TheAgitator.com
The VP Debate
Friday, October 3rd, 2008I thought Biden won handily on points. But in playing it safe–and he was clearly playing it safe for most of the debate–he cut Palin a huge break. I can’t say I blame him. Palin’s defenders have played the victim card at every turn. If Biden tried anything remotely aggressive, it may well have backfired.
Palin was rambling, didn’t answer the questions she was asked, and the folksy stuff felt contrived. I suppose Palin did okay in that she didn’t come off like the train wreck she was in her Katie Couric interview, but Jesus, is that the standard? Is the bar that low for vice president of the United States? That seems to be the way the conventional wisdom is playing out. Oddly, the Couric interview may have actually helped her, then.
Palin seems to have crammed just enough so she could toss out key phrases here and there to give the veneer that she’s informed. But it’s pretty clear she was in way over her head for most of the debate. Pick her apart with follow-up questions, as Couric and Gibson did, and she falls to pieces.
This growing anti-intellectualism on the right is alarming. It isn’t that Palin is dumb. I don’t think she is. It’s that she has no interest in learning, no interest in reading or experiencing anything that might challenge what she already knows she believes. She thinks with her gut, as Steven Colbert might put it. She’s a female W. And they seem to love her for it. The GOP has gone populist. Knowledge, worldliness, and learning are to be shunned, swept aside as East Coast elitism. It’s all about insularity, earthy values, and simpleness. Remember the beating John Kerry took in 2004 for daring to use the word “nuance?” There’s no room for complexity on the right anymore. It’s good and evil. Black and white. Us and them.
Maybe a good butt-kicking this November will bring about some soul searching.
or a right-wing puddin’ headed victory will validate anti-intellectualism.
kinda sucks either way
Let me be the first to say: Radley, if you don’t like it, you can git out
Seems like the “intellectuals” are who got us in the mess we are in now. We have been ruled by the intellectuals for a long time. They are the ones pushing this bail out and the war in Iraq. Maybe it is time for some common sense. Washington has seen a complete lack of it in the past 100 years.
Once more into the breach …
“All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most easily (and) adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” H.L. Mencken, 1930
Oh, i was kidding. I don’t want radley to git out
Like many normal, young women, right after college Sarah Palin got married and within a year started a family. She helped her husband in the family fishing business, while raising a family and being active in her community, her children’s school PTA, coaching the school sports team, and participating in her church.
I don’t know your family situation, beyond your mention of having a couple of dogs as cherished members of your family. Children need a lot more care than pets, and they are harder to house break.
After her family got older and she had more time, she became active as a city councilor, then mayor of her home town.
Then, made the jump to Governor after an unsuccessful bid for Lt. Governor.
She possibly hasn’t read as many books as the Agitator, but she brings very worthwhile life experiences to her overall capabilities.
I suspect she spent a good deal of time studying the Scriptures, like our very worthy forebears commonly did also, before they had the diversions of TV and the Internet.
“Knowledge, worldliness, and learning are to be shunned”
This mindset is frequently found in fundamentalist relgions of all stripes. When you give all things over to faith it negates the need for knowledge and reason. Those who teach things that contradict that faith are evil and trying to poison your mind. I think you can draw a direct line between the Republican party becoming beholden to fundamentalist christians and the rise of the anti-intellectual mindset.
haha. I lol’d at balloon makers quote. Obviously, fellas, that was from south park.
I hear lots of talk about how “palin won” because she ‘held her own’
since WHEN in HELL do we give credit to someone who can finally ‘hold thier own’? She barely even did that,
also, best part of the debate last night happened 22 seconds before the candidates took the stage
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3091/2909496470_d751e8a3dc.jpg?v=0
‘I suspect she spent a good deal of time studying the Scriptures, like our very worthy forebears commonly did also, before they had the diversions of TV and the Internet.’
I don’t care if she’s studied the bible. At this point in my life, if I don’t understand an issue, I look at what the churches are pushing and I vote the opposite. Throughout history, churches have opposed progress such as smallpox vaccines, steamships, locomotives, birth control, education, etc. She can keep her small-world viewpoints within her family. I don’t need them.
“Seems like the “intellectuals” are who got us in the mess we are in now. We have been ruled by the intellectuals for a long time. They are the ones pushing this bail out and the war in Iraq. Maybe it is time for some common sense. Washington has seen a complete lack of it in the past 100 years.”
