In an article reprinted in today’s Virginian-Pilot, Leonard Pitts of the Miami Herald urges Sarah Palin to run for president. Pitts wants her to run, not because she’s a weak candidate, but because it would force “a desperately needed moment of truth.”
… you represent the latest iteration of an anti-intellectualism that periodically rises in the American character. There is, historically and persistently, a belief in us that y’all just can’t trust nobody who acts too smart or talks too good — in other words, somebody whose “general persona” indicates they may have once cracked a book or had a thought. Americans tend to believe common sense the exclusive province of humble folks without sheepskins on the wall or big words in their vocabularies.
[…]
More to the point, something is wrong when we celebrate mental mediocrity like yours under the misapprehension that competence or, God forbid, intelligence, makes a person one of those “elites” — that’s a curse word now — lacking authenticity, compassion and common sense.
The only problem with Mr. Pitts’ urging is if Palin should run and win. It’s not an America I’d wish to live in.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
At least she’d have more executive experience coming in than the current office-holder.
No one has experience at being president until they are elected. So that is just a BS Republican talking point.
For me, a strong statement from someone who has never voted Democrat: I’d rather vote for Obama to have a second term than have this woman in the White House.
Its not “Presidential” experience we’re talking about, but Executive experience.
Also, how can Palin be worse than Biden? Talk about anti-intellectual…..
In a completely immature way, I’d like her to win just to watch certain heads explode.
But, then, I don’t care if she runs or not. 2012 is a LOOOOOONNNNGGG way away.
There will be other candidates. Heck, if a conservative Democrat runs against a liberal Republican, I’d have to take a look at him.
Completely immature, yes, but also what I think that’s what motivates 90% of GOPer behavior.
Or her. Sorry.
Dear Leonard,
Your screed against Sarah Palin represents the latest iteration of a condescension which perenially runs rampant on the far Left. There is, historically and persistently, a belief in you that those rubes who hold to the limits of government endowed to us by the Founders aren’t sophisticated enough for modern times, and that those of you who are among the anointed are superior to those who have actually read and understood the Constitution. Those on the far Left tend to believe that the ability to govern is the exclusive province of those in the vanguard of the proletariat, without ever bothering to worry whether you offer what the those humble proles actually want. Sure, talk about “democracy,” since that’s a nice buzzword, but avoid it at all costs that those humble proles recognize what you’re actually doing and recoil from it.
[…]
More to the point, something is wrong when we celebrate pseudo-intellectualism like yours under the misapprehension that competence or, God forbid, intelligence, is measured by the amount of money that one wishes to seize from the polis in the arrogant belief that the government knows better how to spend it than those poor, misguided rubes from those who actually earn it, and that “compassion” is measured by how many people you can make dependent upon the government.
Love,
JY
He’ll be here all week, folks. Try the buffet!
What I find ironic in your statement, JY, is that the founding fathers WERE the elite and expected the ELITE would run the country. You’ve got to more than read the Constitution to understand it. The founding fathers did not recognize the country by 1810. They expected the intellectuals to take votes based on what was good for the country, i.e., the common good, not for their individual communities or constituencies. The ideas of parties and parochial interests were anathema to the founding fathers.
You can object to intellectualism, or even rejoice in ignorance. But leave the founding fathers out of it. You don’t understand what they envisioned.
Yes, the GOP’s assault on science does make them worthy of the condescension you decry but they have rightfully earned. From stem cell research, evolution, global warming, shoving the bible into science books etc. etc are wrapped up into some pseudo “regular guy” anti-intellectualism assault on “Educated Eastern Elites”. Bush or Palin or Obama…..hmmm…. Let me see… I vote for the intellectually curious smart person.
So, then, you would vote for whom? If you are implying that Obama is an intellectually curious smart person, where is your evidence? His weaknesses include his believe in progressiveism and socialism. He does NOT listen to alternative viewpoints.
