I completely agree here. I keep seeing people throw Obama's education around like it's some sort of trophy and comparing it to McCain's education. Education is a factor in who I would choose, but it is incredibly small. I have ran into people with every certification, degree, and friggin piece of paper you can get and they are still an idiot. Like my Mom used to say: "You can't teach common sense".
Rob, and Firegirl, respectfully, this isn't my entire point. I've not said that education makes the man or woman, though curiosity in the absence of formal training can make the man or woman. I've said that having the education does not undo the man or woman. It has come to the point in our national discourse where having an "elite" education has become a badge of political dishonor. I have a problem with that.
It took me a while to find where you quoted him, I thought you might have gotten it from the other thread where he blames those who aren't losing their homes on racism. And to think you spent the time to read his whole post to get to that part............
Never suggested being well educated is a negative... I've suggested that running on your report card years after you get out is like wearing your high school letterjacket to college. There's a difference between appreciating the value of education vs being willing to accept an inexperienced candidate solely on the strength of their grades years after college. I'd argue that in a time when we have troops on the ground in a hostile environment a West Point education and additional education at the Naval War College and who has firsthand experience of the horrors of war might be more in keeping with an education I'd be looking for than a constutitional law education. It is entirely possible to argue for McCain based on an education / experience combination that makes him the obvious preference there. If you decide it is "anti-intellectual" to credit McCain with a military education I will still list a host of West Point grads that outperformed higher ranking classmates in tactics and strategy later. They all get out of there with the knowledge, the Academy flunks out the lesser lights... but grades are ONE indicator, and not factual proof someone can implement the knowledge on the ground. That is not an argument against intellect, it is an argument against accepting test scores as the only thing that counts. Please read that carefully. I do not discount education, I value it. I just do not value it above proof that the holder is capable of putting it to good use, and I do not accept it as evidence that someone with good performance in real life is a loser because they lack higher credentials in the classroom but have accomplished things others have not done. At some point you need to quit pointing to Obama's report card and show me what he's really done. He darn sure hasnt performed in keeping with the stuff he's saying he'll do. Now that Obama and Biden have spent a few weeks pointing at Palin and laughing about the bridge, a statement where she's on shaky ground I will grant... please address why the humanitarians voted against diverting funds to the Katrina bridges which the documentation I referenced in the link shows that the Coburn amendment they voted down specifically mentions diverting the funds from the Alaska bridges by name. If that interpretation differs from "fact check", all I can say is read the verbiage of the amendment. The link I provided to the specific text of the amendment came from the Congressional website. They voted specifically to fund the Alaska bridges instead of diverting the funds to the Katrina bridges. Why?
Rob, I do think we're missing each other. I'm talking about a political culture that I feel has gained ascendancy, and not you, personally. Again, The problem is those "good many others" have gained a significant voice inside your party. I asked earlier - I believe that Goldwater was as principled a conservative as can be found, and he had the same problem. Was he wrong? Here. This is from a conservative blogger, said fairly well, in my opinion. Maybe most importantly: http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDg5NzEzNGUyNmNlMGZhMjI0YmJmOWJhYzE0NWE0ZmU= I am certain this commentator and I would substantively disagree on most things, politically, but it seems we agree on this one thing: that Sarah Palin was brought in to a roar of applause, simply because she seems to bear the moniker of "conservative sweetheart." I've seen nothing else - nothing - that suggests she is up for the job. And the desire to clamp down on that scrutiny, on the charge of "elitist sexist bigots," doesn't sit with me at all well. Nor should it, I would argue, with any principled conservative.
RE: The blogger... I'd take issue with a few of his facts for starters, which doesnt bode well for my opinion of his judgemt. He's unfamiliar with Bush's background prior to running for Pres... he was a 2 term governor with a good record of achieving bi-partisan legislation, and prior to that the owner of a major league ballteam. The Presidency was hardly his first executive experience. You and I dont have to agree on Palins merits, but frankly her christian credentials are far from being the part about her that impress me. We dont agree on the value of her time as mayor, or the way she got into the office of governor, or even the tenacity that she had to have to achieve a degree by working her way thru college (yes it takes longer that way...) but my reasons are solid and simply dont match those you hold. I have ample reason to like her stances on drilling and gun control and I honestly am amazed to see people complain about the price of gas but support the party that would make accessing our own resources second to their mistaken beliefs about caribou. She shares core values I hold... Biden and Obama do not. If I voted for them I'd be betraying my own deepseated beliefs on economics, the literal interpretation of the constitution, the true meaning of the second amendment, and a few others. I dont argue against the others based on race or because they are just too educated (thats a foreign concept). Actually Bidens recent remarks on history would be funny if he werent fixing to possibly be a heartbeat from the presidency... he'd flunk 8th grade history and I'd have hoped after 36 yrs in congress he had a clue about our recent past. Those that are not interested in history seldom know the lessons it can teach. People can disagree, thats why we have elections.