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Gore and Kerry were clearly the more intellectual candidates than bush. The right wing went to extreme lengths to try and tear down the last intellectual president, Bill Clinton.
The intellectuals are bushing the bail-out – because they have a historical understanding of the dangers of a liquidity crisis. The intellectuals were DEAD SET against the war in Iraq.
The VP debate has made two things very clear.
1) GOP strategist suck at their jobs. If their best and brightest helped to pick Palin, have done such a shitty job preparing her for the debates, and have made so many errors advising McCain, then it just goes to show that the dumbassary is deeper than candidates. Thanks to the neocons, the very fundamentals of the party have been detroyed much like the fundamentals of our financial sector. The small government and constitutionalists of the party have been kicked to the curb along with Ron Paul. This is not going to correct itself in a month, two years or, four years.
2) Biden and the Dems aren’t any better. He commented on FRD being president in 1929 and doesn’t know his constitutional law any better than Palin knows Supreme Court Decisions. Ultimately, the Democrats are posed to make the same mistakes are the GOP. And they will. With complete control, they will have free reign to do whatever they want without anyone being able to stop them. And a lot of us hockey moms and joe six packs are going to pay the price for it all. Just one more residual effect of the neoconservative take over of the GOP.
Meanwhile, interesting news bits (and outrages) are slipping past…
Like this.
And this.
It’s true that Palin was folksy, but it seemed like she was barely speaking in complete sentences. Maybe I was biased, but that’s what I heard.
It’s interesting to read all your takes on the debate…rather than watch it, I read the transcript, and found Palin to be roughly as coherent and on-point as Biden. I thought they both avoided most of the questions.
Honestly, does it really matter?
Checklist for VP:
* Looks good in a dark suit
* Can put on a suitably somber expression
* Knows how to attend funerals in 70 different languages.
I want our VP’s to go back to the Mondale/Bush I/Gore style of doing state funerals, not in the new Cheney style of actually doing things with no accountability or responsibility. Cheney’s “I’m a legislator with executive powaz!” is wrong, and I really don’t want our next VP to live to that standard.
There is a *vanishingly* small chance the next VP will have to step in as president. Both of the presidential candidates are in good health, security is as tight as ever. I’d honestly rather have someone relatively clueless in there than someone who has an agenda to push because of the lack of accountability in that office. Attend state funerals, make sure the lamps stay lit at the Naval Observatory.
The same can be said of Biden and the left in general. In fact, the way that the left and right so closely mirror one another today is downright sickening. The very fact that Biden believes what he does about economics shows that he is a fossil who clings to outdated ideology because it sits well with his gut instincts. In fact, virtually every aspect of left-wing economics is based on “gut, emotional” instincts rather than reason.
Palin isn’t an idiot, but her experience as half-term governor of Alaska hasn’t prepared her to be conversant in the issues that come up in a presidential campaign. Rather than admit that she has some catching up to do, the campaign is playing up her folksiness and bumper sticker appeal. I’m not sure a more honest approach would work, considering people seem bamboozled by this delusion that anyone on either of these tickets is going to be “ready” for the job on day one.
On the other hand, I don’t know that the right is really doing more to exploit populism over intellectually honest positions than the left. Pushing more mandates to health insurance plans, minimum wage increases, and a host of other recent feel-good, but intellectually weak policy approaches can be said to characterize the left as much as the right. Not to mention the longer-term fear mongering over reform of social security, school choice, race relations, etc. Not that the right is doing any better, but they are far from having a lock on the politics of glib.
Having the snotty attitude that one party is working for the votes of smart people and the other is trying to corner the slack-jawed yokels is a mistake and, frankly, an ironic one.
Dumbassary sounds like a resort I can hang out at to let me forget this entire stupid game.
I’ve read it’s a sign of intelligence when one can hold two mutually exclusive ideas in their head at the same time without having a robot-paradox aneurysm.
A) These people are ONLY using the debate for purposes of propaganda – witness their constant answers to specific questions that are pure rhetoric. Since I can safely assume 95% of what they say is nothing, watching this debate was a total waste of my time. Empty suits selling a product.
