Replies

“Cheney bailed out of Yale and transferred to U of Wyoming, and no one made a big deal out of that. Harry Truman finished up at high school, and he would be scads better than any Dem candidate over the last 30 years.”

The reason why people brought up Palin’s academic record instead of Cheney’s is because everything fits the type. She can’t articulate very well, didn’t complete her term, reality TV star... and so it’s not a surprise that she also has a poor academic record. You can try to explain away one thing, but it’s the general pattern that counts.

I think ari-freedom should follow pissant. He is very insulting and annoying.

so it’s not a surprise that she also has a poor academic record.

Transferring in and of itself does not mean a poor academic record. It was probably better than Biden's and Gore's, and on par with Reagan's (albeit Eureka College in the 30's was likely tougher academically than Harvard, U of Idaho or U of Wyoming).

Christie hasn't even completed half a term, and a lot of the same people who dislike Palin are begging for Christie. Personally, I believe that she's playing a bigger game, just as she did when she quit the Energy board so she could better take it on. Unless she's angling for SCOTUS, Sec. Gen. of the U.N., or maybe Chairman of the Federal Resrve, I don't see her bailing out of the presidency. I'm being facetious, as I don't see her moves aimed slowly at ascending the ladder, though some ego is necessary in any pres candidate.

You can try to explain away one thing, but it’s the general pattern that counts.

I agree, and a lot of our differences will come from our own priorities and also our feel for the demeanor of a candidate. Ross Perot's policy positions didn't really square up well, with the positions of most of his voters, but people liked his approach and outsider status, and his ability to make things work and be plain spoken about it. He could have gotten well over his 17% if he was serious about it. I find her Facebook postings plenty readable and intelligent, and yes I do believe that she writes those, and does better when she can sit and formulate.

Many of us who have a similar set of principles and beliefs prioritize them differently. For some it is 2nd Amendment, others pro-life issues, others illegal immigration, others general government intrusion, others fiscal policy and others foreign policy.

Palin is not even particularly more conservative than Bachmann, Santorum or Cain on most of these key issues. I would like to think that you could vote for any of them (including Palin)in a general just as I would. So, I suspect that her demeanor, her populist approach sets you off more than her positions themselves. She just rubs you the wrong way. To me, I understand her as a natural executive who gets things done, and knows which dragons to slay. I also believe that she can cause a permanent realignment in the Republican Party where we lose some white shoe trust fund folks, but gain a lot more Reagan Democrat types.

I have no problem with Cain, though I feared that either his candidacy was simply a bad attempt to blunt Obama's appeal to America's blacks which would be seen as phony (it sure didn't work for Keyes here in Illinois!) or that it would be perceived as such. I feel less so these days, because of the way he has conducted himself. I also believe that the combination of Palin, Bachmann and Cain has taken the meme of the Republican Party being only for middle-aged rich white men off of the table completely. Cain's win in the Florida straw poll makes him a lot harder for the MSM to ignore.

My main beefs with Cain are minor. I do believe that it is extra hard to have credibility with the voting populace as a whole without having won office. Only exceptions being generals (numerous) or a true cabinet level appointment (Hoover). I also believe that Cain has been spotty in some areas of policy. He's a quick study, and that's what well-picked advisors are for, so that is not a deal-breaker for me. Finally, I do NOT buy into the idea that business is exceptionally good training for govt., or that one ought to run government like a business. There are important differences between the two, and a skilled man can do either, but business acumen in and of itself does not make for good policy or for good execution. Most of these business candidates (Mike Huffington, Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, Linda McMahon, Brooks Johnson, De Vos) have difficulty selling their message. A disproportionate number are proud of being fiscally conservative/socially 'moderate.' Cain certainly does not have that problem.

I do believe that Palin is uniquely suited for this particular election cycle, just as Reagan was in 1980's. She owes the MSM NOTHING, she is remarkably free of big corporate (in bed with government, eg GE) influence, and knows what it is having been in Alaska in offices dealing directly with it. I also believe that she forces errors from her opponents, and the media to over-pursue, making for long-term shifts in the way the public at large sees both of them. She stays on offense, and isn't stuck using 1988 political tactics in a 2012 world.

I understand that your perception of the "whole Palin" is what drives you. What I find remarkable is that she did not cave and has managed to use the MSM's own eagerness against them. You are well-read enough to know how many "made up things" she has caught them in.

In these threads, a lot of the same themes come up, as they do with Perry and Bachmann. I don't especially expect you to change your mind. Your general snarkiness has been well within FR specifications, and you stick around to return fire without escalating into the personal. The fact that Cain, and not Paul or Huntsman or Gingrich is your candidate tells me that we really are on the same team. These same candidates all have been saying the more the merrier. We will not know until the afterlife which ones meant it. I do hope that we can have a good solid squabble now, and put aside our differences when a conservative to challenge the establishment candidate emerges, probably after a half-dozen primaries at most. If Cain can win Georgia and Florida, that's a great start.

I have a poor academic record but a 3.2 in physics and math doesn’t make me stupid.

Palin's academic record

You have access to that? Got a link? Because I tried finding that and all I could find was a debunked PhotoShop job some PDS geek manufactured. I'd like a link if you can provide it.

As for her intellect, I think she's exceptional, as in gifted. My dad was in education for some 40 years, as a math/science teacher, then as a principal. According to him, true giftedness expresses itself over the full spectrum of one's life experiences. Palin is arguably more successful than anyone on this forum. You can argue luck, but no reasonable person would take that seriously. She has a combination of gifts and skills that have made her successful enough to put her in contention for the presidency, without the benefit of being born to wealth or having foreign benefactors.

BTW, did you know she has a photographic memory? That's apparently how she got through the teleprompter failure at her 2008 speech. Now a photographic memory by itself doesn't guarantee exceptional intellect, but many exceptional individuals do have it.

My own uncle had a gift that combined memory and symbolic reasoning for some remarkable results. He did fluid dynamics for some government-related scientific think tank. He could look at a page-long list of numbers and instantly and accurately tell you the sum.

But his capacity for articulation was ordinary. Palin is better. And Palin can write. Verbal skills, including writing, are central to early identification of high general intelligence. And Palin did show her abilities early. Did you know she was honor society in high school? She also was recently commended by one of her U of ID professors as one of his best writing students ever. Not to mention the writing analysis done on her emails, pegging her writing to be at CEO level. Like you say, the truth comes out in the overall pattern.