Jim O'Sullivan said…
"I'm not sure I get the point of this post, Steve."

Simple: Steve has a crush on Sarah Palin. That is all.

That really is an argument without merit, my friend. One has no influence over people who were around before he was born, one has much influence over people he births, raises, feeds, clothes and educates for 15+ years.

And sorry, "bastard" doesn't scream "family values" to me. It doesn't for Clinton, it doesn't for Obama, either.

Neither Obama nor Palin got to chose his parents.

Despite having influence over their children, neither will choose who they shack up with, or for how long, or how many children they produce.

"Obama compentent?"

More than your spelling, I hope. Mine too as a matter of fact.

Neither Obama nor Palin got to chose his parents.

"Nice lady? Yes. Good family values? Yes."

Since when does good family values coincide with having a teenage daughter who's a single mother?

Sadly for Republicans, the good family values can be found in Obama's family.

If we're getting into one degree of separation here, shouldn't you have been stopped in your tracks by one or more of the following facts?

1) Obama's daddy (alcoholic commie wife-beater if memory serves; or was it granddaddy who drank like a fish?) ran off.

2) Obama's mommy ran off in a different direction.

3) Obama's daughters aren't really qualified to support any "family values" arguments yet.

Sig, stick to your blog where you can choose the comments that get censored.

"So you were there? Either that or you know him well enough to know his sense of humor. I've met many high IQ people for whom dry sarcasm substituted for humor."

It's also their way of divulging the truth.
There are jokes and there are jokes.

our President is a well educated and competent individual who understands political and constitutional issues. Not doing so just demonstrates sour grapes and pettiness."

Hilarious. I guess he's well educated–they tell me he graduated from Columbia and Harvard but they don't tell me how he did there, or even what he did there. So his education is meaningless to me. But I know it means a lot to those who promote him.
And you're not getting away with the sour grapes card. It's our money he and his cronies are giving out to Wall Street, General Motors and other coprorations who have now become de facto government-owned corporations. This is probably the biggest theft on record.
But I really have to laugh at your assertion he "understands constitutional issues" — are you insane? Maybe he does though, to save his skin. This man has been paying a law firm in Oregon over a million dollars to keep the birth certificate issue at bay. He has hidden his past. He has been trying to force a health care bill that many Constitutional scholars are livid about. What awareness of Constitutional issues has this person ever shown? Be more precise.
I see no "competency." I see a bumbling, fumbling, arrogant person who the media continues to protect for purposes of their own.
He spends inordinant amounts of time on talk shows, and jetting off at tax-payer expense to make speeches in Copenhagen on behalf of his slum-landlady Jarrett, for surely the Olympic committee really cares how much they deserve to have the games in their home-town so Jarrett can make more money.

btw, are you really a pissed of Chinaman. You sound like somebody else.

Obama compentent? Obama the Constitutional scholar who really cares about the Constitutional issues? OMG, finally, a laugh on this thread.

"The way it was said, it was not a joke;"

So you were there? Either that or you know him well enough to know his sense of humor. I've met many high IQ people for whom dry sarcasm substituted for humor.

"Ayres knows what Obama is all about, and he feels he, Ayres, hasn't been getting his just reward"

Not only were you there, not only do you know Bill Ayers intimately, but you are also an M.D. Psychiatrist. Good show.

Whatever your racial or political disagreements with Obama, you have to concede, based on all reliable evidence (and not dumb conspiracy theories) that our President is a well educated and competent individual who understands political and constitutional issues. Not doing so just demonstrates sour grapes and pettiness.

Sarah Palin is a dummy. Based on her interviews and debates, she has no grasp of complex issues and can barely string a sentence together in a coherent way. Steve I do not know why you keep asserting that she has hidden smarts. Is it because you find her attractive?

Barack Obama graduating magna cum laude from Harvard Law School and beating the Clinton network for the Democrat Presidential nomination proves to me extraordinary intelligence. Who wrote his book (I assume it was him) and whether he got bad grades in high school or college are less relevant to me. I compete with very smart black people who don't have his accomplishments. Doesn't matter if white people as a population are smarter than black people. Barack Obama is extremely smart. So is Mitt Romney and so is Michelle Bachman and so is Sebelius. Having said all that is it okay yet to say Palin is too stupid to be President, and that Obama isn't?

Hopefully Anonymous

http://www.hopeanon.typepad.com

"Nice lady? Yes. Good family values? Yes."

Since when does good family values coincide with having a teenage daughter who's a single mother?

Sadly for Republicans, the good family values can be found in Obama's family.

So what you are saying is Nancy Pelosi has more experience learning the wrong things?

> "It kills me how feminists would have us believe women were all corseted, dainty, and timid before the advent of feminism and coed sports."

Now you wouldn't happen to have a citation handy, would you? <

Sure, passim the last forty years. Were you asleep? Start with Friedan and work your way up. When you've reached Hillary's remark about Tammy Wynette and her cookies, call and we'll give you directions to the current century from there.

> Gentile elites, unless of course they are brainwashed by (the) Jews, always have the common man's interest at heart, of which medieval Europe is a shining example <

Substitute "brainwashed" with "in debt to." Probably not a good idea to bring up Jews and Medieval Europe here.

> English just happens to be my fifth language. <

Nice to know. It's my first.

Thanks for playing.

It's okay T; he was using mangum opus sarcastically.

Anon, I knew about the the blogger and Ayres, but somehow the book and the entree into the MSM escaped me.

Did anyone else notice Steve's post wasn't pro-Palin?

It was just a common-sense observation that explains in part her lack of knowlege on public affairs.

This lady really stirs up the masses. Somebody get her an agent ASAP and start selling tickets.

"As for Sarah herself, judging by her looks, I’d say her family tree is not exactly lily-white either."

What makes you think that, feminazi? Her high cheekbones?
To me she looks very north-central European. I've seen that square jaw, straight profiled, big eyes and perfect "ski-nose" on a lot of Danes, Poles and northern Germans.

Middletown Girl makes some generalizations, but she's not to far off. Cites like "Jezebel" really do sound like what she describes when they get on the subject of Palin, but I think some of that might be paid bloggers. Whenever commentary seems to go over the top in one direction I get suspicious because most people don't get that worked up over a politician unless they feel personally threatened, usually by taxes or imminent destruction of their jobs and neighborhoods.

"So yeah, it's pretty much settled. BO didn't write his magnus opus."

Oh yeah, a guy joking with a blogger and an anonymous source;"pretty much settled" for sure."

Beware of anyone with a handle called "truth."
Intellectually dishonesty is likely to ensue.