B) Holy shitbags, one of these people is actually going to have Dick Cheney’s job in January. Watching this debate is vitally important so I know what the hell I should be scared about. A lot apparently.
“He commented on FRD being president in 1929″
No he didn’t. He was referring to FDR’s actions as Governor of NY in 1929.
Wait a minute…why is anyone referring to any politician as intellectual? Being the most intellectual politician is like being the smartest retard. Even if someone voted against the war, they still voted for something else beyond stupid. The “intellectuals” were all gung ho on the subprime mortgages and the like, and that is costing us almost as much as the war in Iraq.
And voting for the bailout is not a measure of intelligence by any means. The free market can solve the liquidity crisis. It’ll be messy, but so will a bailout. Should I really think of any Democrat that agrees with Bush on anything as intellectual?
We can pick and choose strengths and weaknesses all day long and make either party look superior to other. But all we are really doing is arguing who the smartest retard is.
Palin seems to have crammed just enough so she could toss out key phrases here and there to give the veneer that she’s informed. But it’s pretty clear she was in way over her head for most of the debate.
Indeed. Two things that stood out for me:
IFILL: Governor, you mentioned a moment ago the constitution might give the vice president more power than it has in the past. Do you believe as Vice President Cheney does, that the Executive Branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the vice presidency, that it it is also a member of the Legislative Branch?
PALIN: Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president’s agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we’ll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation. And it is my executive experience that is partly to be attributed to my pick as V.P. with McCain, not only as a governor, but earlier on as a mayor, as an oil and gas regulator, as a business owner. It is those years of experience on an executive level that will be put to good use in the White House also.
Palin clearly has no idea what Ifill is referring to.
IFILL: What has this administration done right or wrong — this is the great, lingering, unresolved issue, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — what have they done? And is a two-state solution the solution?
PALIN: A two-state solution is the solution. And Secretary Rice, having recently met with leaders on one side or the other there, also, still in these waning days of the Bush administration, trying to forge that peace, and that needs to be done, and that will be top of an agenda item, also, under a McCain-Palin administration.
Israel is our strongest and best ally in the Middle East. We have got to assure them that we will never allow a second Holocaust, despite, again, warnings from Iran and any other country that would seek to destroy Israel, that that is what they would like to see.
We will support Israel. A two-state solution, building our embassy, also, in Jerusalem, those things that we look forward to being able to accomplish, with this peace-seeking nation, and they have a track record of being able to forge these peace agreements.
They succeeded with Jordan. They succeeded with Egypt. I’m sure that we’re going to see more success there, also.
It’s got to be a commitment of the United States of America, though. And I can promise you, in a McCain-Palin administration, that commitment is there to work with our friends in Israel.
It almost seems like she doesn’t even know what a two-state solution is.
#21 is me, BTW. 20 is another Matt.
I think the debate last night was nothing more than a showcase for who can dodge a question while seeming to answer it. Of course, Biden won hands down, but after 20 years in Congress he should be a master of talking without saying anything. I feel at some point during each of Palin’s answers one of her handlers gave her a slight electric shock. She would talking, zap, oh, gosh darn, insert talking point.
The downside to an ass kicking for the Republicans in November is the long term effect of an Obama presidency with Congress firmly in Democrat hands.
The Carter years will look like utopia.
It may take 50 years to undo the damage.
1) There is nothing intellectual about the bailout. It is a kneejerk reaction fueled by fear, uncertainty and doubt.
2) Bobzbob: Bill Clinton was not an intellectual. He had impressive academic credentials, but that in itself does not make you an intellectual.
3) Palin lost because her accent sounds too Canadian.
The “growing anti-intellectualism on the right” is a counteraction to the pseudo-intellectualism on the left. Pompous, smart-sounding-yet-wrong claims and slogans from the Progressives have driven conservatives to distance themselves with “folksy” style … and presidents in office. George W. Bush was and is an “Aw, shucks” style person, and two-term president of the (currently) strongest nation on the planet. I don’t have a horse in the race, but I have been hit with the tar-brush of liberal disdain for people who don’t fake erudition.