His judgment is suspect for those reasons, also.
Which candidate would fulfill your definition? How about Romney? Fred Thompson? Reagan was a very well read student of politics and history. He matches your definition.
But, then, so did Woodrow Wilson, Hoover, and FDR.
When your intellectualism is based on only liberally approved science, than that’s not very open minded. Conservatives have no problem with stem cell research. Only with EMBRYONIC stem cell research. Your global warming is false. Bible into science books. Oh, that’s widespread. I didn’t even get that in Catholic school.
The Founders expected the REPRESENTATIVES, not necessarily intellectuals, to vote for the good of the country, not for the benefit of themselves. That doesn’t seem to be working out too well with this current crop of “intellectuals.” The requirement for being a voter and representative was to be a property owner. You didn’t even have to be able to read.
However, even the Founders fell victim to parochial interests and parties. The disdain for “intellectuals” is that the ones professing to know what is ‘best’ for us, are demonstrably corrupt and/or idiots. It was the Progressive movement that promoted the idea of the intellectual as the proper holder of power. The “expert” would take care of things, as the citizenry were too uninformed.
Thus, Social Security and the Income Tax, and the League of Nations was born. Women under Wilson were imprisoned for suggesting that they be allowed to vote. Thousand were imprisoned for questioning the administration. Progressive ideas were the basis for many totalitarian governments two decades later.
There is no such thing as “liberally approved science”. There is only science, facts and all.
We don’t get to split things like science up. I don’t understand why we would want to.
Why the quotes around intellectuals? Are you saying their intelligence is fake? Or that only ideologically approved intelligence is real?
http://slantblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/about-sarahs-mission.html
A moment of truth? If Sarah Palin were to be elected, what makes him think that would force a moment of truth on the majority that elected her (assuming that the electoral college works out in the favor of the majority) much less a moment of truth for the committed folks that support her now?
I’m not even sure I know what a Palin presidency would mean. I would think Ron Paul would be a more attractive figure for the anti-government crowd than her. But go figure.
Be careful of that wish. I awoke today to polls on the 1st anniversary of the ARRA (stimulus bill) to find only 6% of American believe any jobs have been created from ARRA and only 12% believe they received a tax cut. Apparently the republican liars and faux news/talk radio crowd have created a society of public policy illiterates. Sad and fearful for our republic’s future that these un or ill-informed might believe palin’s palaver.
Would those jobs be the ones created in the non-existent districts? The Stimulus hasn’t even been spent and they want another one. For an emergency, it sure is taking long for the funds to be spent.
And that tax cut? We have to pay taxes on the last tax cut check. Payroll tax increases kicked in this year. On everyone.
What has happened is that the citizenry are waking up and starting to look at what the government is actually doing. And they are not happy. And that is with either party.
Palin still has more executive and real world experience that Obama. Whether or not she is running is moot. 2012 is a long way away.
Um, that is not true. Not sure where you got that information from.
That’s not true, either. The federal withholding tables were adjusted early last year to decrease the withholding to account for the $400 per person tax credit on your 2009 tax return, the idea being to put the money in your hands earlier. They have now reverted to the actual 2010 tax tables, which, of course, do not reflect a tax credit since, as of this writing, none exists.
Evan Bayh said if he could create even on job in the private sector it would be more than the stimulus package has done.That pretty strong coming from a Democrat.
To me, support for Palin is sort of a litmus test.
I can understand, although I might disagree, with how someone could vote for Reagan or Bush I or even GWB, the first time. I can understand thinking John McCain would make a good president. Hell, I probably would have voted for McCain in 2000.
But I can’t understand how any rational person, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Tea Partier, Whig, Know-Nothing, whatever, can lissten to what Sarah Palin says and how she says it and believe she’d make a good president.
Amen. It is how I tell the honest folks who care about this country’s success from the morons who put a political party over our nation interests.
IMO: Morons think she has a good political mind and would be a great VP or future President.