« A heart that works for Baby Joy | Main | They used to call this material suppport »

The Rise Of The Fringe

This is an amazing time in American political history. We are seeing, in one of its purest forms, Darwinian evolution as applied to political movements, as the two main factions are constantly changing and adapting to an utterly unstable environment. And the changes and adaptations are absolutely fascinating to watch.

Human beings, by nature, look for patterns. It's hard-wired into our psyches. But in politics, the circumstances are so constantly changing that there is barely enough time for a pattern to emerge before it becomes obsolete.

Here's the pattern I've noted in the last decade or so of political history.

When a party finds itself shut out of power (no presidency, minorities in both Houses), it starts to fall apart a little. The leaders who oversaw the decline aren't exactly exiled or excommunicated or executed, they just lose their relevance. They're still around; it's just that no one pays them much attention.

Instead, a faction begins forming within the party. But that's not quite true; the faction sees itself as apart from the party. It doesn't see itself as part of the whole, but sees the party as a useful structure to infiltrate and use to achieve their goals.

This faction has some rather unusual characteristics. For one, it tends to be largely leaderless. It is self-organizing, with some people assuming leadership roles, but there is no single leader or even a cabal that runs the whole thing.

For another, it tends not to focus on principles or issues, but at its core embodies a mood. An attitude. It's fundamental nature is emotional, not rational.

For a few years, it amasses power. It draws members and money. It finds a few cooperative candidates and back them -- hard. Should any "establishment" types choose to challenge (or, more accurately, resist) these chosen rebels, they are turned upon with exceptional ferocity -- suffering far worse attacks from their putative "constituents" than they have from their nominal political adversaries.

These movements reach their peak during a presidential election, when they have a national campaign that their widespread arms can unite around. And the candidate they choose to back isn't someone who comes from their ranks, but instead is one they can imbue with their beliefs. A candidate who is a bit of a blank slate, one with a few easily-recognizale traits that they can identify with, but enough ambiguities that they can project the rest of their agenda on to.

This is, in a nutshell, how the Nutroots responded to the 2000 elections and ended up giving us all President Obama.

And it is, in a nutshell, where I see the Tea Party movement heading -- probably climaxing in 2012.

Who will be the candidate that the Tea Party will rally behind? Who will be the right's Barack Obama? It's way too early to tell -- but there's one person right now who seems to fit the mold to a T.

Who on the right is is strongly admired by the Tea Party, but not truly of the Tea Party? Who is looking to curry their favor, but retain their independence? Who has the kind of personal charisma -- not the kind that attracts everyone, but polarizes them into either strongly liking or disliking them -- that captures political fancy? Who has clearly-stated principles, yet remains ambiguous enough about a lot of issues that people can see and hear what they wish? Who seems to be more driven by emotion than intellect, who seems most about a mood and attitude than anything else?

Most importantly, who is most often compared -- and contrasted -- with President Obama, by both sides, in an attempt by one side to denigrate the other?

Who the hell else could it be but Mama Grizzly herself, Sarah Palin?

It's way, way too early to predict who will be the Republican challenger in 2012. It's way too early to even know if Palin will be a candidate. But I do feel comfortable in saying that the candidate who best embodies the "Palin spirit" as it exists today will have a hell of a lot of popular support -- in utter disregard for the Republican establishment.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/40027.

Comments (69)

Much depends on this fall, ... (Below threshold)
Jim Addison:

Much depends on this fall, and the events of the next year. If we hit the dreaded "double dip recession" as seems rather likely at this point, Democrats will be running away from Obama and any Republican could win.

Obama doesn't seem the sort to withdraw voluntarily, and the only credible challenger within the party is Hillary, who knows only too well the power of the White House over the party, so she won't do it.

Palin will probably serve herself best by being the kingmaker, and continue traveling the country, selling books and raising money for Republican candidates. She's young yet, and while her instincts seem good, she may still lack the experience the next President will need to undo this mess.