I seldom disagree with Mr. Balko, but this little essay exposes a bias that is beneath him. In the 80s I sold those new-fangled IBM PC computers and cute little Macintosh “toys.” A West Texas cattle man in pressed western shirt and jeans, and an expensive, pristine straw hat entered my store and after an hour of explaining his business model to me, walked out with three computers for his company. He had an almost indecipherable drawl, and said he had business associates who called from the coasts just to listen to his answering machine. This twenty-something fellow looked me in the eye and quietly, firmly slurred, “Ah may tawk lack a hayseed … but ah’m an awn-truh-pruh-newer.”
If you choke on the “barking” your media has trained you to gauge as “ignorant”, you get bit in the ass by the teeth of the pit bull. And don’t think the pit bull is not aware of how you superficially assess the poodle costume. I’ve talked my way out of more than a few dangerous altercations with a slow smile and a “y’all”, playing the yokel card, and shutting down a truly ignorant person’s violent intention.
“Hi may I call you Joe?”
Governor Palin.
“No, you can call me Mister Biden or Senator Biden, Governor Palin.”
( correct answer to first question in the debate )
“You betcha Joe.”
Informality … I’m as good as you are … Just another of the debilitating effects of democracy.
Careful with the WorldNutDaily stuff there Honeyko. It’s pure lunatic fundy propaganda.
I’ve been thinking a lot about the anti-intellectualism that comes out of the right. I think it may partially be a case of signal degradation. It starts with something as simple (and true) such as “Just because you have a PhD doesn’t mean you’re smarter” and then degrades with each retelling within the echo chamber that is right-wing media:
“Just because you got your PhD in economics doesn’t mean you know more about it than I do”
“Just because I’ve never studied economics doesn’t mean you know more about it than I do”
“You ain’t better than me! Nerd!”
That is not to say that the left is somehow blameless for the right’s bias. A good number of people object to the social engineering that occurs because of the left’s desire to regulate/legislate everything. Because of the tact taken by, for example, anti-obesity activists (”we know more about this than you do so let us make your personal decisions for you”) there is a distinct anti-expert bias. Why wouldn’t there be? Experts only show up when they’re forcing you to do something that they think you’re not smart enough to do on your own. I’m pretty sympathetic to this, quite frankly.
There’s also a component of it that is deeply religous. “I don’t need to know nuthin but that Jesus loves me” or somesuch. I’ve never understood that line of thinking (compared to say, “Hey, God made such a wonderful world for us, let’s learn more about it”) and I find it MUCH more troubling than the other sort of anti-intellectualism.
Both kinds exist. One is bad, the other is fundamentally good, but perhaps a bit misdirected.
Really ktc2? As opposed to the liberal trash that most of the rest of the news media is made up of? Give us a break …..
I think Patriot X nailed it …. the Democrats are NOT intellectual, they are elitist and there IS a difference.
I think there’s a lot of validity to the criticisms put forth, but at the same time, I do have to say that there have been a lot of times that you and I have agreed that “intellectualism” causes huge problems. It’s that “four out of five experts agree, so let’s make some laws” attitude that comes out of that that I thought you were as much against as anyone. Isn’t that “intellecutalism” the sort of thing that brings us food cops, nanny statists, and countless others who know beyond a doubt what’s best for us, and that men with guns should enforce their preferences?
I’m not voting for anyone in the presidential race, but there’s something to be said for not giving a lot of credit to those who believe their educations make them fit to make enforcible decisions. That said, Palin’s not fit for office either, but the prinicple still stands.
Radley, isn’t your attack sort of ad hominem? Saying that she’s an anti-intellectual in the mold of George Bush doesn’t really mean much and it’s hard to get a handle on how one is supposed to make this assessment. Really, you couldn’t address any of the policy issues.
I don’t like Palin, or McCain, or Biden or Obama, but it’s clear that while you’ve been paying lip service to the dangers the Dems present, you’ve been really attacking the Pubs. (Going by the number, frequency and length of posts). I don’t really mind that, but you used to hit real policy arguments instead of attacking the character of the candidates and frequently linking to that fucking idiot John Stewart (the very definition of soundbyte politics and someone who I consider to not be very intellectual).
I love your site, and generally I agree with your politics (other than I don’t think the Pubs are much different from the Dems – and, like you, I’m not voting for either). But there’s not much substance to the above post – certainly it has no mention of policy arguments, etc.
