[Sarah Palin] represents a fatal cancer to the Republican party. When I first started in journalism, I worked at the National Review for Bill Buckley. And Buckley famously said he'd rather be ruled by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than by the Harvard faculty. But he didn't think those were the only two options. He thought it was important to have people on the conservative side who celebrated ideas, who celebrated learning. And his whole life was based on that, and that was also true for a lot of the other conservatives in the Reagan era. Reagan had an immense faith in the power of ideas. But there has been a counter, more populist tradition, which is not only to scorn liberal ideas but to scorn ideas entirely. And I'm afraid that Sarah Palin has those prejudices. I think President Bush has those prejudices.

Obama has the great intellect. I was interviewing Obama a couple years ago, and I'm getting nowhere with the interview, it's late in the night, he's on the phone, walking off the Senate floor, he's cranky. Out of the blue I say, 'Ever read a guy named Reinhold Niebuhr?' And he says, 'Yeah.' So i say, 'What did Niebuhr mean to you?' For the next 20 minutes, he gave me a perfect description of Reinhold Niebuhr's thought, which is a very subtle thought process based on the idea that you have to use power while it corrupts you. And I was dazzled, I felt the tingle up my knee as Chris Matthews would say.

And the other thing that does separate Obama from just a pure intellectual: he has tremendous powers of social perception. And this is why he's a politician, not an academic. A couple of years ago, I was writing columns attacking the Republican congress for spending too much money. And I throw in a few sentences attacking the Democrats to make myself feel better. And one morning I get an email from Obama saying, 'David, if you wanna attack us, fine, but you're only throwing in those sentences to make yourself feel better.' And it was a perfect description of what was going through my mind. And everybody who knows Obama all have these stories to tell about his capacity for social perception.

I am for Obama because I'm sick of dumb people in the White House, and that may include Bill Clinton, who is intellectually and politically brilliant, but just as often a moron.

One of the best writers/social observers there is on the political scene... offered up these morsels today...







I am for Obama because I'm sick of dumb people in the White House, and that may include Bill Clinton, who is intellectually and politically brilliant, but just as often a moron.

Me too, KTFBD.

I'm a disenfranchised Reagan Republican Over the past decade, both parties have become WWE smackdown cartoons pandering to the lowest common denominator.

IMO, McCain is a stupid, arrogant and reckless 72-year old kid cut from the same cloth as Dubya. While I'm concerned by Obama's lack of experience, I'm willing to cross my fingers and pull the lever for him based on his intelligence and capacity to learn/get better, whereas McCain can only get worse (much worse). And don't even mention Palin....

I can deal with intelligence in the White House....I just can't deal with radicalism on either end in there.

I am for Obama because I'm sick of dumb people in the White House, and that may include Bill Clinton, who is intellectually and politically brilliant, but just as often a moron.

One of the best writers/social observers there is on the political scene... offered up these morsels today...







I am for Obama because I'm sick of dumb people in the White House, and that may include Bill Clinton, who is intellectually and politically brilliant, but just as often a moron.

It used to be there was such a thing as conservatives, liberals and moderates. The Republicans have changed that to conservatives and liberals. I have no idea how they define a moderate other than someone who agrees very close to 99% with them.

Lurker: what you said of McCain really true to me. I'd pile on by adding that his choice of Palin is almost akin to treason. I don't think he finds her to be a good running mate for one second but instead chose her to pander to the super-Jesus demo. That he'd be willing to sell out to such a low, low level to do that is abhorrent. If he wanted to sell out, there were better choices.

Not sure I can vote for Obama but he's brighter.

If Hillary was running, would you be for her? She isn't a moron, or so it would seem.

Edit: I am not a McCain supporter.

What's positively scary is that when she was first picked McCain went ahead in the polls.

I think the complexity of modern life is to blame for the polarization. With so much to know, and so much of it changing so quickly, it puts more of a burden on people to think and interpret. Given the increasing mental sloth of the general public, it's simply easier to make a snap 'thumbs up' or 'thumbs down' decision (like the Romans used to do) and arrange your worldview so it's nice, comfortable and non-threatening to your status quo.

