RE: Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin took her book tour to the Rush Limbaugh Show this morning. The Oprah and Barbara Walters interviews have been fun, because they mostly just asked her about Levi Johnston, and it's gratifying that God sent him to ruin her life and save the Republic. (Sometimes God opens a door. And it's to Bristol's room.) But the Rush interview was different. To Rush's credit, he actually asked her about politics.

Policy. That's where she shines.

See if you can pick out a theme to her answers.

Unemployment?

But those commonsense solutions there, especially with the cutting taxes on the job creators? That's not even being discussed.

Healthcare reform?

Not when there are commonsense solutions to meeting health care challenges in our country... So lots of commonsense solutions that need to be plugged in before ever considering federal government taking it over.

The 2010 elections?

It's all about Americans who are hurting right now and what those solutions are that are so obvious, so commonsense that need to be plugged in.

The recent special congressional election in New York State?

They are seeking commonsense, conservative solutions to all the challenges that we're facing. I'm glad to see this.

Independent voters?

Todd's not a Republican and yet he's got more commonsense conservatism than a whole lot of Republicans that I know... But in answer to your question, I don't think that the third party movement will be what's necessary to usher in some commonsense conservative ideals... In Alaska, about 70% of Alaskans are independent. So that's my base. That's where I am from and that's been my training ground, is just implementing commonsense conservative solutions.

The Future of the Republican Party?

Let's go back to what Reagan did in the early eighties and stay committed to those commonsense free market principles that worked.

brilliant!

oh my god.

Dear legally blonde,

You are so far up your own ass that you can see the light out of your mouth (which is always open). You NEVER read what other people are saying and ALWAYS see what you want to.

I support OBAMA and a fairly liberal social agenda. You make any people in similar situations look stupid for the way you craft arguments.

What the poster "gpa" was doing was making the most out of academic records available with logical assumptions. And whenever people bring up the "Good 'Ol Boy Network," it just makes them look like a whiner. Part of the reason that many white male youths see the "Good 'Ol Boy Network" as BS today is because they grew up in an era where being anything but white (or Asian for that matter) helped with applying to college. And then after college, when applying for jobs, people were given special consideration if they weren't white. This is the generation that is somewhat bitter because it doesn't see anything that it did wrong, but when you are looking for jobs or colleges, it blatantly says it on the wall that, for example, "female minorities are especially encouraged to apply."

Do young white males understand the ramifications of hundreds of years of slavery and oppression, and how that has affected society? Many don't, but I also think many do. When it comes down to it, we are in the NOW. I was turned down by school after school when I was trying to get a job in the private school world. Now that I finally have one, it has BEEN SPECIFICALLY SAID where I work, that we give preference to bringing in minorities both in the classroom and into our faculty. I went to school with black and white kids, some of whom had way more given to them more than the white kids, yet they took advantage of opportunities when employers try to diversify their workplace. And good for them for doing so!

It comes down to this generation asking what it has done. Are they justified? Somewhat. Many times a young, white male may have had it easier. But what about all those who didn't? All those because of SOCIOECONOMIC status, never had anything given to them? THOSE are the ones who feel cheated because they never did a thing, yet "minorities are encouraged to apply," but they aren't.

Minorites have had it difficult, no duh. They have had to deal with stereotypes and people treating differently because of skin color for ages. That is not fair at all. HOWEVER, don't allow one group to complain about unfair advantages while allowing one group to.

When it comes down to it, I've witnessed so much more socioeconomicism than racism in our system. Control for color and you will see America's "true colors."

This is in depth consideration of a topic. legally blonde, you just scream and look like a complete hoser.

I think we're missing a big point on all this business on Obama's grades. This is not a binary equation, with the answers being "genius" and "dumb as a brick." There is a whole lot of room between those two extremes, including a point you might label "smart enough." Sometimes "smart enough" can be indicated by things other than a transcript. I would even posit that almost everyone who ever occupied the Oval Office was "smart enough," or they wouldn't have gotten the job. When I question Obama's reputation for brilliance, I'm not intending to question whether he is "smart enough" for the job. I am questioning the odd cult of personality and media-made narrative that somehow he is exceptionally smart. Many of our presidents went to great schools without necessarily being academic studs--not just Bush 43, but his father, and FDR, and JFK. Probably the two highest-IQ presidents since WWII have been Nixon and Clinton, and both of them faced impeachment for personality flaws not related to intelligence. Obama's IQ, or SAT scores, or whatever, likely would have little bearing on his eventual success or failure. I'm just tired of being told he's the next Thomas Jefferson based on little more evidence than wishful thinking. I am impressed that he was editor of the Harvard Law Review, but I do not personally know how that position is chosen, nor the relationship of intelligence to interpersonal skills (which Obama obviously has in spades) required to acquire it.