Palin and McCain have 'literal' interpretations of the constitution? McCain surely does not have it, I don't even believe Palin does. She has it more for 'hunting' than anything from my understanding, McCain is far from a great supporter of the 2nd.
2nd Amendment I'm very aware of how weak McCain is on the 2nd, which is one reason I like having Palin on his ticket for whatever sway she may be able to bring to bear. I have vivid memories of the Democrats being in bed with the HandGun Control Inc guys that in their more candid moments pretty much admitted their object was to incrementally chip the 2nd amendment rights away one step at a time. Dems have run from the topic since the 2000 election, but I trust anyone but a liberal on that score. Obamas unscripted and unfortunate (for him) "they cling to guns and religion" comment screams his disdain for both. That one statement tells you he's not your best best on 2 out of 10 items on the bill of rights. Per the consitution those are not rights *given* by the government, just rights we already were endowed with which are *protected* by the government. Palin and McCain have 'literal' interpretations of the constitution? That thought goes to back to Bidens history. He was one of the chief architects of bringing Robert Bork's Supreme Court nomination down despite outstanding jurists credentials... Biden just didnt like the fact that Bork is a constitutional literalist. I listended to those hearings live. History credits that trial with a shift in the interpretation of the advise and consent role of the senate. [Obviously I've been a political junkie a long time, that was more than a few years ago.]
That does not equate to Palin having a 'literal' 2nd amendment interpretation. Instead of showing where and how either have 'literal' interpretations, you went and tried to show how the others don't. Face it, none of them do.
Palin is a member of the NRA, and an avid hunter as well. She doesnt come from the type environment where guns are feared, she's from the part of the world where they are just another tool to be used carefully. How many members of the NRA do you know that dont value the 2nd ? I posted other stuff about Obama's attempts to kill conceal carry laws in a prior post. I know which side the NRA favors and I have a sound idea where 3 of the 4 candidates stand, havent bothered to check out Biden. I've been pissed at McCain over the issue several times historically, but that ticket is still the best bet on that issue. McCain/Palin ticket is not pro-abortion... and since that particular "consitutional right" was not written in the constitution anywhere but was suddenly discovered by the "constitution is a living breathing document" guys, I'm at least comfortable with the idea that McCain and Palin arent looking at the constitution looking for stuff written between the lines. Those who would get their britches in a wad about me saying that were probably not old enough to recall when that was a crime, not a constitutionally guaranteed right. It also follows that if some feel the document magically morphs to create rights as needed by the times they can also decide times merit taking them away. The frequent attempts to read the 2nd amendment in a totally different manner than the other 9 is an example of how those that do not value a right can try to remove it without following the provisions required to amend the constitution. I take it very seriously that the democratic party has been the waterboy for the anti-second amendment crowd for so long. Even people that hate guns should be concerned. If they can effectively remove an item from the bill of rights you dont like, they can do the same for the ones you DO value.
The NRA is far from a 'literal' intent of gun ownership. Most of them care more for hunting guns than anything to do with the true intent of the 2nd. Being a member of the NRA in my honest opinion is a sell out in many if not most cases. Neither side is far, far from carrying a true constitutional view.
I've been a card carrying member of the NRA off and on for a long time. I read the periodicals. They are by no means only interested in hunting. Grim - I realize you arent fond of either pairing. I posted similar thoughts on my blog earlier. I understand the statement "the lesser of 2 evils is evil"... ( I believe you've said that a few times, maybe it was someone else...) but my personal view on the topic is that one of these pairings IS very obviously going to run the country. Simple fact. Unless they die in a freak accident these are realistically our choices. If you vote for a thrid party that is currently not in contention to win you didnt get a chance to at LEAST get the worse of the two parties (whomever that is in your view) OUT of contention for the job. You get to vote for whomever you want, but i want mine to have a shot at counting.