Proof, or at least near certainty of Ayres authorship, does not depend on a "joke". The way it was said, it was not a joke; it was more of a sneer. Ayres knows what Obama is all about, and he feels he, Ayres, hasn't been getting his just reward. Not enough WH invites.
He doesn't do jokes. As the earlier comment said, he's dead serious
http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/story/bill-ayers-claims-he-wrote-obama-s-dreams-from-my/

The biographer was Christopher Andersen. Naturally, MSM believes he is not entirely credible despite being an old Obama friend of sorts, as no one who questions the Great O's achievements (?!) is credible in the opinion of MSM. But no official denials have ensued as that would doubtless lead to greater public scrutiny of the magnus opus, raise questions of why Obama doesn't write for his own teleprompter. Ayres fingerprints had already been cited by scholars in the area of authorship identification. He fits the bill for writing this dreck far more than BO himself, which, to me, is not actually an insult to BO. But it's further proof of yet another fraudulency in an incredibly fraudulent life.
For col, these Chicago pols and their minions specialize in lies, fraud and corruption even more than other kinds of politicians. It's tiresome and embarrassing to hear people defend them on no other basis than BO's race.
In any case, after a year of him, it is apparent to this reader, that the man could never sit down and write all that. With Ayres at the ready, why bother?

"So yeah, it's pretty much settled. BO didn't write his magnus opus."

Oh yeah, a guy joking with a blogger and an anonymous source;"pretty much settled" for sure.

Having spent most of my life in academe, I have to say that good grades, good schools, and/or other indications of having been a good student do little to impress me. (There was a time when such things did, but familiarity breeds contempt.) There are academic types, and then there are the "doers" who make the wheels of civilization turn. These days, there are far too many of the former and far too few of the latter. I don't hold Sarah Palin's academic pedigree against her.

You could have just dispensed with that whole complicated progression, by simply proclaimed that MSM is controlled by (the) Jews, and left it at that.

Yeah, that sounds about right…

Palin is fantastic! She is the only political figure who is not afraid to state in plain language what is being done to America's middle class.

Middletown Girl,

Btw, why do MSM hate Sarah? Because feminists are very powerful in the 'progressive' movement, and the leading lights have been mostly leftist
Jewesses.

You could have just dispensed with that whole complicated progression, by simply proclaimed that MSM is controlled by (the) Jews, and left it at that. The feminist and progressive aspects are just superfluous window dressing. So says guru Kevin MacDonald, so it must be true.

Palin as a strong conservative mother threatens the radical NY feminist narrative that ONLY leftist womyn are for girl power while conservative women are only for subservience to men.

I live in NY and I had no idea that there is a distinct radical NY feminist narrative. We are so busy running the world, sometimes we lose track of what’s going on in our own city, so we have to turn to the oh-so-astute Middle-Americans for updates; many thanks for that.

It kills me how feminists would have us believe women were all corseted, dainty, and timid before the advent of feminism and coed sports.

Now you wouldn’t happen to have a citation handy, would you?

According to the leftist narrative, women–especially white women–should side with 'people of color' against the evil white male.

Well gosh darn it, I must have snoozed through White Society Takeover 101. Kindly jog my memory. Was there a particular reason why white women, as opposed to white men, were selected to side with people of color, or was it simply the luck of the draw?

Because Sarah is a proud white woman who stands by her white hubby, she violates the leftist ideal of UNITY.

Wither the one-drop rule? WNs must be getting pretty desperate if they are willing to accept as white a man whose mother was the secretary of Alaska Federation of Natives. How the mighty have fallen. As for Sarah herself, judging by her looks, I’d say her family tree is not exactly lily-white either.

For the liberal Jewish elite to rule over Americans, it must divide and conquer the most important gentile group–whites.

Phew, at least you bothered to specify the Jewish elite. I guess you’re not into that whole collective guilt thing, villainizing all 6 million American Jews, or maybe even all 14 million Jews worldwide, and while you’re at it, why not all (the) Jews who ever lived and ever will live, since collective guilt is retroactive and preemptive. Oh wait, maybe you’re simply singling out the Jewish elite. (Sorry for the misunderstanding, English just happens to be my fifth language.) In contrast, Gentile elites, unless of course they are brainwashed by (the) Jews, always have the common man’s interest at heart, of which medieval Europe is a shining example. Okay, bad example, after all, it is common knowledge that America was founded by oppressed Christians fleeing (the) Jewish hegemony in Europe. Well, at least it would be common knowledge if we didn’t control MSM, and your public and private schools.
Muahahaha.

I've seen several statements here recently that seem to imply that everyone knows Obama didn't write his book. Did I miss something new, or are this just references to the text analysis that have been around for a while?"

Yeah. Came in late Sept., around time he took his traveling show to Copenhagen. A supposedly sympathetic biography written by an old "friend" pretty much quoted Mrs. Obama as saying that they got Ayres to write it in the early 90s. Nobody contested the statement and it was in the news. Some MSM pundits wrote about it, including Krauthammer, I think, and noted that Obama will no longer be able to claim to be an author. Bill Ayres also bragged to a conservative columnist at a coffee shop in Dulles airport, that he wrote the Obama book. The blogger wondered whether he was serious, but he seemed to be. He's not really a joker type–he's dead serious. So yeah, it's pretty much settled. BO didn't write his magnus opus.

An idea for the most commented isteve post ever:

Sarah Palin: Does she appeal to high-IQ jewish beta-male 1st-round draft picks?

"Udolpho.com said…

A good start might be letting the Republican Party sink into its tarpit of retarded libertarian capitalism, Israel-centric foreign policy, and pseudo-populism, so that a worthwhile political movement based on tradition and wise conservatorship can replace it."

Here, here! Well said!

"I've reconsidered the IQ question. Palin at least wrote her own book."

She relied on a ghost writer. Check Brimelow's latest article in Vdare.com.

Maybe then the more meaningful debate would be the relative intelligence of Obama's ghostwriter vs. Palin's ghostwriter.

Personally, I'd put my money heavily on the Obama side. Bill Ayers seems like a pretty smart guy…

I love how everyone one in the 2nd video is a 60/70 year old southern Ohio farmer and the video presents them as the white persons view.

I'm tired of the Larry the Cable Guy view of white people. I am an over education IT professional and I can tell you uneducated people come in ALL shapes, sizes, colors, and from all different backgrounds.

"I've reconsidered the IQ question. Palin at least wrote her own book."

She relied on a ghost writer. Check Brimelow's latest article in Vdare.com.

"The founding fathers were an elite groups of very smart men."

Yeah, good point. I guess I was thinking of Palin as a good representative, not a future president.

"If she wins, the Paleo-conservatives get a seat at the table again."

Is there any evidence for this of any kind? Palin rivals BHO himself in the number of people who project their fantasies onto her.

"Palin at least wrote her own book."

I have no doubt Palin was involved in writing the book and that it speaks in her true voice, but she has a credited co-author, Lynn Vincent.

Palin is a magnet for the dementia on the left and right (like Clinton, Bush, and Obama before her). That is why she is still around.

LA Times' Max Blumenthal sounds as unhinged as the imaginary people he describes. Palin is obviously not cut out for national politics, but the neurotic projection of fear and loathing has jumped some sort of orbital mega-shark…say hi to Fonzi for me, Max.

