG| 11.22.08 @ 9:58PM

>>>Regarding Thomas, I did not say he was dumb, only that he didn't match up to the intelligence and reasoning power of a Scalia (who went to Harvard) and Roberts (who also went to Harvard).

And you base that in what Bob? Reading all of his opinions made from the bench? Please post some examples of his inferior intellect.

And Bob, what does your supposed background have to do with your opinions about the Constitution? I was brought up in a comfortable liberal Jewish background, and yet I have found way to Conservatism. And the more I learn about the Founding Fathers, and what they envisioned for our country, I more I know they did not intend for the Constitution to be a living document.

Yes we need smart people in govt. but there is all kinds of smart.

Ampontan| 11.23.08 @ 1:00AM

"Biden? He seems to be a hair smarter than Barbie Palin, but neither have significant intellect."

I agree with Camille Paglia, who thinks that the people who can't see how smart Sarah Palin is are the stupid ones. As several disintered observers have noted, for example, she has close to a photographic memory. (As she demonstrated when the teleprompter malfunctioned during her RNC speech.)

And when it comes to being grounded and comfortable in the real world, she is light years ahead of anyone I've seen in the Democratic Party in years. It's obvious she has a better grasp of the Facts of Life now than Barack Obama (and David Brooks) will likely ever have.

It's also interesting that Bob would bring up hair in regard to both Biden and Palin. It's the perfect analogy for her superiority in this comparison.

Yehudit| 11.23.08 @ 2:44AM

Speaking of economic smarts, Palin is the only one of the four candidates who has ever run a business. Practical experience in a market economy, especially in a trade like fishing where you are dealing with tangible products, is better training for the White House than Harvard training in "financial instruments." You can always hire economists.

Palin is also the only one who has successfully presided over a state, not to mention a huge complicated state bordering on two nations which supplies 20% of our energy.

It's amazing how people desperately keep trying to convince themselves that she doesn't have the right kind of smarts for the Presidency. And she has way more character than Obama or Biden.

I don't usually accuse people of these cliches, but I can't help seeing it as a combination of sexism and class bigotry.

Yehudit| 11.23.08 @ 2:49AM

btw in the circles I travel in, I meet a lot of very smart competent upper middle-class Ivy-leaguers. Most of them are self-involved, smug, and have bad manners, and also are so insulated from people unlike themselves that they are in no danger of learning any different. I do NOT want any more of those people in the White House.

Bob| 11.23.08 @ 7:56AM

WendyG -- I'm glad you grew up in a comfortable Jewish background. I grew up poor black community, faced much anti-Semitism from "conservatives" who were "good Christians" in the South, and fought for my country in Vietnam. You and others here have little visceral understanding of what it really means to fight and die for your country and what freedom really means.

I pulled myself up, graduated with honors from college, and received a graduate degree from Harvard -- yes, Harvard. I had to work full time at night while taking a full load during the day and supported two children while going to Harvard.

That's why I became a Republican -- because freedom and individual responsibility have meaning for me. I do not want others telling me what to believe -- either from the hard left or from Christian conservatives. I succeeded through hard work and excellence in academia and respect others who have intellectual prowess.

I want the Republican party to admire intellect and reason and not become an adjunct Christian organization. I admire Obama's accomplishments, from his community work, to academia, to running his campaign. I don't agree with a number of his more liberal beliefs, but I want my grandchildren and great grandchildren (yes, I'm that old) to see examples of excellence, not religious belief, in the White House.

You cannot listen to Palin, especially in the two hard interviews with Gibson and Couric, and believe she has significant intellect. People have to demonstrate intellect and she has not done so. She may well be bright, but she certainly lacks knowledge. We don't know.

Yehudit, most young (under 35) college graduates I meet, whether they went to an Ivy League school or not, are self-involved. It is a function of our culture. Most communities are insulated whether it be upper middle class, Asian, black, Hispanic, southern white, etc. As individuals, we tend to surround ourselves with people like us. You obviously have a limited perspective. I've actually lived in many different parts of the U.S. in many different communities. You need to get out and get some real world experience.

I rail here against social conservatives, but I would rail against any special interest group trying to take over the Republican party on primarily religious grounds. Our party is losing people quickly and we are at risk of becoming irrelevant especially because of the intolerance of social conservatives.

That's one of the reasons I'm so vociferous on this board. Rather than take this nonsense anymore, I will fight for the principles for which I believe....

WendyG| 11.23.08 @ 10:27AM

>>>I'm glad you grew up in a comfortable Jewish background. I grew up poor black community, faced much anti-Semitism from "conservatives" who were "good Christians" in the South, and fought for my country in Vietnam. You and others here have little visceral understanding of what it really means to fight and die for your country and what freedom really means.

I pulled myself up, graduated with honors from college, and received a graduate degree from Harvard -- yes, Harvard. I had to work full time at night while taking a full load during the day and supported two children while going to Harvard.