Many of them are, many of their stances I have read involve 'hunting guns' a watered down stance in my eyes. I honestly don't see either of them being less evil. The thinking of the third party will never have a chance is the reason they will not have a chance. You don't know how many vote for either the Republican or the Democrat based souly on that thinking. I had that thinking last time, of which I honestly regret. Voting to get things to change, real change, as in not supporting someone I don't support, showing with my vote a third party candidate can get that one more vote counts more than more of the same, from one guy who sucks and another who sucks just as bad. IMHO my vote going to a third party I actually support counts far more than throwing your vote into the wind, to a candidate you don't even support, of which at the end of the day will not change the election. Raw numbers to other candidates however can, it can change the time, even if they do not win.
The NRA has publications specifically written for hunters, others specifically for the rest of us. I'm guessing youve been reading the other ones. As for the third party vote... I personally encourage everyone that might vote for Obama if they had to pick one of the two to vote third party. Works for me.
Publications and behind the doors is totally different than their actual actions when it comes to legislation, what they support and what they do not. Well considering most republicans just a few short months ago did not stand McCain I would not be shocked if many vote third party, or do not vote at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJ6jxEjlwA4 maybe this is the wrong thread but you got to see this Couric to Palin: Examples of McCain's regulations
Good lord, that was excruciating. Palin: He's also known as The Maverick, takin' shots from his own party certainly takin' shots from the other party tryin' to get people to understand what he's been talkin' about the need to reform government the... Couric: (Dagger smile). I am just going to ask you one more time, not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation. Palin: (Deer in the headlights - a la Charlie Gibson): IIII'lllll try to find ya' some and I'll bring 'em to ya.' Couric was right. These are basic questions, something she should know hands down, cold flat, about her running mate. Now, lest any call this a "sexist attack" on Palin, I am sick of the double standard that says all candidates but Sarah Palin are expected to deal with fundamental questions about their positions. So is Campbell Brown, apparently: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/24/campbell.brown.palin/index.html#cnnSTCText Ms. Brown is right. The pretense to "outrage," employed since McCain's 11th hour quarterback sneak, has worn thin. Senator McCain, "straight talk" doesn't come at the end of a dark tunnel, employed to shield your VP from any revelations of any kind to the American public, and to avoid the first Presidential debate under cover of a political ploy. Almost better - the "Photo Op Follies," showing the 30 second photo ops the press was squeezed into (no questions to be asked, of course). Craig Ferguson: "It's almost like she's speed dating world leaders" was matched by Pakistan's Prez: "You are even more gorgeous in real life. Now I know why all of America is in love with you." To a photog's request for another handshake, the Pakistan President continues, "If he insists, I might just have to give you a hug." Fantastic. Glad we've been given the opportunity to get down to brass tacks with this candidate.
Actually wasnt aware Campbell Brown was a journalist, thought she was a member of the Obama campaign, but mistkaes happen. Actually I agree with a lot of it anyway though... particularly the part... "By treating Sarah Palin differently from other candidates in this race, you are not showing her the respect she deserves." Think I said that in this thread. They need to tell her to live or die by the same skills that got her elected in the other races she's been in where she went toe to toe with the big kids and go for it. Its annoying that the hideout bullshit is going on about 40 days off the election. Shes running for office. Big office. If she hadnt gone head to head with people and won she'd have reason to worry, but if she'd just step to the plate and call a spade a spade she'd probably be fine. I think the handlers are afraid she'll sully her image, but she needs to drag out the persona that made her a governor and kick some ass... let the chips fall where they will. Find the voice and use it.
Brown worked for the Today show, then went on to CNN. I find the Today Show to be candy, but I always found Brown acquitted herself well there. I suspect she got tired of getting bumped when Ann Curry (sp.?) got her chance to sit on the magical centerstage couch, from time to time. There is nothing in your post I disagree with, Rob. I respect your position for saying so. This has been one of my biggest concerns, the feeling that she was brought in at the last minute, and has been kept under wraps from the American people since. I don't think it's right, and, yes, it's go time, for all of the candidates.