The next election cycle will establish that she is a populist one hit wonder, and the people who deeply CARE pro or con Palin will find something else trivial to deeply CARE about. (It will show how smart they are that they spend alot of time thinking about fads.)

What I find irritating is how white people standing in line to hear Palin = scary thuggish redneck morons, whereas white people standing in line to hear Obama (read from a Teleprompter) = a hopeful new generation of civic-minded youth. I mean let's face it, both Palin and Obama are mediocrities who vaulted to high status based on surface appeal (I understand that Obama knows how to read. And vote "present".)

Folks, we get the politicians we deserve. We won't get better politicians until we fix ourselves. A good start might be letting the Republican Party sink into its tarpit of retarded libertarian capitalism, Israel-centric foreign policy, and pseudo-populism, so that a worthwhile political movement based on tradition and wise conservatorship can replace it.

"Obama high iq? Why? What does he say (on his own) that would indicate that?"

Yeah, those bar exams are EEEE-ZEEE!

"I've seen several statements here recently that seem to imply that everyone knows Obama didn't write his book. Did I miss something new, or are this just references to the text analysis that have been around for a while?"

I have to agree with you here Svig, I mean, what are the odds of the editor of the Columbia Law Review being able to read and write?

He agreed to the Rick Warren debate where he let McCain win. Conservatives were high-fiving eachother that Obama is just a pushover and a wimp. But, he prepared himself and came out forcefully against McCain in all three debates. Joe Louis too also knew when to look and act like a nice negro and when to knock the daylights of his opponents.

Really? Well where has the smart, had-charging Obambi been since the election? Not here, apparently.

I've seen several statements here recently that seem to imply that everyone knows Obama didn't write his book. Did I miss something new, or are this just references to the text analysis that have been around for a while?

hey–I've reconsidered the IQ question. Palin at least wrote her own book–we are more sure of that that of Obama's authorship; and she did handle well the state budget of Alaska, from all accounts. BO never did that kind of administration in ACORN, which is a good thing.

So maybe her IQ is 120 and BO's is 115. Or maybe her's is 118 … or maybe they are both the same. Anyway, whatever she has, she'll use more of it, because Obama was raised to his position entirely by others who are still protecting him. Palin will have to fight. If the groups promoting her see that she has charisma potential, she'll be "protected" the way Obama is now.

Obama high iq? Why? What does he say (on his own) that would indicate that? He did not write his own book, that we know now. We know nothing about past writings or opinions of any note. It's all hearsay–or media say. His current utterances are scripted, he of the 57 states.
Still, he may be higher. Like maybe 115 to Palin's 113?
Yeah, that sounds about right.

"Did you post this just knowing that FeministX/HalfSigma would not be able to resist commenting?"

The idea that the Indian-American bi-curious princess and the half-Jewish nerd with chutzpah are the same person is simply idiotic and could only be subscribed to by persons who are not very perceptive.

What it means is that not too many conservative women have been climbing the ladder that leads to the Presidency

So what? Who needs a woman climbing the ladder to the Presidency? To fantasize that Palin is a "conservative" is just that — a fantasy. Palin is a tool and remained invisible until her candidacy was given the okay by the neocons. It's Bill Kristol who made that first trip to visit and vet her. This segment of the Republican party still rules and will continue to do so. And because the masses of Republican foot soldiers have entangled their religion with their politics, they will continue to be manipulated by the wiser, more intelligent neocons.

This is what's important at this point, not gender-driven nonsense that was invented by the Left to begin with.

As Bill Maher once said about Mary Bono: 'She's in Congress because her husband skied into a tree.'

Yeah, and Ted Kennedy was in Congress for 40-something years because whatever starlet Joe Kenendy Sr. was boning on the side had a headache that night.

"It was much the same with Ronald Reagan. The liberal media kept saying that people liked him only because people liked him. He had an attractive personality – he had been a movie star after all – but first of all they liked what he said."

One of Reagan's most formidable weapons was intentionally making people underestimate him. I think he rather enjoyed being considered dumb and empty between his ears. His enemies just didn't take him seriously enough and often fell into his trap; then, he suddenly sprung out and knocked them over.

Obama has the same kind of instinct. He likes to play passive/aggressive, amiable/ruthless, charming/harming.

He agreed to the Rick Warren debate where he let McCain win. Conservatives were high-fiving eachother that Obama is just a pushover and a wimp. But, he prepared himself and came out forcefully against McCain in all three debates. Joe Louis too also knew when to look and act like a nice negro and when to knock the daylights of his opponents.

Underestimating your enemy can be fatal. Reagan knew and Obama knows the art of making the enemy underestimate them. In one interview, Obama made a lot of uhs and ahs, and Limbaugh pounced on that as a sign of his dumbness and stupidity. But, when push came to shove, Obama was prepared to jab hard and go for the KO.

It's called playing mental possum.

Of course, Bush Jr. was just plain dumb. So dumb in fact that he couldn't even play smart. To be fair, he was probably above average smarts to begin with, but the effects of all the drugs and alcohol finally caught up with him in the stressful grind of presidency.

I would wager Obama has higher natural IQ than Palin, but I think his real advantage is that his wit and instincts were sharpened via associating/competing with smartypants at elite schools and by schmoozing with all sorts of characters in South Side of Chicago–from poor to rich, radical to mainstream. He learned how to negotiate and navigate between various types, to be chameleonish, to survive & thrive & jive. He got A LOT of stimuli. He developed smart instincts and reflexes, enough to make him seem smarter than he really is.

Palin, in contrast, grew up in a town where everyone knew & trusted one another. Very nice but dulling on the wit and instinct. Also, during her formative years, she was rewarded for being nice, sitting pretty, and being 'popular'. The yokel charm worked in Alaska, so she approached MSM the same way. Though she claimed not to impervious to liberal elite snobbery, she was in pure auditioning-for-prom-queen mode. When Gibson asked her about the Bush Doctrine, she sat there pretty, smiled innocently, and talked in a whimper as if that would make him go easy on her. With Couric, she was like a wuvable dog trying to win love of a nasty cat. Palin also tried to win approval from Tina Fey and SNL crew when they were only tarring and feathering her. In Palin's universe, good things had happened to you when you act pretty and nice. But, that was in a smalltown highschool in local yokel Alaska. City folks–especially liberal elite and leftist Jews–have very different instincts and mindsets–cunning, witty, cynical, contemptuous, devious, hip. Palin just didn't get it because she came from a 'dumb' culture. There is a movie Les Cousins by Claude Chabrol where the city cousin totally owns a cousin from a small town. The city cousin isn't necessarily smarter. He's devious and 'creative' whereas the rural cousin is earnest. Earnestness and trust must be mutual. You cannot be earnest and trustful with those who look down on you.

Reagan was a true master because even as he extolled small town values, he was savvy and had sharp instincts; there was something of the grey(eminence)about him, not least because he'd once been a Democrat and knew his enemy from inside out. Also, he understand the difference between the rules and how the game is really played. Palin was an amateur in 2008.