I'd love to see Palin/Hucka... (Below threshold)
BlueNight:

I'd love to see Palin/Huckabee, with both of them pushing the new Republican majorities as hard on FairTax as Prez. Obama pushed on Healthcare Regulation or Stimuloans.

While I am a fan of Governo... (Below threshold)
Bob:

While I am a fan of Governor Palin, I'd like to see her become a bit more educated and well spoken before she runs for president. Most of her speeches and commentary are great, but her use of "refudiate" grates on me. She may have held her own against Joe "Bite Me," but I can't see her besting B. Hussein Obama in a debate.

Unfortunately, there aren't many great choices. Huckabee is too liberal, and Romney is the author of the Massachusetts version of ObamaCare. The best spoken Republican over the last year has been Chris Christy but he has too little experience and still has his hands full in Blue Jersey. Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor are smart enough but are relatively unknown and unexciting. For now, our best bet is to concentrate on 2010 and have confidence that, if we can regain control of one or both houses of Congress, an American leader will emerge to head a presidential campaign in 2012.

Now you've done it Jay. W... (Below threshold)
Greg:

Now you've done it Jay. We'll start seeing jp2 again.

Or concern trolls like Bob,... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Or concern trolls like Bob, Greg. Her language grates on him? Oh, poor Bobby. Guess you'd rather have Obama? HE is eloquent and articulate, at least his teleprompter is.

Would I rather have someone in the Presidency who went to all the right schools, did all the 'right' things (community organizer, state senator who spent time funneling money to 'developers' who left his constituency worse off than before, and did damn little else of any substance or import while a US Senator) and espouses all the 'right' viewpoints while campaining... or someone who knows what business is like, who's been a Mayor and Governor, who's faces shitloads of bogus lawsuits, has been financially strapped to the point where she had to resign her position as governor to avoid bankrupcy - yet STILL thinks this is the greatest country on the planet?

Hmmm. Tough call, that one. Talk to me in 2012.

We know already the long te... (Below threshold)
gary gulrud:

We know already the long term devolution of the species-the human braincase has be shrinking for tens of millenia.

Now the genepool has begun to rot in situ.

I'm not sure I get you just... (Below threshold)

I'm not sure I get you just right, but I think I see a hint that you are trying to marginalize the Tea Party. I'm reasonably confident the Tea Party movement does not conform well to any previous trends or patterns. One critical component is education. Once people become educated, they cannot undo it. That makes predicting or even defining a 'peak' difficult at best.

It's impossible to say for sure, but it seems likely we really are in a transformative period in U.S. history. But in profound contrast to previous watersheds, this one may result in a return towards adherence to our Constitution rather than away from it.

Apt title, Mr Tea.... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Apt title, Mr Tea.

A Palin candidacy is a Democrat's dream. Only 40% of voters consider her qualified to BE President. If you think two years of her traveling the country making gaffes, spewing word salad, and taking offense at being asked questions like, "What magazines do you read?" will modify that poll result, I suggest you are engaging in wishful thinking.

Here's how I see the next couple of years: Republicans win big in 2010, maybe even taking control of both houses of Congress. In 2011, the new Tea Party majority, not big enough to override a Presidential veto, tries to pull a Gingrich-style shut-down-the-government stunt of some kind, followed by endless investigations of bogus bullshit like the Black Panther "scandal." Regardless of the GOP nominee, whether a kook like Palin or a more mainstream candidate like Romney, Obama wins big in 2012, and Republicans lose some of their majority, maybe even slipping back into minority status.

Feel free to rub my nose in it if I'm wrong.

Bruce,I kind of fo... (Below threshold)
Sky Captain:

Bruce,

I kind of followed you until you posted "Obama wins big in 2012".

You lost all credibility at that point. Obama didn't win big in 2008, the mainstream media dragged him across the finish line.
I just don't see any scenario where ol' Jug-Ears "wins big".

