Sarah Palin, Cancer of the Republican Party?

[Oli]

"[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."-David Brooks, noted Conserative columnist

I like David Brooks. He brings a different voice to the Op-Ed page of the Times.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/1..._n_133001.html

[PapaGrande]

I would agree, but add there seems to be an anti intellectual streak in many political populists, not just those on the right. Its hard to court the average working man if you are going to be talking about a bunch of fancy book learnin'

[Quinn]

"[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."-David Brooks, noted Conserative columnist

I like David Brooks. He brings a different voice to the Op-Ed page of the Times.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/1..._n_133001.html

Great link, Oli. Palin definitely represents a continuation of the anti-intellectualism that has become a hallmark of the Bush presidency. Avoiding the detached ivory tower intellectualism synonymous with ultra-liberalism is one thing, but Forrest Gump politics sure as hell doesn't provide a viable alternative.

Bottom line: Palin is clearly an idiot, much like GWB.

-Quinn

[yodajazz]

Great link also. People who like Obama understand his mental capacity to digest complex issues, but also relate back to people on an emotional level. His experience in teaching constitutional law is one example of his ability to grasp a subject.

The war in Iraq was started because of people who had experience, but did not grasp the complexity of the regional dynamic, and history. My friends and I discussed these dynamics before the war and they have turned out to be true. So judgment is more important than experience, to many people in this election.

Sarah Palin does have a likable personality, but she does not demonstrate the intellectual capacity to grasp issues of the future. She cannot cite reading news sources, for example. I also look at the fact that her husband is only a high school graduate, whereas as Obama’s spouse is an ivy league educated attorney. This says something about their intellectual environment to me.

[natina]

palin is an embarrassment to the republican party




lol very funny and informative





http://www.hungangels.com/board/view...er=asc&start=0

"[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."-David Brooks, noted Conserative columnist

I like David Brooks. He brings a different voice to the Op-Ed page of the Times.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/1..._n_133001.html