I may have missed it in skimming replies, but has anyone mentioned that Palin seems to think that creationism is a legitimate scientific viewpoint worthy of being taught alongside the theory of evolution in science classrooms?
I’m not really anti-religion, but I do believe that religion is the bastion of those who would rather not think.
@Kid Handsome
The problem with addressing the “issues” is that the canidates did a very thorough job of making the debate a commercial for personality. When actual policy came up (gay marriage), Biden went so far as to say “we really don’t have a difference.” And he was totally right!
With all of the other “issues”, both candidates laid down the line of strict but vague regulation. Palin did say that we needed less government, that government was part of the problem, but she didn’t skip a breath to go back to the “more regulation” argument.
The candidates agree on every policy. When they weren’t parroting each other, the candidates were selling themselves and their running mates. We have a situation where the only difference between what each canidate said on stage is how it was said. So what else is there to talk about? Drug laws? The Bailout? Iraq? These are the important issues of our day, those asshats on TV did nothing to move forward the national conversation. They didn’t actually have a debate about any of these subjects. The only argument was “which is better, change or a maverick?”
What else is there to talk about?
But there’s not much substance to the above post – certainly it has no mention of policy arguments, etc.
But that’s just it. Palin didn’t mention any policies last night. She spoke in vague, sweeping generalizations — or folksy, non-sequitur anecdotes.
One other thing — dismissing the right as anti-intellectual is in no way an endorsement of academic liberalism. Informed, educated people obviously don’t always agree. But there’s this creeping populism on the right that seems to relish simpletonism, and that shuns learning as something that in and of itself should be viewed with distrust.
That’s what I find so objectionable.
Kid Handsome,
I think (although Radley can certainly speak for himself) comparing Palin’s anti-intellectuallism to Bush’s is very much policy related. When decisions are made in the vacuum of reactionary, unquestioning thinking, you get thinks like the Patriot Act and the Iraq War. Obviously is there was any sort of intellectual curiousity in this administration a lot of things (historical precedents, opposing viewpoints, foresight, worst-case scenario planning) would have been considered before American lives and money were wasted.
Wow…lots of generalizations being thrown around…
I don’t believe everyone on the right has a problem with Intellectualism in general, it’s the Post-Modern Intellectualism that turns some wingers off. No one wants to be told they’re stupid, greedy, and racist. The Post-Modernists do a good job of ridiculing anyone they feel is below them…
It’s no crime that some people don’t see the need to learn anything more than enough to get a decent job and pay the bills…
Intellectualism today is nothing more than Focus Groups, pseudo-scientific Studies, and regurgitation of cherry-picked statistics…true scholarship died along time ago…
It sounds like intellectualism means “agrees with me and uses big words”..kerry, gore, and biden have one thing in common…they’re all pompous gasbags who sound like they know what they’re talking about. Too bad that’s completely different than knowing wtf you’re talking about. Just because they support your position on the war and use S.A.T.terminology doesn’t make them brilliant or intellectuals.
One other thing — dismissing the right as anti-intellectual is in no way an endorsement of academic liberalism.
Quite right. It’s also not to say that you would or do dismiss a conservatism that actually embraces policy knowledge and such either.
“simpletonism”. I love it.
Wait: I should go with candidates who don’t know what they’re talking about?
Jargon exists for two reasons. One is a simple ingroup/outgroup marker, and for those not in the group the reaction to being talked over is understandable. But the other reason is that the language is indeed better adapted to talking about the specific subject. Jargon doesn’t mean the speaker has it right, but it is a good sign they’re familiar with the area. I think that’s not a bad signal to use when I can
Well the placement of my last post couldn’t have been any better (or worse).
On another note, I got an email from my brother’s girlfriend (who is from Madrid) and she said the stuff she’s been reading on Spanish (Spain and Latin American) news sites, all seem to think Palin did well in the debate. I thought this was interesting both we both chalked it up to language barriers and poor translation.
Biden has a law degree and is very good at talking and never saying a word.He calls for change but has been a major player for years in Washington.I’d rather have a third grader in office than this blow hard.As for Palin,she is in a situation that most of us would fail in.Can you imagine Radley debating Biden?His ideas would be trashed and Joe would be the voice of reason.People with common sense that do not want to micro-manage peoples lives will never be accepted for office in today’s climate.I’m not saying Palin has either,but,she doesn’t have the ‘talking points ‘ down.She’s as close to a ‘normal’ person you’ll see running on a ticket,and many ‘normal’ people have some strange ideas.