Oh, and "rubbing your nose in it" is meaningless, Bruce. I have yet to see where you admit any error.

"HE is eloquent and articul... (Below threshold)
Upset Old Guy:

"HE is eloquent and articulate, at least his teleprompter is." JLawson

Well, at least when he stays within his sphere of interest, Lawson. When he steps out we get "corpse-man."

And somehow I don't see a a majority of voters or an electoral college victory in in 2012 with re-distributionist talk like, "I just think it's better if you spread it around."

I'm not sure I get you j... (Below threshold)

I'm not sure I get you just right, but I think I see a hint that you are trying to marginalize the Tea Party.

Heavens, no, Mark! I happen to generally support the movement, and have defended it staunchly.

But let's be honest here -- it is marginalized. And that is part of its strength.

By "marginalized," I mean it comes from the margins, and is apart from and fully separate from the establishment leadership. It's not obligated in any way to the leadership, and sees the party not as the greater good, but as a means to an end.

It's also a rudderless ship, with no firm hand at the tiller. And that, too, is not a bug, but a feature. The lack of a leader or even a leadership helps keep the movement from being either degraded or co-opted.

The Nutroots, for all that I despise them, found a successful formula for victory. But their ideology was utterly incompatible with governing -- it was all about winning, nothing about what to do when they won. So they're continuing to fight the same fights over and over, the same old way.

And it ain't working, because the other side knows why it worked -- and they aren't going to fail again.

The Tea Party, however, DOES have some (admittedly vague) ideas about how to govern. They have concrete ideas about what they would do should they win the reins of power. And now they're showing that they have learned the right lessons from the Nutroots.

Is the Tea Party marginal? You betcha. And they'll stay marginal right up until the moment they BECOME the establishment.

And what a fun day that would be.

J.

"I have yet to see where yo... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

"I have yet to see where you admit any error."

This is in stark contrast, I guess, to yourself and other conservative commenters who are always writing, "Well, ya got a point there!" on the Wizbang boards.

I didn't see any conservative pundits predicting a Clinton reeelection the day after Election Day 1994. If you're old enough to remember that far back, did you?

Bruce, I don't like revisit... (Below threshold)

Bruce, I don't like revisiting my past failures, but I'm quite prepared to dig up several postings where I admitted that I had been wrong. Because the momentary discomfort of reminding folks -- and myself -- of my past errors pales in the face of feeding you a crap sandwich of your own folly.

J.

I think that the fascinatio... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

I think that the fascination with Palin (and populists like her) is a true dead end for conservatives. Trust me, I'm not saying this because I am in any way intimidated by Palin. Palin is a disaster for conservatives in the long run, even if she appeals to a wide swath of people right now. Even if she gets lots of attention. Even if you think she's funny and "tells it like it is."

What I find MOST ironic is the anti-intellectual strain of many of the Palin followers. Why is this ironic? Because of the fact that the same people hold such a high regard for the ideas of the founding fathers, who were incredibly well educated. It amazes me that many Tea Party advocates have such a reverence for the constitution and the founding fathers, while at the same time denouncing "educated elites" as the bane of our national existence. Still more, tea party followers often have a high reverence for free-market economics, which stems from the "elite" ideas of people like Hayek, Mises, and Milton Friedman, among others. The entire FOUNDATION of fiscal conservatism comes from a highly intellectual tradition. Yet, this populist anti-intellectualism persists.

Sure, I can understand why people are drawn to Palin: like any good politician, she tells people what they want to hear. Yes, she's got that no-nonsense appeal, and she seems to speak for the common person. She appeals to the base that loved Reagan, but she's no Reagan either. In my opinion, if the conservatives and tea party folks keep chasing the populist bait of the likes of Sarah Palin, they are going to get decimated in the 2012 elections.

