Gov Palin and Congressman Paul debate on FOXNEWS with Judge Andrew Napolitano

Conservatives4Palin ^ | 06/12/2010 | Doug Brady

[unseen1]

Gov Palin and Ron Paul as well as Rand Paul debate important issues to the TEA PARTY in this video

[Jim W N]

correction

Plain...?

Palin

(I'm keyboard-challenged)

[wastedpotential]

Then why not just bring up Dred Scott case in the 1800s or something to show you have a little knowledge in the area?

[wastedpotential]

Any POTUS? Then Jefferson and Madison are easily the top two, just based on their ability to establish our government as it is today and then implement it as presidents in our nation’s infancy. Truly remarkable men.

As for #3, John Adams was a good thinker and writer, but was not a strong leader for some reason. Lincoln had the idea of right and wrong, as well as the notion that the union had to be preserved at all costs (sometimes I wonder if that was a good thing), so he had deep thought on issues. On just sheer “intellectualism” Woodrow Wilson was very bright and studied - but I disagreed with much of his agenda as president.

I would probably go with Reagan at #3 all time. No, he was not the classical intellectual with deep writings on subjects, but he was an intellectual in the sense that he understood the issues of his day better than any other politician, could communicate those issues in a persuasive way to the general public and then actually accomplished his objectives through policy.

[Al B.]

Then why not just bring up Dred Scott case in the 1800s or something to show you have a little knowledge in the area?

You'll have to ask that question to Sarah Palin. I can't answer it for her. If you choose to believe that refusing to answer the question indicates lack of knowledge, I can't help you.

For her part, she's admitted she didn't handle it very well. Every question was a loaded, trap question and she got pissed. If I was a POTUS or VP candidate being shown no respect like that, I probably would have walked off the set and totally blown my election chances...LOL.

The Supreme Court question was a prime example of what was happening on that set..."Name a SCOTUS case you disagree with, but you can't discuss Roe and you can't discuss Kelo (which would make Sarah Palin look good). Hell, Couric might as well have had a neon sign on the set that said, "It's a TRAP!"...LOL.

[Al B.]

Catch the replay if you're able, Al. Would like to know your opinion of it.

I just caught the video of the interview. BOR does a better than average job for him of getting to the biases in the article. BOR could have just cut to the chase at the end and asked Lisa, "If you really believe these things you're saying here, why didn't you include them in the article?" He didn't do that but all in all, a good interview.

I'll probably watch this again and read the article now...LOL.

[jla]

RE: Reagan and intellectuals

I'm not too impressed with most so-called intellectuals. I don't like the word as a descriptive and I believe a preponderance of 'intellectuals' throughout history held, and helped effect, ideas destructive to societies.

Reagan was damn smart; very wise. More so than a great many 'intellectuals'.

[unseen1]

nullification is one of those loaded words. Palin wisely stayed away form embracing that word and instead placed it within the 10th amendment discussion.

Nullification was the word tossed around by the South during the run up to the Civil War. Any politician that embraces the word nullification stands a great chance of being branded a racist and/or a person living in the past.

the “stumble” you notice was more a matter of trying to reframe the question without the word nullification. IMO

[unseen1]

good post and agree with most of the points.

[Jim W N]

Liberal definition of intellectuals: university professors who publish and are in agreement with the others in the "intellectual elite"? I agree with your distrust of the word and group so identified. There seems to be little here to do with reason or truth or even logic. How can those who espouse stupid beliefs be considered "intellectual" when so much of what they hold is clearly refuted by theory and factual history (ex. socialist governments, command and control economies v. constitutional republics and free-market economies). The application of the word as so many including the words used to ID the socialists themselves ("liberal" and "progressive") is an oxymoron.

Having said all that, I don't think Reagan was in the (liberal) intellectual "elite" the way maybe Milton Friedman was. Maybe the libs think you have to publish to be an intellectual? M-W definition of intellectual:

1 a : of or relating to the intellect or its use b : developed or chiefly guided by the intellect rather than by emotion or experience : rational c : requiring use of the intellect 2 a : given to study, reflection, and speculation b : engaged in activity requiring the creative use of the intellect

Given the many years Reagan thought and read about the issues and politics of the day, I'd say he fits this definition more than many professing "intellectuals." IMHO, a true “intellectual” should have reason, truth, logic, and tested and proven theory on his side. Also keen insight. Well-read Reagan beats the bunch under these qualifications.

BTW, I like some of your insights and comments on this thread.

[Jim W N]

the “stumble” you notice was more a matter of trying to reframe the question without the word nullification.

Maybe so even though in the legal community it is used with no such connotation and it's becoming an echo of an alternative action the states may very well take in response to this rogue federal government.

I also thought I noticed a slight difficulty articulating how our freedoms and rights are God-given, not man or government given. I'm sure she would agree with this concept but if she hasn't in the past done so (I don't know) I hope she's better able to articulate this.

[wastedpotential]

I agree - she should not have done the interview with Couric or Gibson in the first place. She should have started with some friendlier interviews and worked her way up. Not many of us could be thrust into the limelight as she was and not made some mis-steps.

Still, I don’t know. There is just something that bothers me about that. If she is the nominee, she has my support though. I love the causes she stands for.