Who needs those namby pamby moderates, anyway.

Does it scare you that your party of idiots almost nominated Hillary?

Ummm...no. Not at all

Me too, KTFBD.

I'm a disenfranchised Reagan Republican Over the past decade, both parties have become WWE smackdown cartoons pandering to the lowest common denominator.

IMO, McCain is a stupid, arrogant and reckless 72-year old kid cut from the same cloth as Dubya. While I'm concerned by Obama's lack of experience, I'm willing to cross my fingers and pull the lever for him based on his intelligence and capacity to learn/get better, whereas McCain can only get worse (much worse). And don't even mention Palin....

I can deal with intelligence in the White House....I just can't deal with radicalism on either end in there.

Lurker: what you said of McCain really true to me. I'd pile on by adding that his choice of Palin is almost akin to treason. I don't think he finds her to be a good running mate for one second but instead chose her to pander to the super-Jesus demo. That he'd be willing to sell out to such a low, low level to do that is abhorrent. If he wanted to sell out, there were better choices.

Not sure I can vote for Obama but he's brighter.

Would you classify Bush and Palin as radical?

I think the complexity of modern life is to blame for the polarization. With so much to know, and so much of it changing so quickly, it puts more of a burden on people to think and interpret. Given the increasing mental sloth of the general public, it's simply easier to make a snap 'thumbs up' or 'thumbs down' decision (like the Romans used to do) and arrange your worldview so it's nice, comfortable and non-threatening to your status quo.

Who needs those namby pamby moderates, anyway.

Your credibility is zero.

Extremist .... extremely extremist.

Would you classify Bush and Palin as radical?

This question is not for you specifically but more for anyone who wishes to respond.

What do you call an administration that suspends habeus corpus and has to have the Supreme Court tell them it's illegal before they stopped doing it, Wiretapped it's own citizens without warrants and lied about it more than once, Intruded on a family decision about whether or not to pull the plug on a completely brain dead woman with their legal powers, would only accept guilty pleas from prisoners of war, had to stop the Vice President from destroying documents, gave multi billion dollar contracts to firm the Vice President has a financial stake in and I'm sure there's some other crap I'm forgetting.

Did you hear Stern say last week how he wasn't sure if he wanted to vote for Obama but he felt he was forced to now because of Sarah Palin?

It used to be there was such a thing as conservatives, liberals and moderates. The Republicans have changed that to conservatives and liberals. I have no idea how they define a moderate other than someone who agrees very close to 99% with them.

Somebody laughed really hard and thought I was out of my mind for calling The Wall Street Journal a conservative paper and they referred to CNN as the Communist News Network.

Would you classify Bush and Palin as radical?

Actually yes, as is Obama, hence why I like guys like McCain and Lieberman, who actually will go against their party to get work done. Radicals are stubborn.

Does it scare you that the Republicans actually nominated GDB twice?

Ya... But... Palin is inches away from being Prez if one votes for McCain.

If we are to have a radical in, why not a new one that will swing the thing back at least?

get work done.

You need to take a long hard look at the Democrats and Republicans and revisit this polarization bull sh--. The two parties hav way more similarities than differences. They may refuse to work together on some issues but they agree on 90% of things.

I don't think of the WSJ as "Republican" conservative. It's the best paper I read, and has some Conservative (read: Capitalist) bias. I read the NY Times too and the WSJ is nowhere near as conservative as the NY Times is liberal.

CNN, to me, is the most objective of the major news networks. FOX is totally absurd and is the Colbert Report without the joke. MSNBC is similar.

You really believe on social issues they're close? I disagree.

Mostly because you choose to ignore the data and believe the rhetoric.

Back to the original topic: Yeah, I want another intellectual in the Oval Office. You know, like Jimmy Carter. That dude was wicked smart.

You people are awesome.

Mostly because you choose to ignore the data and believe the rhetoric.