Whats the point of a high IQ president who is not on our side.

A lower IQ Palin on our side would still be better than that.

A high IQ prez on our side, even better.

There is the interesting question of how a mainstream politician, assuming we could ever get one on board, would advocate for an immigration moratorium.

Perhaps arguments concentrating on how in this bad economy there's only so many jobs to go around, so why should we be importing even more job hungry immigrants?

Or something along the lines that from January 2001 through September 2009 Hispanic Employment increased by 3.5 Million jobs while we poor hard working White and Black Americans lost almost 2.5 Million Jobs?

Also there the issue that if we just had a moratorium in 1998 our unemployment rate would likely be less than 5% now even with the bad economy.

And if people say we need more diversity, say we've gotten enough new diversity in the last 50 years to last us through the next century and beyond.

Victoria said,

"What is it about this country that men want to be ruled by a woman, Thatcher or otherwise?"

Victoria–I am the "Anonymous" who asked why we haven't yet produced a Maggie Thatcher–and I'm a woman.

Are you convinced that "men want to be ruled by a woman, Thatcher or otherwise"?

Odd, perhaps telling, that you should choose the phrase "ruled by."

Anyway, I don't think most men or most women care any more than I do whether our next President is male or female. I do care whether our next President is a liberal, moderate, or conservative. I want a conservative or something close to one.

I mentioned Thatcher because this thread about Palin has contained a great deal of discussion about her "womanhood," at least insofar as it relates to her interests, her goals, ambitions, class status, and yes, her intelligence) and because, face it—there are few conservative women in public life whose names are recognized by the public and whose names are tossed about as possible Presidential candidates.

In fact, other than Palin, I can't think of any. What it means is that not too many conservative women have been climbing the ladder that leads to the Presidency or that not too many (any?) have sets their sights on it. Yes, that includes Palin. I don't think she wants to be President–hopefully, she doesn't anyway.

So, I wondered: why has this nation not produced a flock of Thatchers–conservative accomplished, bright women with political ambition.

After the 60s, did all women turn left?

Middletown Girl grossly overestimates Bill Clinton's acumen. In 1994 Clinton's folks hired an historian to coach Charming Billy on WW II history to prepare him for the D day commemoration. Afterwards this man expressed surprise that an Ivy League graduate could be so abysmally ignorant of recent historic events of such importance.

"Of course, the unemployment antidote that is really not 'being discussed' is an immigration moratorium. The 15.7 million unemployed in America have to compete against 1.8 million legal immigrants still pouring in each year. But I don’t altogether blame Palin for not mentioning the idea because I’m sure she’s never heard of it. (And she won’t hear of it if it’s up to her alleged discoverer, neocon immigration enthusiast Bill Kristol, although it may be a hopeful sign that his name nowhere appears in Going Rogue.)" -Peter Brimelow

Maybe Brimelow should give her a ring and try and expose her to the persuasive arguments in favor of a moratorium?

If she was able to understand and be convinced by Steve’s explanation of the Mortgage Meltdown, maybe she’ll get the need for an immigration moratorium as well.

(Obviously she's probably mainstream/pc enough that it would have to be sold to her along primarily economic, and perhaps cultural, lines.)

Guys like Sailer and Brimelow really need to attempt having more of a direct influence on potential policy makers.

I believe Steve once met Maggie Thatcher, if I recall correctly, but unfortunately it was after she had resigned from public life.

Steve,
Did you post this just knowing that FeministX/HalfSigma would not be able to resist commenting?
LOL!!!

The feminist smirks:

… seeing them actively abandon those beliefs to defend their candidate is a good thing as far as I'm concerned.

You tell 'em, sister! This is exactly what went on during the election. And the feminists rejoiced. As it turned out, these "conservative" Republicans had no beliefs.

That genie isn't going back in the bottle.

How right you are!

See:
Thank you for nothing, Ms. Palin

"Ummmm – get elected mayor, then governor; then get chosen as a running mate by the Republican nominee for president?"

Since when does "getting elected" prove how smart one is?

Dan Quayle got elected, Bill Richardson got elected, George W. Bush got elected, Gerald Ford, Geraldine Ferraro and Joe Biden got selected. Which one of those people is a genius (of course, I'm not even mentioning Barry).

"Given all the problems that the so-called intellectuals have foisted on us (do you count yourself as one?), I think the time is ripe for a different sort of intellectual."

Great, let's elect my auto mechanic; he's over 35.

"they probably also knew that group is the correct word to use in that sentence, unlike Tino."

They also probably knew the difference between a typo and a grammatical mistake.

But great catch! you would make a decent copy-editor.

Sarah Palin is the best hope we have for the Republican Party and America. If she wins, the Paleo-conservatives get a seat at the table again, and politically incorrect topics like immigration restriction and ending affirmative action will at least be open to discussion again. If she can get the nomination in spite of the opposition of party regulars and the neoconservatives, it will be a signal that Republicans have decided to be the party of the white working class–a momentous historical shift which bodes well for the future of the country.

Will any of this happen? Who knows. Right now, she needs to convince party regulars that she is not dangerous to them–which means sucking up to the neo-cons and maintaining a discrete silence about most of the issues which really matter to me. She might be a complete bust–a prettier but dumber version of George W. Bush. But she is the only hope we have and Pat Buchanan says that she is okay. I intend to vote for her. If she demonstrates in the meantime that she is as dumb as fence post, I will vote for her anyway. I will just consider it a protest vote against the ruling elites who are ruining the country.

"What is it about this country that men want to be ruled by a woman, Thatcher or otherwise?"

I don't think men in this country want to be ruled by a woman, but it would be nice if a woman of character and strength would emerge every once in a while in the political sphere. Merkel's doing fine in Germany and the people there don't make a big deal about "glass ceilings" being shattered.

Am I the only person to wish Pat Buchanan were president? Well not necessarily Buchanan, but just about any regular writer for the American Conservative. I understand Palin was/is a supporter of Buchanan though I doubt it is for the same reason I do. I've tried to read other conservative weeklies like the Weekly Standard and the National Review but the most of the time they just engage my gag reflex and anyone incompetent enough to give that nitwit Jonah Goldberg column space needs to be put out of his misery. The less said about Commentary the better.

As a feminist, I'm pleased with Palin's presence in the political arena & the support she commands.

Mainly because I don't believe she has enough support to win the presidency but so long as she remains a national figure, conservatives are forced (or rather, jump) to publicly defend

-working mothers (not just mothers who work in low-stress jobs because they have to, but highly ambitious mothers of young children pursuing elite careers because they want to)
-the idea of women as fit for command & high political office
-untraditional family arrangements in which the husband plays a supportive role

Another benefit is that her supporters make a constant fuss over sexist media representations of a female political candidate – sometimes, when I'm reading an outraged analysis of Palin's media coverage on a conservative website, I have to check to make sure I didn't switch over to Feministing by mistake.