WendyG| 11.23.08 @ 10:34AM

>>>I'm glad you grew up in a comfortable Jewish background. I grew up poor black community, faced much anti-Semitism from "conservatives" who were "good Christians" in the South, and fought for my country in Vietnam. You and others here have little visceral understanding of what it really means to fight and die for your country and what freedom really means.

I pulled myself up, graduated with honors from college, and received a graduate degree from Harvard -- yes, Harvard. I had to work full time at night while taking a full load during the day and supported two children while going to Harvard.

Bob, you're cracking me up here. You grew up black and poor in the South, and faced anti-semitism? So you are a black Jew??? And you also fought in Vietnam (what, no medals for valor?) graduated from Harvard, (with honors naturally) all the while working nights and raising two kids. Is there a wife in this tale Bob? Oh, I know. She died tragically in a car accident so you were a single dad to boot. Didn't I see that movie on Lifetime Bob?? Sheesh, everything but the hounds nipping at your heels. :)

Pardon me if I am tad dubious of your claims. (eyes rolling)

Ahithophel| 11.23.08 @ 11:33AM

No one is talking about anti-intellectualism. We're talking about wariness toward those who worship the intellect, or who believe that the gold standard of human accomplishment is an Ivy League degree. All that I've seen over the past 16 years is a bunch of elite JD's and MBA's running our government and our economy into the ground.

I have degrees from Stanford and Princeton, and I'm nearly done with my dissertation at Harvard. So I don't say these things out of envy or spite, but...

The problems are these. (1) Universities are not meritocracies, so the students who flourish in them are not necessarily the best and brightest. Universities are increasingly hyper-politicized, ideologically homogeneous, chasing after the latest fashions and the latest discharge of identity politics. (2) Universities have spurned the role of character formation, so they churn out high-powered, well-connected individuals who are all about ambition and acquisition. (3) The worship of the intellect forgets that wisdom is more important than intelligence, character more important than ambition, and no amount of intellectual dexterity can make up for a lack of experience. Common sense, I can tell you, is often far preferable to what passes for cutting-edge ideas at the elite universities.

We're not talking about anti-intelligence, or anti-education. We're talking about an opposition to the worship of the intellect, or the belief that an advanced degree alone is a sufficient qualification for high office. Liberals view degrees at Ivy League universities as though these are accomplishments in themselves. And they are, to a limited extent. But conservatives tend to value accomplishments in "the real world." Given a choice between an advanced degree in politics and actual experience governing, the conservatives would generally choose the latter, liberals the former.

Ahithophel| 11.23.08 @ 11:40AM

Also, Bob, I find it intellectually dishonest to judge Palin's intellect through her interviews with Gibson and Couric. There is far more evidence available; see her debate performances in the gubernatorial election; not surprisingly, she knows local Alaskan issues far better than national ones. See her debate performance against Biden, for that matter. See her success as mayor and governor. Watch her speeches, before and during the campaign. You cannot take a holistic view of the woman and deny that she is intelligent. She expresses herself in a folksy way -- and I'm tired of my colleagues assuming that anyone who does not speak like a Boston Brahmin is unintelligent -- but she is often very sharp, very clever, very well-informed. She stumbled in the Couric interview, to be sure; but do you judge Gore's intelligence by how he failed his seminary classes, or do you judge Kerry's intelligence by his stupid jokes? You have to take a fuller picture.

Bob| 11.23.08 @ 3:14PM

Wendy, everything I've said is true. I'm not black, but grew up in South Central L.A. My high school was just north of Watts. After college, I had jobs in a number of states and spent about 4 years in the South.

Yes, I had a wife, and without her I could not have gone to school and held down a job at the same time. In Vietnam, I did get a bronze star but not with the "V". Just because you have not led an interesting life is no reason to believe others have not.

That's what's wrong with those who are shallow social conservatives on blogs like this. You have never really lived as those of us who came of age in the 60's.

Ahithophel, I did watch Palin's gubernatorial debate performances and she communicates well. I did not see any deep understanding of national or international issues or economics in those debates, but she did understand the much simpler local issues. On the issue of substance, all she could say during the Biden debate were memorized lines -- there was no substance and she refused to answer questions. I do expect a VP nominee to be fluent in national, economic, and international issues -- and she clearly was not. If she was so bright, why didn't the campaign let her have more interviews or even one press conference. It's not so much a matter of intelligence as it is knowledge. Intellect is a combination of intelligence and knowledge.

Do you really want another President who can't speak the English language properly? That would set a great example for our children!

Both Gore and Kerry went through several debates and lots of press interviews. They were challenged several times over a period of years. That's the difference.

So let me get this straight, you believe that we shouldn't worship at the alter of the Ivy League schools but you CHOOSE to attend Stanford, Harvard and Princeton? Doesn't that make you a hypocrite? Why would you even get an advanced degree when you could be in the "real" world gaining experience? Your behavior and argument makes little sense and defines you, in your own logic, as a liberal.

Obama aside, you cannot make the argument that Palin has any significant experience in the real world. Mayor of a town of less than 10,000 people and then Governor of Alaska for less than 2 years when oil revenues and earmarks were through the roof.