“I suspect she spent a good deal of time studying the Scriptures, like our very worthy forebears commonly did also, before they had the diversions of TV and the Internet.”
Yes, our forebears in the case of the Founding Fathers studied the Scriptures. Most were Deist or deist leaning, and those who were Christian were far, far, different than the ignorance worshipping denominations people like Palin belong to.
They also studied ancient Greek and Roman history, in the original Greek and Latin, spoke multiple European languages, and were, on average, more intellectual and far better educated than 99% of college educated people today.
Madison spent months leading up to the Constitutional Convention studying Greek and Roman history and law, pushing himself to the limit for ideas and knowledge. Today he’d be derided as a smug, elitist, know it all liberal.
If I ever needed evidence that Radley Balko is nothing more than a snarky Leftist dressed up in libertarian clothing, then it would be this article.
Joe Biden emitted some HUGE factual mistakes out of his pie hole last night — among them, claiming the US kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon and his gross misunderstanding of the Constitutional role of the vice-president — and all Balko can talk about is how Palin has “no interest in learning”. Indeed, his description of the “anti-intellectualism” of Palin and the GOP can be more appropriately applied to Biden and the Democrats.
Face it Balko, you’re just a Democrat who is smart enough to recognize your party is full of weenies but can’t admit it publicly.
I joked to friend the other day that on January 21, 2009, President Barack Obama could sign an executive order forcing all private businesses to turn over their assets to the government and the top stories at theagitator.com the next day would be about a drug cop shooting someone’s dog and a list of George Bush’s verbal gaffes in his farewell speech.
After reading today’s post, I don’t consider that to be a joke anymore.
^case in point about the growing intellectualism. Well, not case in point, but a damn good footnote.
First, I think it’s important to note that there’s a distinction between “The Right”, and the GOP, as there’s a distinction between “The Left” and the Democrat party.
I don’t know that it’s a problem in the “The Right” so much as one of party politics. It seems like a pretty good strategy to me– you form a base that doesn’t have the understanding or the sense to question your decisions, and you thus have to convince a smaller portion of the population in order to ram your bad ideas through. Think about it… who on Earth are those 25-30% of the country who still thinks GWB is doing a good job?
Jon,
By many on the right, yes. And, many on the left would say his notions of limited government mark him as a right-wing reactionary.
I certainly agree that many of the founders were more educated and valued erudition more than today’s politicians (Republicans or Democrats) do. But, it’s worth pointing out that many people who call themselves intellectuals today (usually because they have jobs on college campuses, they are writers, etc.) deride the founders and the government the Constitution established.
…
BTW, off topic, but a few minutes ago, word came down that the House passed the bailout bill, in which our bankrupt government will find over $700 billion to interfere even more in a market whose problems were largely caused by the interference of government. That’s in addition, of course, to the $150 billion in bribe money added to get the votes of the holdout politicians. I’m not sure how any one of those guys manage to get re-elected in November. It won’t be with my help.
#31: I’m an elitist, too. I believe, to quote Harlan Ellison, that you DON’T have a right to an opinion, but you DO have a right to an *informed* opinion. Otherwise, STFU and stop wasting air.
So bobzbob, you really think Bush is the one pulling the strings? Starting with Wilson, the intellectuals have lead this nation down the path of socialism and big government. Straight to ruin. Which intellectuals were against the war? Besides a few leftwing cranks?
As for the bailout, they are just trying to fix the mess they created when they forced the Federal Reserve upon us all those many years ago. Doing nothing would be far the best choice for the long term in this nation.
I’m gonna go out on a limb and wager that Captain Holly can’t explain Biden’s “gross misunderstanding” of the role of VP in a way that doesn’t strongly resemble Sarah Palin’s own babbling idiocy on the subject.
Get the popcorn.
Although when we consider the infallible logic in Captain Holly’s comment (which is: not pointing out factual errors by person A while calling person B not well-versed and intellectually lazy is rank hypocrisy indicative of hackery and blind loyalty) I could be wrong.