Whatever happened to people like William F Buckley? The longer conservatives keep pursuing the populism of Sarah Palin, the further they are going to alienate themselves from a tradition that is, in fact, heavily rooted in scholarship, education, and a sharp intellect. This recent populist shift may be garnering support for now, but empty political pablum has a really limited shelf life. And it actually accomplishes very little.

Shouting "liberty", "freedom", "less government", and "patiotism" over and over again, and continually expressing disgust for everything that is Obama can only work for so long. At some point, tea party activists and conservatives are going to actually going to have to come up with some ideas and solutions, and then they're going to need something more than the cheerleading of the likes of Sarah Palin (and Glenn Beck).

Sorry, but this train is going nowhere. Time to realize that going to school and learning about government, politics, law, economics, history, and science is actually a GOOD thing for potential social and political leaders. Education was absolutely critical and fundamental for people like Jefferson and Adams, who took part in creating those founding documents that so many conservatives rightfully hold in high regard.

Re # 14:Possibly t... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Re # 14:

Possibly the most thoughtful and insightful comment I've ever seen on Wizbang.

Re # 13:

I was actually addressing this dude, "Sky Captain," not you, Mr Tea. I'm quite aware that YOU are willing to admit error. That's why I said "commenters" and not "authors" and why I prefaced my comment with a quote from his.

Ryan A -You need t... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Ryan A -

You need to define 'intellectual elite' a bit better.

I'm against Obama's policies, the actions of Reid and Pelosi, and think that it's a really, really bad idea to shovel money out in a pretty much unaccountable fashion when our national debt is over 6 times our annual income from the IRS... and likely to get a hell of lot worse before it gets better.

This is what the intellectual elite, who've gone to all the right colleges, who know all the right people, who say all the right things to the press so they get tingles up their legs have brought us to. And they believe more of the same will improve things?

I don't know about you (well, it's kind of clear from your post...) but I don't know how much more of this so-called 'help' from the elites we can take. Your thinking that they're more educated in "government, politics, law, economics, history, and science" doesn't seem to be evident in the results, unless they're trying hard to create textbook examples of "Don't DO this shit!" for future generations.

For decades now, the left has said if you don't believe as they do, graduate from the right institutions of higher learning, don't sign onto their agendas, and don't support them in all aspects of all policies then it's an indication that you're abysmally ignorant and have to be directed by your betters in every facet of your daily existence. And since they're the betters, and you're ignorant, they will make all the choices so you don't have to.

I think a lot of folks have looked at the so-called intellectual elite and gone - "Okay, you go ahead and play at running the country. We've got work to do, making sure you're fed and clothed and the lights are kept on. When you start messing up big-time, we'll let you know."

And the Tea Party movement is that notification. The folks who can run their own lives, who can run businesses, who earn their own livings, are fed up with an 'elite' who are trying to run things without real-world experience.

But the left doesn't want to know, does it? You don't want to hear that things are messed up, that the policies (well-intentioned as they are) were badly thought out and having effects far off what were intended.

And you think the folks objecting are anti-intellectual? That's like calling someone who stops an arsonist anti-energy.

" the further they are going to alienate themselves from a tradition that is, in fact, heavily rooted in scholarship, education, and a sharp intellect."

Right. That 'tradition' is why we're at 10% unemployment, and Obama celebrated 60k jobs created while ignoring the 300k+ jobs lost. There is a very big difference between the classroom and the real world. In classrooms, theory is everything, and what sounds good in a discussion is what's accepted.

In the real world, what works is what's important. And what's being pushed by the 'elite' isn't working.

(Or rather, it might be working exactly as designed, it's just that they haven't told us uneducated masses what the desired end-state is - which might be a situation where they're the permanent overclass, but what good is having an 'elite' if there isn't an underclass to be elite over?)

BTW, there may very soon be an educational bubble popping. Seems like higher education just isn't doing to the job.