As traditionalists & conservatives are the main segments of the population who are ideologically opposed to any of the above, seeing them actively abandon those beliefs to defend their candidate is a good thing as far as I'm concerned.

That genie isn't going back in the bottle. I wouldn't be surprised if one of Palin's legacies is liberalizing the right on the "woman question", gender roles, etc.

What is it about this country that it hasn't produced a Maggie Thatcher–yet?

What is it about this country that men want to be ruled by a woman, Thatcher or otherwise? Tell me, what is it? Why do you want an "Iron Lady?" The feminists sure didn't have to work long, did they? Our pussified men already accept women leaving their children behind to go fight in men's wars. What else, for God's sakes? Talk about easily washed brains! The libs didn't have much of a struggle at all getting into your heads, hearts and souls.

Is there any reason why we would not expect that you guys will soon come around to demanding the right to marry one another? Why not? After all, the libs lead the way, don't they?

Remember you don't have to actually like Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity to watch Fox news. They like Sarah Palin succeed because of what they say not just how they say it or how they appear on camera.

It was much the same with Ronald Reagan. The liberal media kept saying that people liked him only because people liked him. He had an attractive personality – he had been a movie star after all – but first of all they liked what he said.

Hannity and O'Reilly never have had to compete on equal terms with the hosts on other networks. The recent polls indicate that twice as many Americans identify as conservative as identify as liberal. Only one network – Fox – has a conservative slant and it is the runaway most popular network.

In radio something similar occurs. Limbaugh serves as an antidote to all the liberal papers and TV. Personally I think Limbaugh is entertaining but not O'Reilly or Hannity, but I watch or listen to all three because they contrast with the oppressive PC approach of most other media.

Sarah Palin has much the same appeal. Obama cannot speak the truth about the housing meldown. Neither can most Republicans including John McCain. Palin is one of the very few voices who will point out that rather than the liberal mantra about the private sector needing more government regulation, it was the government policies themselves that caused the crisis. She doesn't say much that should be news to readers of this blog, but she is virtually alone in pointing out what should be obvious – lending money to those who can't repay is bad business. When all the "intelligent" Republicans remain silent on crucial issues like this, Palin will become popular.

In the old days legislators gained public attention for their presidential candidacy through public hearings (Truman, Keefauver, Kennedy, Church, Gore, etc.) while governors ran on their accomplishments in their state (Roosevelt, Reagan, Romney etc.). By this criteria Palin is very qualified. She was a governor who actually made a difference.

I don't know if Palin will ever run for the presidency. Apparently she is running into a lot of mean spirited sexism. I didn't expect this anymore than I expected all the religious malice expressed towards Romney. It doesn't matter. Palin will play a big political role in the next few years. She is almost alone in speaking the simple truth in an environment that values fashionable falsehoods. Like Limbaugh or O'Reilly this is a recipe for nasty personal invective and high ratings.

"Folks; the bottom line is this: A 45-year old smart person will, at some point in time do something to prove that she is smart. Either she will attend a great school, get great grades, chose a challenging course of study, marry a man who is obviously an intellectual, sire bright children or do an outstanding job. Palin has done none of those."

She took on corruption in Alaska gov't and its Republican party. You could argue that was dumb if she were self serving or calculating the chances of success.

She seems to have less intelligence then she does a civic minded spirit.

Good statesmanship has become so rare that we are baffled when confronted with it and fall back on our experience/intelligence/expedience metrics for measuring a politician's potential. We are looking for inspiring leaders. She is a public servant.

What you have in Joe Biden is a certifiable compulsive liar, the kind of guy who makes up events in his life. I don't mean the usual lies all politicians tell; I mean the kind of stories you get from the odd duck sitting next to you at the bar or the guy in college that you kind of liked but who, you realized after knowing him for a while, told conflicting stories about himself without even seeming to realize that he had indeed told conflicting stories. You finally realized that the guy was a compulsive liar. He lied about stuff that mattered and stuff that didn't matter.

Joe suffers from the psychological phenonmenon known as "mythomania" (also known formally as "pseudologia fantastica" and commonly as "compulsive lying"), yet the media has only written of his problem in veiled ways. Those in DC know of "Joe's problem" but written accounts make it appear that he is only your garden variety liar-politician when the problem is not that at all.

Steve,

I suspect having 5 kids does take a lot of time from studying, but ISTM that people who are really interested in something find time to study it around the edges. A history buff will find time to read another book about Napoleon's rise and fall, a science buff will find time to read a book about recent human evolution, etc.

Perhaps this is biased coverage, but I never saw any sense that Palin had great depth in any field that she'd need to know to be president. Nobody can be an expert on everything, but I think it helps to be an expert (at least of the armchair hobbyist sense) on some relevant stuff.

The bigger point, though, is that her VP run was almost certainly not something she was planning on. And her actions since then are not consistent with planning a presidential run–a couple terms of successful governorship of a state would have been a pretty effective answer to the claims of light-weight-ness, and there's simply no way that someone of Palin's stature can't get serious thinkers from the right to come out and explain, conversationally and with much patience and willingness to answer questions, the relevant areas. Are there no Republican economists who are clear speakers, willing to spend a couple weeks with her explaining in very basic terms an outline of how a free-market economist looks at the world? (This doesn't need deep scholarship, just a basic grasp of the ideas. What's a marginal tax rate and why does it matter? What's the difference between a price floor and a price ceiling? Why doesn't pure socialism work?) Are there no Republican foreign policy experts, energy policy experts, etc., willing to do the same?

If she wanted to make a serious run for president, she'd still be governor, and she'd be getting those experts to come talk to her. She'd be learning the language (a lot of appearing serious and non-stupid is knowing what the terms mean) and the outline of a relatively well-thought-out set of ideas that she could refer to. After six years more of success in Alaska, and studying what presidents need to know, she'd be ready to run for president, and she'd be able to hold her own in debates and interviews.

She hasn't done that, presumably because she figures that her moment of fame is now, not in six more years. But that means she's almost certainly not going to become president.

Some anonymous said,

"Seeing Sailer locked into championing Palin …"

I hardly think we can call Steve's comments "championing." Why do you say that?

It seems to me that most reaction to Palin, positive and negative, is all about identity politics. That is, 90%+ of the stuff I see on her is driven by someone either really liking what she stands for, or really hating it.

Almost the same thing was (and to some extent still is) true for Obama. A hell of a lot of people liked what he seemed to stand for–an end to the ugly racial conflict in our past, the winds of change blowing a new, young leader into power, Hope and Change. A lot of people hated what he stood for–the triumph of SWPL ideas and PC, a black guy coming to power with all that implied for their beliefs, an Ivy-League elite type taking power on the strength, not of his experience, but of his impressive Ivy League credentials and academic achievements.

All this evades policy issues. That's a win for most pundits and journalists, because:

a. Candidates do their best to obscure a lot of their policy preferences and plans.

b. Real discussions of those policy preferences is often pretty complicated. (Indeed, one reason politicians obscure them is to avoid being bogged down in detail-oriented discussions that will either bore or enrage voters.)