I love (Sarcasm) how this bailout got passed. The senate had to fill it with enough pork and earmarks that go towards enough congressmen’s interests and supporters to get them to vote for it. “Holy shit, the bill failed!? Well, I guess we’ll just have to make ten times worse to get it pass.”
FUCK THESE ASSHOLES!
Right back at you Andrew, thanks for the ad hominem and proving my point in one foul swoop ….
The office of VP should be relegated back to being a show-pony and admin taskmaster. What better person than Palin?
Considering the two VP candidates, I put Palin over Biden for this reason only: I hate it when a candidate picks a failed candidate. Um, the reason YOU are candidate is that your party didn’t LIKE the other guy, so why put him/her on your ticket?
Overall, its a push between two parties of FAIL. *sigh*
The smartest person is the best, not always. Principles (and willingness to listen to advice, without slavishly following it) is more important.
I try (as a still-undecided voter, maybe 60-40 either way or 50-50 depending on the day!) to separate style from substance (or lack thereof). I agree that anti-intellectualism is bad. But pseudo-intellectualism for its own sake is also wrong. And I say that as an intellectual who enjoys indulging in sophistry for its own sake…but I’m not running for office.
Volokh.com has some examples of Sen. Biden saying stuff in the debate that sounds persuasive, but when you look into it, is horribly wrong Constitutionally or scientifically or whatever. Sure, he’s smarter, but isn’t what he says, not just how he says it, important? What about trustworthiness (insofar as that can be applied to politicians!)? Or the advantages of having Congress and the Presidency in control of opposite parties? The current Congress has been as bad as the preceding Republican ones, and I’m seriously worried about how far they’d follow a President of the same party.
I didn’t like Gov. Palin’s evasiveness on a number of questions; but Sen. Biden was just as evasive, he just sounded better doing it.
” The free market can solve the liquidity crisis. ”
Sure it can, like it solved it in 1929, by contracting the economy by 20% and leaving millions unemployed and starving. Sometimes the free market solutions are not the best ones.
“Starting with Wilson, the intellectuals have lead this nation down the path of socialism and big government.”
And prosperity unprecedented in the history of the world.
So, you’re saying that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff had absolutely no part in the depression…and that it was all the free market?
Intellectuals and/or politicians are real good at coming up with theories, plans, and such…it’s the free market that gives us the evidence of what works and what doesn’t.
THe Smoot-Hawley Tariff act raised the effective tariff rate from 13.5% in 1929 to 19.8% in 1933, and only effected imports which were less than 5% of the economy. I know the libertarians love to blame the act as the sole cause of the depression, but in reality it had a minor effect on a minor portion of the economy. Its just not realistic to think of it as a major contributor.
Many thanks to the to today’s clueless wonders. I’d say you know who you are but you don’t. It is always entertaining to see the willfully ignorant in action. You made my day once again.
Thanks again from the bottom of my pants.
:D
bobzbob,
Actually, I have never heard a libertarian seriously declaim S-H “as the sole cause of the depression”. Most libertarians note that the resulting massive reduction in trade had the most direct impact on the agricultural sector and led many farmers, who had leveraged their property for operating capital, into foreclosure. That, in turn, exacerbated the run on banks, and so on down the line.
Although libertarians are hardly monolithic on causes of the Depression, other more widely-known libertarian criticisms of government action during the period include some combination of the Federal Reserve 1) expanding the money supply during the twenties, which led to easy money lending and a destabilizing bubble. And 2), the fed held to tight money policy during a period of critically low liquidity after the stock crash and S-H and turned a normal cyclical downturn into a long-lasting calamity.
Personally, I find it unlikely that a single cause can explain the whole financial crisis. But, I think it’s tough to look at the actions of government during the period and not conclude that it took a bad situation and made it worse.
The veep debate, anti-intellectualism and the right? I think this clip says it all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02veWtxaaS4&eurl=http://thinkprogress.org/
This seems to have become a discussion of semantics rather than politics. The right, exemplified by Bush, is guilty of oversimplifying complex issues to make their decisions, resulting in the black and white, you’re-either-with-us-or-you-hate-America environment in which policy is pushed on to the unwitting public while discussion of the policy is discouraged.