The American Council of Alumni and Trustees concluded, after a survey of 714 colleges and universities, that, "by and large, higher education has abandoned a coherent content-rich general education curriculum."

Students are no longer taught the basics of literature, history, or science. ACTA reports that most schools don't require a foreign language, hardly any require economics, American history and government "are badly neglected," and schools "have much to do" on math and science.

ACTA's whatwilltheylearn.com website provides the grisly details for each school, together with the cost of tuition. Students and parents can see if they will get their money's worth.

Results matter. Theory is good - but results matter. And when the results don't match the theory, it's time to change.

BTW, looks like Obama's abo... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

BTW, looks like Obama's about to toss out another $50 billion.

But we dare not object lest we be tarred with the 'anti-intellectual' brush, right?

Sorry, Ryan, I think you're just backing a losing horse here, and no matter how much you try to persuade people he's a winner, the times just aren't matching your claim.

I didn't see any c... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:
I didn't see any conservative pundits predicting a Clinton reeelection the day after Election Day 1994.

Don't kid yourself. Obama has none of the political savvy of Bill Clinton, and I doubt that he has anyone the likes of Dick Morris around him.

Clinton was re-elected because of a combination of things: most importantly, he tacked right after the 1994 elections, and was the beneficiary of an improving economy by 1996. Remember "The era of big government is over"? Barry's handlers won't let him say anything anywhere close to that.

Plus, the Republicans ran the worst possible candidate--older Dole did not match up well against younger Clinton. Clinton still didn't get a majority of the votes--he won because of the Perot effect.

It's unlikely all these things will happen again.

@ Bruce in #12"I d... (Below threshold)
Sky Captain:

@ Bruce in #12

"I didn't see any conservative pundits predicting a Clinton reeelection the day after Election Day 1994. If you're old enough to remember that far back, did you?"

Yes, I am more than old enough. My first vote was in 1980.
And if you are old enough to remember, Clinton learned the lesson on 1994 and oriented himself towards the center. My point is, Obama cannot and will not do this, so I do not see him "winning big" in 2012 under any circumstances. Obama is more like Jimmy Carter in that respect. Much more like Homer Simpson, in that everything Obama's administration does is one big D'OH!".

And yes, I do see conservative commenters on Wizbang giving kudos to liberal commenters when they make a good point. Examples of responses to Tina S and James H come to mind.
But when you see the verbal excrement from the likes of Dane and (the late) Lee-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named, it makes it difficult to be positive towards liberals. They tend to "poison the brand" so to speak, much like the current Congressional leaders have done to the Democrat brand.

Well, that's one interpreta... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Well, that's one interpretation of the history of those two years, Mr Isdead. A perfectly valid interpretation. Another is that the voters realized what a bunch of nutjobs they had elected in 1994, and backed off a little after the Gingrich shut-down-the-government stunt backfired.

They certainly did in MY district, reelecting in '96 the same guy they had rejected in '94. He's still there today.

And it's my contention that, had it not been for Clinton's reckless personal behavior resulting in the Lewinsky scandal, we might have been spared the Bush years and instead had a prosperous and peaceful 8 years of a Gore administration. Barack Obama would still be a state legislator, or at most a US Senator.

Maybe, Captain, but Tina S,... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Maybe, Captain, but Tina S, while quite liberal, also gets a lot of venom. And James H, if I may so characterize him, is so "extremely moderate" as to hardly qualify as "liberal" at all.

And again, my interpretation of the history of 1994-1996 differs from yours.