Obama also lacks significant experience to be sure, but we saw him tested in over 20 debates, several press conferences, we've seen his writing ability and campaign management performance. He certainly showed organizing ability.

Your arguments lack substance and continuity and are as inconsistent as I've experienced. I hope you didn't major in either the sciences or philosophy.

By the way, Wendy, there are people on the staff of this magazine who know who I am and could verify the facts that I have presented.

WendyG| 11.23.08 @ 3:49PM

I get it Bob. You aren't black nor are you Jewish. So you in fact you have never experienced anti-semitism. You kinda have to be Jewish for that. I think I've lived a pretty interesting life Bob. And what that life has taught me, among other things, is that you can be educated but not wise. You can be uneducated yet wise. The best Presidents IMO have solid educations, a dash of the common touch, and the wisdom that comes from being knocked around a bit by life. Sarah Palin certainly has the common touch. Obama, not so much.

Bob| 11.23.08 @ 4:46PM

Actually, Wendy, I am Jewish, studied the Bible and the Talmud when I was young, and ended up marrying an Hispanic Catholic and taking my kids to CCD. Hey, it was the 60's.

By the way, I agree with your comment about the best Presidents having solid educations, a dash of the common touch, and the wisdom that comes from being knocked around a bit by life. Sarah as the common touch but not a solid education and very limited wisdom because she has not experienced much of the world nor discussed wide ranging topics. Obama, as you correctly stated, does not have the common touch, but is a gifted orator which compensates to some extent. He certainly has a solid education and has been knocked around especially in his early life.

Ahithophel| 11.24.08 @ 11:39AM

Bob, simply because I do not worship at the altar of the Ivies does not mean that I do not see value in them. It's one thing to value something, and another to worship it. I should think it's an obvious distinction. I pursued advanced degrees because I enjoy learning, and would like to be a professor. Most of my education has been along a "Great Works" approach, dealing primarily with philosophy and theology from Kant to Karl Barth. But along the way I've seen that the Ivy schools are, as I said, dominated by identity politics and liberal ideology, and I've seen a liberal tendency to turn elite education into an idol. I've been there and done that, and can tell you that an Ivy League education is not in itself a demonstration of great intelligence -- and many who never attend the elite schools are just as intelligent, even if their intelligence expresses itself in different forms.

Nothing I said implied that I want another President who cannot articulate himself well. If you spent less time slandering the other conservatives on the board and more time listening, you might have noticed. Again, we're not talking about anti-intellectualism. No one wants a stupid President. If Palin really is a dim bulb, then I would not want her as President. But you and I assess her intelligence differently. I believe intelligence is best demonstrated not through advanced degrees but through success outside the university, so her successes as mayor and governor count to her credit.

If this seems inconsistent to you, it's because you're unwilling (I assume you're not unable) to understand nuance. Value intelligence, don't worship it. Value Ivy League eloquence, but understand that there are other kinds of eloquence as well. Value university degrees, but also value real-world accomplishment.

We'll have abundant opportunity to see whether Palin is a dolt or whether she was just thrown into a situation too quickly and with poor preparation. If I were tossed into politics in England and asked, in two weeks, to become conversant on all the major issues, and then to stand in gotcha interviews under the klieg lights, I imagine I might stumble as well. That's why I'm keeping an open mind to Palin. She performed in some contexts brilliantly; in others less so. But conservatives who support her are not therefore anti-intellectual, and your desire to brand them as such is more revealing of you than it is of them.

Ahithophel| 11.24.08 @ 11:46AM

Obama has a solid university education, but he had remarkably little experience by the standards of major party presidential candidates. He had no governing experience--none whatsoever. The qualities and practices that make for a successful senator (and he was only a mediocre senator at that) are quite different from those that make for a successful President. So he had a university education, but he did not have the education that I would consider most important--experience in governing.

Also, I don't think that Obama has ever come to the end of himself. I don't think he's seen the end of his abilities, or been humbled. He had some difficult family situations early in life, but as a young man and an adult he went from one success to another. This is to his credit, of course, and I'm sure he worked hard. But I would be more comfortable with Obama if I knew that he had truly been humbled by life at some point. He seems to have a boundless confidence in himself.

Do you remember when Katie Couric (I believe it was her) asked Palin whether she hesitated before she accepted McCain's VP offer? The implication was that it was presumptuous of someone with so little experience to even believe herself capable of or prepared for the VP slot.

Why was this question not asked of Obama? Palin, who actually had governing experience, did not presume to pursue the Presidency. She was asked by an extremely experienced politician to be his VP. Is it not more remarkable, and more remarkably presumptuous, that Obama, with at best equal experience, and no executive experience, did not merely accept a VP invitation but chose to pursue the Presidency?

I really fear that the hero-worship of all his followers (and that is the word to use) has gone to his head. I think he believes his own press. I'm encouraged that he's chosen mostly experienced people for his posts so far. But I'm concerned about his pride.