Steve,

What is it about this country that it hasn't produced a Maggie Thatcher–yet?

Truth said:

Now I'm not a Sarah Palin hater, I kind of like her; she is energetic, charismatic and gutsy, but if you insist on beating the dead horse that Palin is intellectual, you are, by proxy telling us that you are not.

It really is as simple as that,

Given all the problems that the so-called intellectuals have foisted on us (do you count yourself as one?), I think the time is ripe for a different sort of intellectual.

And Truth, you really are quite simple.

Tino said:

The founding fathers were an elite groups of very smart men.

Yes, they probably also knew that group is the correct word to use in that sentence, unlike Tino.

Don't give me any crap about it being a second language, either. If you are going to imply that someone is dumb, mistakes are fair game.

Anonymous and MarAkin:

Palin's IQ is relevant, but so is her knowledge and expertise. Your doctor is probably much smarter than the plumber you call to fix a broken pipe, but the plumber knows a lot more about pipes than the doctor.

From everything we could see in the election, Palin really doesn't know a lot of what she should know to be president. That means that she would be the complete captive of her advisors on a huge range of decisions. It means that when her advisors were blinded ideologues, she couldn't notice and apply a sanity check.

IQ helps here, I think. But as president, you aren't goign to have time to try to remediate your lack of knowledge of important stuff like energy policy or basic science or federal budgeting or constitutional law or the history and present layout of the Middle East, Latin America, Eastern Europe, etc. I think W had the same basic problem, though I do think he had more of the background knowledge, and a very rich set of trusted advisors to help him understand what was going on.

It seems to me we're seeing a different side of this in the Obama administration. I think he has some of the relevant background knowledge, and is by most accounts pretty bright. But he's never run anything larger than his presidential campaign, and so his administration, while stunningly effective at PR, has actually not been all that effective at governing or making decisions.

FeministX:

I can tell you with total certainty that this is BS because I know plenty of people not half Palin's age who are better informed about politics than she is. Looks like they had the time to learn.

Just because no one says it doesn't mean it's right. The more likely case is that she just isn't all the high IQ

Correct me if I'm wrong here, I don't read your stuff but the impression I got reading a second-hand account recently was that you are Miz nurture when it comes to race and IQ; why the switch when it comes to Palin and IQ? Can't we nurture her IQ upwards, thus obviating your objection.

And since when is "the more likely case" worth anything? Is it worth anything on race and IQ?

Again, apologies if I have you wrong, I'm going on a single second-hand account here and I'd be happy to have you set me straight.

Or does that only apply to the NAMs?

Indeed.

This post is so off kilter from Steve's normally lonely cerebral musings, I wonder if this is a test. Or maybe, from time to time, Steve likes to write the same type of thoughtless muck that he so skillfully skewers in others. If so, that's okay, you deserve to bulls**t too.

I suppose a couple of basically neutral posts on Palin are "Palin-boosting" or some such. Hell, I suppose my comments are "Palin-boosting" too, as far as this crowd is concerned, sorta how I had a "position" on teaching and IQ in the other thread. Rorschach city. Never mind that I (at least) am not at all a Palin-booster.

They would tend to give her kudos and mention for her work as governor

You want them to compliment her for quitting?

, rising without Soros media moguls and professional script writers.

I was not aware that the Soros machine had reached Alaska. It appears that all hope is lost.

I can't think of a White House candidate from my lifetime who was more in hock to script writers than Palin. I honestly have never seen her utter a sentence that did not use generic talking points.

The reason Obama outdraws blacks at his campaign rallies is that he is someone blacks can idenitfy with. Right after the election, many people including his closest advisors, noticed that the white faces were leaving the crowds. The media will never connect those dots to Palin because the truth is just too painful. Palin is someone who white middle American's identify with. They don't identify with Luiz Guiterez.

Palin's family behavior actually parallels that of ghetto "Single Moms," in that she is distracted by outside interests and, as another poster said, makes babies, but does not raise them. In the case of the ghetto mom, the distraction is usually men. In Palin's case, the distraction is promoting herself via politics and making a bundle of money via the entertainment industry.

As far as this business of her still being married to the same man and neither having had an affair, perhaps you should stay tuned. It appears that so-called conservatives divorce and break up their children's homes as regularly as those terrible libs. And these breaks are usually the result of lovers. Whatever one might think of the Levi boy, he certainly spent enough time in the Palin household (banging her daughter), to have candid observations about that family that are worth considering.

I think Sarah caught the superstar bug.

Your description about the big band is perfect. This is exactly what happened. She realized that if she did not milk the moment, it would fade right along with her beauty and never come again. It was now or never.

The Sailer worldview:

Sarah Palin's intelligence = blank slate

Every other person in the entire world's intelligence: biologically determined
________________________________

The Liberal worldview:

Everyone's intelligence = blank slate

Sarah Palin's low intelligence: biologically determined.

As for "upright", Barry may very well be the most crooked man to ever sit in the Oval Office. Nixon was a choirboy by comparision.

I've said this here before but I'll say it again…

Within 6 years of leaving office, Al Gore and Bill Clinton were worth an estimated $100 million and $50 million each, respectively – two men with not a shred of private sector experience between them.

Corporate America has learned to pay off politicians for services rendered after the fact. They do this, obviously, for credibility's sake. It's not about the last politician who bent the law your way, it's about the next one. You have to keep your credibility, right? It's nice to have a reputation.

Anyway, I'll say it again. $100 million and $50 million? Barack Obama will breeze right past those numbers, and in well under six years: board positions, stock options in "sure things," commissions for "consulting," and, of course, ten million dollar speeches. He could easily become the first billionaire ex-president. At his current rate there's a good chance he'll be able to start working on that (as though he isn't already) come January 22, 2013.

So what??? Is this Steve Sailer's blog? This is the same argument that the mediocre black fireman are using to try and cheat skilled white firemen out of their jobs. Waaaah, white fireman grew up "marinated in fire-fighting culture"!…if it's because of early family advantages instead, who cares? That still means Palin is too mediocre for national politics. She doesn't deserve affirmative action just because she came from a prole home

Wow, dude – you fell out of the Missed-the-Point tree and missed every pointed branch on the way down.

The point isn't that it wasn't "fair." The point is that it explains the difference between the two. Being marinated in a culture is an advantage. Children learn languages easier than adults; they learn grammatical rules without explanation. I still remember songs and poems I learned in 2nd grade, but can't remember what I ate for breakfast yesterday.

Folks; the bottom line is this: A 45-year old smart person will, at some point in time do something to prove that she is smart. Either she will attend a great school, get great grades, chose a challenging course of study, marry a man who is obviously an intellectual, sire bright children or do an outstanding job. Palin has done none of those.

Ummmm – get elected mayor, then governor; then get chosen as a running mate by the Republican nominee for president?

Actually I agree that Palin isn't smart enough (or at least knowledgeable enough) to be president; but your argument as to why not, as always, sucks.