One more thing--the "affirmative action" business. AA does not usually put unqualified minorities into the Ivies. Those students, too, are "smart enough." It may mean some non-minority who was marginally even smarter gets jumped over, but that is defensible in light of past discriminatiuon, especially for someone of Obama's age (arguably that is less defensible with today's students). But if you know anything about how AA works at competitive schools, you know that those slots don't always go to poor kids from the inner-city. Nothing makes these admissions departments happier than being able to check off a "diversity" box while taking a relatively risk-free kid with upper middle class work habits and values. One of my former students managed Yale undergrad and Columbia law as a minority student, even though she was the child of a rich west Indian doctor with an elite prep school background. She was smart enough, but not the smartest kid in her class, by far. That year, the smartest kid went to UVA. Obama is the same sort of applicant--raised by white grandparents, went to great schools, upper middle class, no slavery in the family tree--plus his dad was a Harvard legacy. If I were the admissions guy, I'd snap him up in a heartbeat. The fact that he may have been a beneficiary of AA doesn't prove he's stupid by any means, but it does suggest he may have gotten a leg up on other equally-talented kids.

you guys are not getting this. There is no debate about if he is an academic stud. Going to HBS is one thing. Going to an Ivy League School is one thing. BEING THE EDITOR OF THE HARVARD LAW REVIEW is entirely different. This topic is not up for debate. It really isn't. We are talking about a very select group of people. This would be like saying Clinton wasn't an academic all-star after getting selected for Rhodes. This is really pretty simple and straightforward.

Christ... the lengths people will go to in order to be contrarian.

This post is a complete ramble. This post is also completely inaccurate considering the echelon of people we are discussing. You really think George Bush was not helped by who his father was? Are you effing kidding me?

Perhaps you were not part of the ol' boys network but I was and many that I know were. To insinuate that it isn't a factor is patently ludicrous. This does not exclude AA being a serious issue as well... you just paint an exceptionally incomplete picture.

Have a nice day.

I don't know what a hoser is and I do read. I'm not up my own ass, maybe someone else' but not mine.

I wasn't talking about slavery and your own personal whining about socioeconomic crap, well, that's purely proof that you are up your own ass.

If some white male is going to throw this bullshit "affirmative action" crap around, I'm going to default right back to the Good Ol Boy Network...because it IS alive and well, maybe not in the academic wor;d, but my world of business, work opportunity - and you REALLY don't have a clue what minorities face - it is a lot more than stereotyping and having it a little rougher, and guess what Chip, it is in the NOW.

Here's one thing about Obama. He distinguished himself for more than 18 months of nonstop scrutiny on the primary trail. He was tireless. He displayed a quick command of issues. He endured a severe "vetting" in public and never lost his cool.

Palin? Not so much.

Ill repeat, sexist or not, she has an amazing pair of legs.

Fact Check Much wrote:

you guys are not getting this. There is no debate about if he is an academic stud. Going to HBS is one thing. Going to an Ivy League School is one thing. BEING THE EDITOR OF THE HARVARD LAW REVIEW is entirely different. This topic is not up for debate. It really isn't. We are talking about a very select group of people. This would be like saying Clinton wasn't an academic all-star after getting selected for Rhodes. This is really pretty simple and straightforward. Christ... the lengths people will go to in order to be contrarian.

Sorry. I'm really not trying to be contrarian. I'm actually trying to give as much ground as I possibly can, and smile the whole time. I said in my post, I don't know how the editor of the law review is chosen. I do know how Rhodes scholars are chosen, which is why I admit right away that Clinton is a genius. If you could let me know how they choose the editor, you could change my mind, instantly. (That's not sarcasm. I really mean it.) But if it turns out that the position turns out to be one that goes to the one of the many, many smart law students at Harvard who also happens to be smooth and articulate, interview well, and impress his fellow students and professors, then we already know Obama has those talents.

gpa wrote:

Harvard, like most Ivy League schools has classes specially designed to allow various segments of the population to excel.

I'm sure you're right and you could name a few of these classes for us, right?

polish your volvo; reglue your obama/biden sticker; and frame the recent pics of your prez bowing to the Saudi king and the Chinese dictator - you know, that Asian place w/ all the liberties you enjoy. yes, that's your prez, not mine. Oh, and congratulate him for the hugs w/ Chavez - he's another ardent supporter of your country. Grow up.

What is the purpose of this post?

In trying to decipher your rambling I think I am gathering that you don't think Obama should be subjugating himself to these individuals. Here is what you don't understand and has been empirically measured over the course of Obama's term...

PEOPLE LIKE US MORE NOW THAN THEY DID THE PREVIOUS 8 YEARS.

This matters for a multitude of reasons.

1. It gives the US more wiggle room in negotiating favorable solutions to global problems within global governance frameworks.

2. It gives the US more latitude with previously alienated foreign leaders. We may not agree with many of these states but simple courtesies can open a lot of doors among decision makers. I am going to guess from your posts that you aren't one as you can't seem to frame a single coherent thought.