The left puts too much stock in credentials and experts, allowing the government to make decisions that should, according to the constitution, be left to individuals themselves. Either ideology can lead to the kind of big-government welfare-state mess we are currently in, because both allow their adherents to justify removal of individual rights. Of course, since it’s impossible to know what is right for 300 million people, the only logical solution is to allow each individual to make those choices for themselves. And since I heard neither candidate say anything along those lines last night, I am forced to vote for a third party candidate who, while having little to no chance of actually winning, will allow me to sleep soundly knowing I did not cast a vote against my own well-being.
James D, that should be “one fell swoop”.
Talk about making someone’s point for them :)
The entire state of South Carolina has remained steadfastly anti-intellectual despite having had their ass handed to them in the Civil War, so I’m not holding my breath over the Republicans.
no five star Friday? that’s more important than this Biden/Palin nonsense!
//The right, exemplified by Bush, is guilty of oversimplifying complex issues to make their decisions//
From my experience, unjustified complexity is frequently used as a smokescreen to hide stuff that would otherwise be recognized as clearly wrong. I am reminded of a booklet that offered a way to compute the circumference of a circle relative to its diameter without using pi. The formula it game had all sorts of squares and square roots and other such stuff. The value it computed for circumference, however, was always precisely equal to 3.1416 times the diameter, at least if one didn’t lose precision on any of the intermediate steps. No “pi” required!
Also, which is more useful as a means of understanding physics: F=mA + a fudge factor which is really tiny at speeds far below that of light, or a more precise formula which includes all known relativistic effects? Many things are really nowhere near as complicated as some people would claim. In some ways, the situation resembles that of the Heliocentrist-vs-Geocentrist debate. The Geocentrists had pretty good models for where and when stars would be observed in the sky, but they were complicated. The Heliocentrists had much simpler models, but they turned out in many ways to be more useful.
Definitely agree with Balko. Except I really do think she is an uneducated moron. Her policies are retarded she really doesn’t have anything intelligent to say about the most important issue: the economy. She appeals to the unintelligent soccer moms who identify for her and thus vote for her. It’s quite sad really.
You are right freedom fan about the SH act. I was just responding to the SithMonkey (and many libertarians who say the same thing) who trotted out the SH act to absolve the markets for responsibility for the depression. The SH act made a small change to the effective tarrifs and even under it 62% of all imports were not subject to a tarrif. The only economic analysis of the effect of SH and foreign tarrifs in response seems to conclude that all the tarrifs in the world only decreased international trade by 8% at the time. A much bigger factor, as you point out, is the failure of the Fed to intervene to deal with the liquidity crisis and expand the money supply.
In fact when you look back to the boom and bust cycles of the 19th century liquidity crises triggering economic busts is a recurring theme. This is why we ended up with the fed – it was clear that a government body tasked with stabilizing the money supply was necessary for the economy to really move forward. With the exception of the great depression (when it is clear the fed didn’t do its job) it has largely worked.
I hadn’t thought about the ’20s expansion of the money supply, does it parallel the low fed interest rates we have seen over the last several years?
“Maybe a good butt-kicking this November will bring about some soul searching”
But the nation may not survive the next 4 years. I’d rather not take that risk. The Obama presidency is going to be a disaster economically and he will not stop Iran from getting the bomb.
Its the party of liars and traitor vs the party of stupid. Unfortunately, stupid is the better choice in this election.
” The Obama presidency is going to be a disaster economically and he will not stop Iran from getting the bomb.”
“Conservatives” made the same types of comment about clinton in ‘92 and yet we had 8 years of prosperity and he was 100% effective at keeping iraq from developing WMD’s.
History is on the side of the party of “liars and traitors”. When will you learn that?
Bobz, the light glinting off reality hurts their eyes
Cynical in CA, you’re quickly replacing Dave Kroooooger as the best regular comments poster on this blog. Congrats! (sorry Dave, I still love you!)
Also, Freedomfan is very good too.
Judging from the negative karma I’ve received, I guess the willfully ignorant do know who they are. My bad. I should have figured . . . you know . . . them being willfully ignorant and all.
It’s funny, y’all. Keep it up.
“There’s no room for complexity on the right anymore. It’s good and evil. Black and white. Us and them.”
Good Lord. Talk about projection.
[...] Balko sees it too: This growing anti-intellectualism on the right is alarming. It isn’t that Palin is dumb. I [...]