I agree she isn't qualified,…

As Bill Maher once said about Mary Bono: 'She's in Congress because her husband skied into a tree.' So I don't know that voters necessarily pay all that much attention to 'qualifications', however they might be defined.

But yes, this dalliance with Palin as a candidate for 2012, perhaps even the leading candidate, shows again why they're called the Stupid Party.

"She doesn't deserve affirmative action just because she came from a prole home"

Her father was a high school teacher and her mom was a nurse. Are those prole occupations?

And to the anonymous idiot talking about "Obots" and DU refugees – go back to whatever neocon funhouse you normally hang out in.

""To me, Sarah seems like a genius compared to Obama, with or without a teleprompter."

I would have to say, that says more about you; than either of them.
"n my memory I do not remember the IQ question being seriously debated about a Democratic candidate, only Republicans"

And which Democratic candidate in recent history has struck you as being particularly dumb?

"She has people smarts but not theoretical smarts. I've known people who have a knack for working with people and reading the situation but poor grasp of theoretical stuff."

Hey, come to think of it, so does Al Sharpton. He's run for president hasn't he?

"1) She's still married to the same man."

So are Bill Clinton and "W", and Obama.

"2) Neither has had an affiar. If they had the media would have found out about it."

The media splashed her supposed affair with his business partner all over the tabloids during the election.

Folks; the bottom line is this: A 45-year old smart person will, at some point in time do something to prove that she is smart. Either she will attend a great school, get great grades, chose a challenging course of study, marry a man who is obviously an intellectual, sire bright children or do an outstanding job. Palin has done none of those.

There is a good reason she married a man who works in oilfields and races snowmobiles; because they have a lot in common.

Now I'm not a Sarah Palin hater, I kind of like her; she is energetic, charismatic and gutsy, but if you insist on beating the dead horse that Palin is intellectual, you are, by proxy telling us that you are not.

It really is as simple as that,

"In contrast, 69-year-old Nancy Pelosi, who also has five children, grew up marinated in politics"

So what??? Is this Steve Sailer's blog? This is the same argument that the mediocre black fireman are using to try and cheat skilled white firemen out of their jobs. Waaaah, white fireman grew up "marinated in fire-fighting culture"!

This whiny loser explanation is doubtfully true in either case. 5 kids Pelosi is a better politician than 5 kids Palin because she has a higher IQ and is more curious about politics and world affairs. And if it's because of early family advantages instead, who cares? That still means Palin is too mediocre for national politics. She doesn't deserve affirmative action just because she came from a prole home, or was too busy raising children to become adequate at her chosen occupation.

Palin's a product of the Reagan legacy. In 1980, the Republicans nominated a folksy, telegenic, "non-intellectual" who galvanized disgruntled middle and working class voters fed up with the Carter regime. This worked out surprisingly well, and like most big institutions, the Republicans formulate their strategy for the future simply on the successes of their past (planning to fight the last war, or rather, the last war that they decisively won). George W was their more recent bid to revivify the Reagan magic, but –despite his two terms — this didn't really pan out, since most of the country wound up despising him. Now, they're test marketing a perky Reagan who looks great in high heels. The problem, of course, is that in politics, timing is everything. For most of Reagan's career, he was perceived as an unelectable joke, until suddenly he wasn't.

During the last election, I got a kick out of the Palin phenomenon because a) she put a weed up the . . . of so many people who richly deserved it and b) there was absolutely no chance that she was going to be elected. It was all fairly amusing politcal theater, given how dismal (when not disgusting) most American political theater generally is.

But no, I don't want this person as president.

Sarah Palin is the female Glenn Beck.
Occasionally they encourage you to think they're on the right path, like Palin's recent speech identifying the Fed as a source of America's economic woes, or Beck's expose of the Goldman Sachs connection to the bailouts.
Then they'll go and say something neo-connish and half-baked that makes you roll your eyes.
In both cases, my sympathy toward them is largely generated by antipathy for the swill that so vocally oppose them.

If we're gonna pick a woman, I wanna vote for Michele Bachmann.

She's good looking (right?) — and definitely intelligent (J.D. & LL.M.) — and a mom and foster mom (so there!).

You know, maybe Sailer's partiality to Sarah Palin is biological. Look at Todd Palin, and by golly, he looks like a dead ringer for Sailer. Maybe that kind of men go for that kind of woman.

"She's honest. She had to resign from the Governorship because she was flat-dead-broke defending from bogus (all eventually dismissed) ethics charges."

I don't know about that. I think she resigned because she saw the BIG WORLD during the 2008 campaign and was itching to get back in the spotlight. Suppose you're a member of local band in a small town and pretty happy playing to the townfolks

But suddenly, you're recruited to play guitar for a superduper bigtime rock band and travel all over the world and play in concerts with 10,000s of cheering fans. After excitement and thrill like that, you can't just go back to your small town and play to the yokels in the same old local band. That's no longer your idea of MAKING IT or the BIG TIME. You gotta find a way to hitch onto some megaband and travel and play in the big arenas. (Beatles never returned to the Cavern either after their great success.)

I think Sarah caught the superstar bug. Hell, it happens to everyone. Growing up, Wassilla was all she knew. Later, she thought Alaska was big enough for her. But, after the national campaign and millions of people cheering for her across the nation, she just couldn't settle back down in Alaska.

Besides, I think she has axe to grind, some of it justifiable, some of it not. Yes, the media treated her horriby, but her ignorance and unpreparedness on key issues were her fault. At any rate, she's energized by both the positive and the negative attention she received. She wants expand on the positives and wants to undo or redeem the negatives.

I pray she has enough sense to set her sights on popular culture than on political office.

Ronald Reagan sucked intellectually too. I think he got lucky with the collapse of the Soviet Union under his Presidency.

The quality of the commenting on this site has gone to the dogs. Maybe Steve can start encouraging the refugees from the Democratic Underground to hang out elsewhere.

If you wingnuts can seriously convince yourselves that Sarah Palin is smarter and more upright than Barack Obama, then I have a bridge to sell you!

Yes, because Obama has such a distingished intellectual pedigree, including …….. well …. he's a lawyer, right?

As for "upright", Barry may very well be the most crooked man to ever sit in the Oval Office. Nixon was a choirboy by comparision.

If you want any chance at all of stopping immiagration, etc., go Palin.

She's an open borders idiot just like her hero McCain. Thanks for your thoughtful advice.

What makes this kind of "family values" any different from those of the typical secular liberal?

1) She's still married to the same man.

2) Neither has had an affiar. If they had the media would have found out about it.

3) You really need to pay closer attention to what the lives of secular liberals are like. Palin has not killed anyone in a drunken rage or run a gay prostitute ring out of her home.

4) None of us are responsble for our childrens choices. Reagans kids were nothing to cheer about either. And lets not even mention the kids of Dem politicians ..

Presidents are figureheads anyway.