Back to the original topic: Yeah, I want another intellectual in the Oval Office. You know, like Jimmy Carter. That dude was wicked smart.

You people are awesome.

So you think they see eye to eye on abortion issues, gun control, health care, what the Constitution does and doesn't allow the President to do, stem cell research and tax issues?

So you think they see eye to eye on abortion issues, gun control, health care, what the Constitution does and doesn't allow the President to do, stem cell research and tax issues?

On some (health care, tax issues) they are almost identical. The Dems want more health care is the only difference. Both concede that it's the government's job to provide it. The difference is a matter of degree. On taxes, I am not sure there's a difference except in rhetoric. Republicans mostly want a little less tax but to spend more. Dems want to tax more and spend more.

Abortion is a "who cares" issue. It affects few and most legislators won't touch it. Ditto guns. Stem cell research, again, is not that different except for some loons on the right, not to mention technology will probably wipe that debate off the map.

Schools, welfare, drug war, and many other issues...the parties only differ on points just to be different.

On questions like: government size reduction, fiscal responsibility, limiting powers, following the Constitution, etc., they are in lockstep.

No, I was for Obama over Hillary, whom I believe to be very smart, but also a frequent liar who says things even she doesn't believe one bit at times, and will stoop to depths I cannot support. A lot like Bill, but worse.

I'm tired of the far right and far left hijacking the parties

And the abortion "debate" is completely bankrupt fear mongering. Neither party will EVER touch it legislatively or from the Executive because they're not stupid.

Abortion is a "who cares" issue. It affects few and most legislators won't touch it.

We'll see. Obama told Planned Parenthood that his 1st act in office would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (introduced 1st in 2007) that strips every single state law regulating abortion that more than 70% of the states have enacted.

I relish that debate. If the press had any !@#$ing balls what-so-ever - they would press this "intelligent man" to explain how he would not have supported the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, a bill that passed 98-0 in the Senate (including support by Barbara Boxer) and how he voted against it 3x as a state senator in Illinois. There is no law, no funding restriction, not even restrictions protecting a live baby separated from their mother that this extremist (by any definition of the word) would support.

He is a radical's radical and I think you will see that bill come up for a vote, though I doubt it will ever reach his desk.

Gerson Wrong on Obama and "Born Alive" Legislation
April 02, 2008

RHETORIC:"In the Illinois state Senate, he opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion." [Washington Times, 4/2/08]

REALITY: Obama Said He Would Have Supported Federal Born Alive Legislation, A Move Pro-Choice Groups Would Not Have Opposed Because It Made a Distinction Between a Fetus in Utero and Child That is Born

Obama Said He Would Have Supported Federal Born-Alive Legislation. The Chicago Tribune reported, "Obama said that had he been in the US Senate two years ago, he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even though he voted against a state version of the proposal. The federal version was approved; the state version was not. Both measures required that if a fetus survived an abortion procedure, it must be considered a person. Backers argued it was necessary to protect a fetus if it showed signs of life after being separated from its mother…the difference between the state and federal versions, Obama explained, was that the state measure lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade." [Chicago Tribune, 10/4/04]

NARAL Did Not Oppose Federal BAIPA Because of Its Clear Legal Difference Between A Fetus In Utero Versus A Child That's Born. NARAL Executive Vice President Mary Jane Gallagher said, "We, in fact, did not oppose this bill. There's a clear legal difference now between a fetus in utero versus a child that's born. And when a child is born, they deserve every protection that this country can provide them." [CNN, 8/5/02]

NARAL Statement: "NARAL Does Not Oppose Passage" of BAIPA.In a statement, NARAL said, "Consistent with our position last year, NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Last year's committee and floor debate served to clarify the bill's intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman's right to choose." [NARAL release, 6/13/01]