And we see that Bruce Henry... (Below threshold)
Chip:

And we see that Bruce Henry proves the point again. Refusing to admit he is wrong about Wizbang commenters admitting when they are wrong. Pulling his own style of "Well, ya got a point there!" and raising us a "Maybe, but". Now he's moved the goal post by saying the people we admit our errors to aren't Liberal enough.

the moment you wrote "prosp... (Below threshold)
ke_future:

the moment you wrote "prosperous and peaceful 8 years of a Gore administration" you lost all credibility, bruce.

first off, the economy was already turning south before clinton left office. sure it wasn't a recession yet, but it was going south. and i've yet to see gore or anyone on the left actually have a good economic plan for a weak economy. as poof, all you have to do is look at the crap that's been going on since the democrats took the house in '06.

secondly, the attacks on the two towers were in the planning stages prior to bush being elected. militant islam, iraq, iran, and a whole host of bad players in the word weren't going to suddenly go away if gore was elected. and these are players that have proven again and again that they don't care about words. the worst that gore could have done to them was put them to sleep with a speech. no, the only way that the US could have had a peaceful gore administration is if he had brought turned completely isolationalist.

it always amuses me all the "reality based community" is really just living in a fantasy world

OK, Mr Future, change that ... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

OK, Mr Future, change that to, "We might have been spared the Bush years, and instead had 4-8 years of a Gore administration."

I was kinda pulling your collective chains, there, see.

Sarahcuda vs. Yoda ears... (Below threshold)
914:

Sarahcuda vs. Yoda ears


I like Her odds.

Hey Chip, I don't have the ... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Hey Chip, I don't have the time or inclination to dig through Wizbang's archives, and I don't like to revisit my own failures either, but there are many instances of MY admitting error on Wizbang, too, starting way back in '08.

Ask Messrs Tea, Mallow, and Ottomatic about that.

JLawson,This doesn... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

JLawson,

This doesn't happen often with you, but in this case you have completely missed my point. My argument is not that "liberal elites" have all the right ideas, and that conservatives should just agree with them. Not at all. In fact, I think there are all kinds of problems with the politicians we have on all sides. But "education" isn't what I would call THE problem.

My argument is that conservatives should avoid pursuing this path toward unbridled populism that shuns education and so-called intellectualism--including those within their own ranks.

Tea Party acolytes praise the founding fathers, yet rail on "educated elites" at the same time. This is both really ironic and unfortunate.

Sorry, but I think Palin's populism is a complete dead end. Her rhetoric sounds good to many people, feels great to them, but there's really not much behind it. If you're at all impressed with the words and ideas of people like Jefferson, Adams, Buchanan, Lincoln, then it makes sense to drop the nonsense about "intellectualism" that pervades so much of the rhetoric of people like Palin.

If conservatives really appreciate the ideals of the founding fathers, and are actually interested in finding candidates who can address the contemporary problems we face, then it makes sense to me to move away from the Palin/Beck platform and toward the strand of conservatism that doesn't shy away from the importance of education, scholarship, and well versed candidates. There are plenty of articulate, bright, well informed conservatives out there...and to me it's pretty shocking that so many people keep gravitating toward the hollow ideas of Palin. To me, it makes no sense.

Bruce, I am really enjoying... (Below threshold)
TexBob:

Bruce, I am really enjoying how the "Intellectual Elite" (who have never held a real job or run a business) have managed this country into the ground and are still digging.

These elitist academic snobs are why many refer the the PhD as "Piled Higher & Deeper".

Obama went to the best schools, but we are not allowed to see for ourselves how well he performed or even how he paid for his liberal socialist elitist education.

Those that can do. Those that can't teach, so we are going to send back all those who can't back to school in November.

Sorry, Ryan, I thi... (Below threshold)
ryan a:
Sorry, Ryan, I think you're just backing a losing horse here, and no matter how much you try to persuade people he's a winner, the times just aren't matching your claim.

Again, if you think my argument was in support of Obama, then you completely missed my point.

TexBob,Th... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

TexBob,

These elitist academic snobs are why many refer the the PhD as "Piled Higher & Deeper".

Just a question for you, Tex. The Founding Fathers like Jefferson and Adams were incredibly well educated. When it came to government, law, history, and philosophy, those guys were great thinkers and scholars. Would you call them "academic snobs" as well?

Just wondering.