This is exceptionally obvious in the case of Obama, who has outsourced all the actual work he's supposed to do to assorted "czars", and contents himself with being a sort of modern monarch.

Bush was really not much better.

Just watched Bill Moyers – A Tale of Two Quagmires about Johnson and Vietnam, almost entirely from recordings of presidential conversations. Highly recommend.

I wrote "but Palin clearly want to know stuff or see the importance of knowing stuff"

I left out "doesn't" (yeah, it's clear from the context, but I'm humbled and embarrassed)

Ronald Reagan sucked intellectually too. I think he got lucky with the collapse of the Soviet Union under his Presidency. It was the luck George W. Bush didn't have in his Presidency

At this point in my life I've learned that half of luck is knowing when to recognize it, and how to use it. Bush did get lucky, with 9/11 – if he had known how to use it. He could've used it to turn around our perilous dissent into a Third World multicultural hell, with plummeting human capital all around. He failed to recognize it as a chance at that, or at least to use it.

Again, I think the ferocious hate, boiled down, owes to the fact that she's got "win" written all over her.

Arghhhhhhh!!! Liberals absolutely loathed Bush, too. They hated him viciously despite the fact that he was not conservative. Liberal hatred of a candidate means absolutely nothing.

Is it the case that we have to disprove Palin's qualifications or is it the case that she has to prove hers? I always believed it was the latter.

Nice lady? Yes. Good family values? Yes. Fairly intelligent woman? Yes. Intelligent enough to be president? Maybe.

Let Democrats fall in love wih candidates for nothing but their superficialities. After nominating 2 nitwits (Bush, McCain) for no reason other than the fact that they'd be great to have a beer with, can we at last nominate someone with demonstrable leadership and intellectual skills? Who is able to show that s/he's willing to take the time to crunch the numbers and study the data?

My personal preference (for now) is Mitt Romney, the most able candidate we have had for a long time – since Ike, probably. It could be any other, if they're out there, but please, dear God, please don' let it be Palin (as is) or Huckabilly, because I can almost guarantee you that in 2012, after 4 years of the bumbling incompetence of Obambi, the nation will be ready for a grown-up again – if the GOP bothers to offer them one.

"If Sarah Palin was even 1% as intellectually curious as Barack Obama, then she would get far less criticism."

Obama is intellectually curious about what? The thoughts of Alinsky? Ayers? Wright? Neo-Marxism? Black nationalism? Stick-it-to-whitey-ism? How-to-schmooze-the-Jews-for-favors-and-money-ism?

Palin raised five kids and worked full time doing tough stuff out in the sea. I don't think she had too much spare time to read up on philosophy and world history. But, what is Obama's excuse? He had only two kids who were raised by Michelle. He never had to really work all his life, certainly not backbreaking manual work, as his needs were taken care of and then some by rich sponsors and patrons. He had all the time to read and write books. Yet, what did he contribute to law, political theory, issues on history, etc? What did publish other than "Dreams of Being President by Fooling Honkey" and "Audacity of Tripe"?

Besides, what is 'intellectual curiosity' these days? Bowing down to PC in colleges? Listening to NPR? Reading Goo York Times?

"But this fails to explain why Palin had so much trouble completing an unchallenging degree at a medium tier university."

Two possible explanations.

She was a party girl not too interested in studying. Many bright people flunk out or do poor work due to bad work habits or too much partying in college. I've seen plenty of that.

She has people smarts but not theoretical smarts. I've known people who have a knack for working with people and reading the situation but poor grasp of theoretical stuff. Of course, some brilliant theoretical types have zero 'people intelligence'.

I think Reagan had superb people smarts and solid values and principles. But, he was lacking in theoretical brilliance. He was no Nixon. Clinton was both people smart and theoretical smart, but what a lowlife piece of ____.

Obama is smart at seeming smart. He knows when to turn on the charm, when to play it cool. His smooth jazz style always keeps him on his toes. No 'deer in the headlights' for him. He knows when to cross the road. Obama isn't only 'smart at seeming smart' in what he says but in what he doesn't say. He knows when to keep people guessing. He knows that in some cases, 'less is more'. (He left little in terms of paper trail, so we have to take his intellect on faith.) He knows when to use maximalism, when to use minimalism, when to act like the messiah, when to act humble.

Jesus kinda knew it too. He was both the poor wanderer crushed by the powers-that-be AND the SON OF GOD. Of course, Jesus was no BS-er, what Obama is really is.

Steve, I see that Steven Pinker mentioned work by Dean Keith Simonton in his reply to Gladwell. What do you think Simonton would make of Palin?

Ronald Reagan sucked intellectually too. I think he got lucky with the collapse of the Soviet Union under his Presidency. It was the luck George W. Bush didn't have in his Presidency -but intellectually and in management ability I place them in the same low tier (By the way, I like Bush's resume for being President, except, notably, for his crap grades).

Hopefully Anonymous
http://www.hopeanon.typepad.com

Social conservative republicans have technocratic options (and specifically female ones, for those that want that). You have people with relevant graduate and professional degrees, and impressive managerial achievements.

Seeing Sailer locked into championing Palin reminds me of all those black professionals who felt like they couldn't criticize Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.

It's okay to say "Palin is too stupid to be President, Romney is not".

We do know a few things about Sarah Palin.

1. She's honest. She had to resign from the Governorship because she was flat-dead-broke defending from bogus (all eventually dismissed) ethics charges.

2. She turns out the base for a low-tax, low government, "White Identity" message.

3. Younger women HATE HATE HATE her because she had a Downs Syndrome kid and five kids in total. SWPL at work. [See John Stewart.]

4. Younger women and SWPL HATE HATE HATE her because her husband is not a Big Shot (see Joy Behar and Paul Rodriguez) but a supportive part-time house-husband.

Women (and SWPL) prefer a "proper" husband such as a John Edwards, a Gavin Newsome, no matter how big the betrayals because they are a BIG SHOT and that is what matters.

We also know a few things about Obama. On a salary of around 70K and a wife who had about the same earnings he bought a million dollar house in Hyde Park. Barack Obama BEFORE his book contract and Michelle Obama's rise to Univ. of Chicago "Patient Dumper" ($300K a year) was a rich man.

Palin was flat dead broke before her book deal.

I can tell who is honest and who is a crook.

"Palin hasn't a clue about history; I am sure she knows next to nothing about today's geopolitics or for that matter, about geography. I seriously doubt she could tell us where Bosnia or Chechnya are."

She seems to know enough: Israel is the Middle Kingdom.

"Sarah Palin is an utter fool, and this is true, even though so many on the left say it is so."

… which is why she would be great for TV entertainment. They don't call it the 'idiot box' for nuttin. Palin could be a useful idiot for winning the hearts and minds of masses of idiots.

Look, John Wayne was no great intellect either, but he had a great positive influence on many many white American males.
Palin is conservatism as a bar of soap and should be marketed and sold as such. Politics isn't just about SERIOUS stuff but also about horse and pony show. Let Palin be Annie Oakley. Just keep her out of office.