3. It makes things a hell of a lot easier for American's everywhere who have had to live overseas the last 8 years with the specter of Bush following us around like a nightmare.

When Obama bows he is not prostrating himself before a foreign authority. He is the GOD DAMN POTUS for Christ's sake. He is the single most important and powerful man in the world. Do you understand that nobody can deny this? He is simply abiding by local norms and trying to apologize for 8 years of complete incompetence on the part of his predecessor (from a foreign policy/diplomacy standpoint).

Argue what you will about Obama's domestic policies and what is going on in Afghanistan. Just also be realistic and realize he has had a positive effect on our global image for precisely the reasons that you are chastising.

Well, I got busy on google and looked it up myself. Turns out that Fact Check Much would have been 100% right if Obama had been selected prior to the 1970s. However, this is what the NY Times had to say about the selection process in the article on Obama's selection:

Change in Selection System

Mr. Obama was elected after a meeting of the review's 80 editors that convened Sunday and lasted until early this morning, a participant said.

Until the 1970's the editors were picked on the basis of grades, and the president of the Law Review was the student with the highest academic rank. Among these were Elliot L. Richardson, the former Attorney General, and Irwin Griswold, a dean of the Harvard Law School and Solicitor General under Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon.

That system came under attack in the 1970's and was replaced by a program in which about half the editors are chosen for their grades and the other half are chosen by fellow students after a special writing competition. The new system, disputed when it began, was meant to help insure that minority students became editors of The Law Review.

Harvard, like a number of other top law schools, no longer ranks its law students for any purpose including a guide to recruiters.

So.... we're back to square one. Count me as still unconvinced.

Actually, Muslim etiquette forbids bowing to any other than God so the Prez came off as beyond rude - especially since no other leader or diplomat in the room was stupid enough to bow to a Wahhabi. A slight bow of the head is permitted but this on your knees nose in the crotch move made him look like some sort of pervert.

It would have been proper to kiss alongside each cheek of the King - but NOT to bow.

Rewatch the video of Reagan at the Iceland summit; that's the posture a president takes; that's what makes walls drop. Obama's behavior exhibits the fact that he is indeed vulnerable; it's a joke overseas - who are you kidding. Stop intellectualizing and open your eyes.

gamecock wrote:So.... we're back to square one. Count me as still unconvinced.

I'm fine with that given your second to last post. Just so long as there's a recognition that even given some questions he isn't a slouch. I think we'd be mis-leading ourselves if we believed luck diden't play a part in all of this as well.

That said, I see quite a bit more of that working in Sarah Palin's favor. And maybe a little against McCain too.

Gamecock, first of all, let me commend you for persisting and challenging "groupthink," which many of my "intellectual" friends suffer from. My perspective very closely follows that of your own. I have no interest in all of the hubbub surrounding Sarah Palin, and, frankly, she's the reason I didn't vote for McCain at the 11th hour (that and his lack of balls on the TARP issue), even though I do not like a severe power imbalance like the one that exists now.

At the time, I thought the far-left's preoccupation with Palin was more than a bit comical, since comparisons between her, as an 11th hour pick of McCain's for VP, and Obama, who was running for the highest office in the world, only highlighted his own shortcomings. It's not as though she was running for President. And, frankly, one of those "So easy a caveman can do it" neanderthals could've beaten McCain amidst the economic 9/11 that befell us. But, I have no interest in Sarah Palin and I hope to God she's not the best the GOP can put forth come 2012; that her celebrity status wanes. I do want to see some balance restored to Washington, lacking a viable third-party option that understands fiscal responsibility.

I have yet to make up my mind about Obama. On the one hand, I have many bright friends who think him the greatest thing since sliced bread like so many here, most who think him still in campaign mode and voting "present" on a great many issues, and still others who see him as nothing more than a cold, calculating politician who brought his Chicago political machine with him to Washington with a very restitutionist, redistributionist, reconstitutionist agenda. He may be all or none of these things, but it's fair enough to challenge his "pedigree," a vetting process which was severly lacking in the media during the campaign, and I was hammered on here for doing just that, as you are now.

FWIW, my wife graduated valedictorian of her law school class, is published in the Harvard Women's Law Journal, and served on law review. She lost out on a judicial clerkship to a 2.9 "quota" student. I'm not quite sure what else she could've done. She said law review was very "political" and not much of a feather in the cap. Just an anecdote... she did not attend Harvard.

But it is neither ridiculous, partisan, or lacking merit to posit the skepticism you have, which I myself wholeheartedly share. Frankly, it's the gravitational pull-osi of the far left that I'm more concerned about. If the Dems get crushed in 2010, and Obama shows his policy starts measuring up to his pedigree, I will give him my vote. So far, I don't like the bedsharing with GE, GM, and GS, which makes it extremely difficult to exercise objectivity and command.

The left has nothing, but Palin is a joke.

Wow, a political thread that, minus a few whackos, is actually well-written and well-argued. I'm.... astonished.