The last time the conservat... (Below threshold)
geminichuck:

The last time the conservatives had such a strong poliitcal movement was during the Carter administration. That movement (which received it's fuel from a pathetic presidency) resulted in the Ronald Reagan victories. At that time, Reagan was painted by the media as just a dunderheaded b-grade movie actor. Deja Vu all over again?

Hey Bruce Henry, I... (Below threshold)
Chip:

Hey Bruce Henry,

I don't have to ask Messrs Tea, Mallow, and Ottomatic, I'm sure you have in the past admitted when you have might have been incorrect. I'm not concerned with those. I'm concerned with the here and now, but I love how you moved the goal post, it's just plain funny in my book. I've often admitted when I'm wrong and have no problems reliving my past failures it keeps me from making the same ones over and over.

Mr. Tea was, at the very least, prepared to bring up his past failures as painful as it might have been for him to do so. You, on the other hand, as elite as you on the left are, can't bother yourself with the time or the inclination.

Yes, Bruce keep telling yourself and others that this election cycle is just like 1994. It's different, very, very different. People, from all walks of life, are sick and tired of the way those in government have been behaving. It started with the spending in the Bush administration and it's continued to now. Those in power have turned a deaf ear to those they are supposed to serve. Many feel it's time they started listening. Laugh at the "uneducated" all you like, say of them, "Let them eat cake." Revolution has happened before and can happen again, except in the United States most of our revolutions that happen every 4 and 8 years are bloodless, but they mean basically the same thing.

Perhaps this time the message will get through to the Washington and East and West coast elites, but somehow I doubt it. That's what happens with too much education and upper crust living, you get a thick skull.

Chip, in Bruce's defense, i... (Below threshold)

Chip, in Bruce's defense, it's a hell of a lot easier for me to make that offer than it is for Bruce. Wizbang's search function covers postings, but not comments.

Also, as an editor, I can -- and do -- set the tone. So on at least three separate occasions, there were whole articles dedicated to me saying "whoops."

So, it's not really a fair comparison.

Bruce, however, is still a jerk.

J.

Ryan A, J... (Below threshold)
Chip:

Ryan A,

Just a question for you, Tex. The Founding Fathers like Jefferson and Adams were incredibly well educated. When it came to government, law, history, and philosophy, those guys were great thinkers and scholars. Would you call them "academic snobs" as well?

I realize that the question wasn't directed to me but I hope you won't mind if I put my 2 cents worth in.

My answer is yes they were snobs. The difference is that they were using their education, upbringing and experience to serve the interests of both common people and the upper crust as well. They were using their talents for liberty, justice, and fighting and risking their lives against a tyrannical government.

Now the elite and educated use their talents just as that tyrannical government of old. They want to live as nobles and force us to live as they wish us to. That is why the TEA party and those of us "uneducated" are relevant today. Place us on the fringe if you like. That's where our founding fathers were too, I like the company.

Jay Tea, Thank you... (Below threshold)
Chip:

Jay Tea,

Thank you for that explanation and defense of Bruce Henry. In that light, even though you moved the goalposts, Mr. Henry I take back my earlier criticism of you, and offer my apologies.

What might make for an inte... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

What might make for an interesting and perhaps even amusing read would be if Bruce Henry would be willing to cite a minimum of a half dozen valid and rational reasons as to why he would want to vote to reelect Barack Obama in 2012 ..., and rational is the buzz word there.

Here's where we separate the wheat from the chaff.

Well, Mr SPQR, I might NOT ... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Well, Mr SPQR, I might NOT want to vote for Obama in 2012, but I know I will be presented with a choice of two candidates, one of whom will most likely be Obama.

If the GOP nominates a candidate I can stomach at all, I'll consider him/her. I can't think of anyone right now that might fit the bill, and I admit I've never voted for a Republican for President. I do often say that if it had come to a McCain/Gore choice in 2000, I might have voted for McCain - but that was then, before McCain abandoned all principle and it became obvious what a whore he is.