Major Difference Between State And Federal BAIPA: "The Federal One Stripped Out Any Language That Could Have Been Used To Challenge" Roe V. Wade. "Perhaps on no other issue is Keyes' rhetoric against Obama as harsh as on abortion. Keyes repeatedly accuses Obama of favoring 'infanticide' because of Obama's vote against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. The failed measure would have required doctors to provide medical attention to fetuses born alive during a rare type of abortion procedure. Keyes pointed out a similar measure sailed through Congress. But there was a major difference between the state and federal versions: the federal one stripped out any language that could have been used to challenge the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion legalization decision. Despite that, Keyes continues to hammer Obama with the "infanticide" charge virtually daily on the campaign trial. Obama, who pointed out state law already required doctors to care for fetuses born alive during botched abortions, said he's "deeply offended" by Keyes' assertion because he knows it's false. Beyond that, Obama would have voted against the ban on late-term abortions that Bush signed - but federal judges since have put on hold - and Keyes would have voted for it." [Chicago Daily Herald, 9/20/04]

Do you live in this country and pay any attention to politics? Abortion and Stem cell research are huge issues with radicals on either side. It was one of the biggest issues in confirming Roberts.

It is much more complicated than that:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/ob...nfanticide.html

but you see, that is what you get when you support intellectuals for the sake of intellectuals. You start arguing over the meaning of "is" and whether a bill is "exactly" the same to provide cover for one's self.

Intellectuals can be just as dangerous as those "stupid" people you are so tired of.

It is much more complicated than that:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/ob...nfanticide.html

but you see, that is what you get when you support intellectuals for the sake of intellectuals. You start arguing over the meaning of "is" and whether a bill is "exactly" the same to provide cover for one's self.

Intellectuals can be just as dangerous as those "stupid" people you are so tired of.

Obama's critics are free to speculate on his motives for voting against the bills, and postulate a lack of concern for babies' welfare. But his stated reasons for opposing "born-alive" bills have to do with preserving abortion rights, a position he is known to support and has never hidden.

And the abortion "debate" is completely bankrupt fear mongering. Neither party will EVER touch it legislatively or from the Executive because they're not stupid.

It's an interesting article but ultimately means nothing. One would have to think of some bizarre reason for his objection. I think that ultimately, the last paragraph of the factcheck article means the most:

I'm not at all supporting intellectuals for the sake of intellectuals, and you surely don't have to be an intellectual to be smart. In fact, I don't trust or like most intellectuals. I like smart people. I don't think I have ever used the term intellectual in that sense of the word when posting about Obama.

He happens to be an intellectual but that is not at all why I like him. I like him because I listen to what he says, I watch how he responds to people around him and the world, I observe how he handles things, I see who he surrounds himself with, and I see him respond what I think to be thoughtfully. I generally like what I see and hear. Most "intellectuals" I see as smug, arrogant, non-common-sense elitists that speak way over your head. I don't see any of that from Obama.

He's married to a woman who flat out hates America. She's a friggin' psycho.

that last paragraph dealt with the earlier votes, but whatever - I'm just saying you can't blow off the charge against him because he said it's not true and accept his reason for it. There is a lot more to it.

as for the last part - your answer scares me as much as Palin supposedly scares other people. The entire problem with Obama is that he is a smart person with slick rhetoric, yet no one wants to contrast that picture with what (little) he has actually done. Smart people can say anything. They can manipulate you all day long. However, it is your past record that either supports or detracts from your rhetoric.

I know everyone on the left wants to blow off William Ayers. I find that incomprehensible. Can you imagine if Palin was associated with anyone that bombed an abortion clinic? Do you have ANY idea what kind of sh-- storm that would cause? Yet there is the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about. There are lots of these characters in Obama's past, yet time and again he has to disavow them. No one cares. No one cares that he has no one to vouch for his actions on the past.

He's married to a woman who flat out hates America. She's a friggin' psycho. He marries someone who hates this country, he goes to church to listen to someone who hates this country, he raises money for people who bombed buildings, and yet no one cares. All these nutjobs that he surrounded himself with his entire life. Yet, no one cares. Because he talks nicely. I mean, WTF? It is the only thing we have to judge his words by - and no one voting for him really cares.

Proof please.