So, no, I don't intend to offer "a half dozen reasons" why I'd vote to reelect Obama. I don't need them. We don't do elections in a vacuum. As everyone knows, we usually must choose the lesser of two evils. Typically I've found the Democratic candidate to be the lesser of two evils.

Think about it. Were you all excited to vote for McCain in 2008? If he had been elected, could you think of a bunch of reasons to reelect him beyond, "Well, he's better than the Democrat?"

There are the dimwits on ou... (Below threshold)
Stan:

There are the dimwits on our side of the aisle that think the Tea Party is a fringe group too. Lindsay Gramesty for one. He has been fighting with the Tea Party, every since they were formed. He does this, because he fears that they will go after him to boot vote him out of his cushy job as a United States Senator. He is also afraid that he will have to get a job in the real world and have to pay taxes for the first time in his adult life.

You're dancing, ducking, bo... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

You're dancing, ducking, bobbing and weaving again.

You're too funny, Henry. You're so predictable.

Sarah-If you intend to run,... (Below threshold)
David Spence:

Sarah-If you intend to run, please wait to announce it after the November "blood-letting."
We don't need to change this dynamic by letting the argument become about Sarah, giving the left a foothold on which to make this about 2012, not 2010.

Chip,Thanks for th... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Chip,

Thanks for the reply.

"My answer is yes they were snobs. The difference is that they were using their education, upbringing and experience to serve the interests of both common people and the upper crust as well. They were using their talents for liberty, justice, and fighting and risking their lives against a tyrannical government."

So do you think that there are any academics or scholars who actually care about using their education to serve the wider public? Do you think there are any academics who use their talents in the name of liberty and justice? Do you view all academics as elites who seek to control our lives? Do you see any redeeming qualities in higher education?

It's disconcerting to hear ... (Below threshold)
braininahat:

It's disconcerting to hear people here, on the right, say Palin needs to learn this and that still. The image is out there (who put it there?) that she's not up to snuff on things. Yes, the way she talks and her selection (or creation) of words probably bothers the educated in all of us. We wished she were more refined, spoke like Condoleeza Rice, so she would be more politically marketable and not be subject to the attacks she now suffers from. Yet we all credit her with the right attitude, the right moral fiber, and we know has made the right calls while serving as governor. People say she has great political instincts without giving her credit for being smart. None of us could have done what she did for Alaska -- none of you Mensa members included. Chris Christy, a demigod, couldn't have done it. I would rather have her as my president than anyone living today. She embodies the Tea Party movement better than anyone because the Tea Party movement is the closest thing we have to the real America, the America of old.

Look at her accomplishments in office. I don't care if she says 'refudiate'. I don't care that she sometimes sounds like a bumpkin. I know that she makes the right decisions as a leader and has integrity up the wazoo. That just is how you measure smarts for politicians. When those aren't the standards, then you have high opinions of the intellect of people like Barack Obama. You are wrong to do so.

ryan a, is students in adac... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

ryan a, is students in adacamia received the kind of unbiased, nuts and bolts continuing education that was indeed around at the time of this country's founding I would also join your bandwagon. Why you still are pushing this is because acadamia has become a purposeful breeding ground for liberal thought.

Bruce Henry, I heard a talking head say the exact same words you did about another government shut down. Obviously you got your papers. But this time, it isn't 1994 with very limited ways of getting the whole story out about the cause of the shut down. It won't work for the dems this time.

No matter who runs on the republican side has no bearing. Obama has proved himself incompetent enough to push any candidate forward to winning. The guy is clueless, as apparently his followers. ww

ryan a, "So do you... (Below threshold)
Chip:

ryan a,

"So do you think that there are any academics or scholars who actually care about using their education to serve the wider public? Do you think there are any academics who use their talents in the name of liberty and justice?"

I'm sure there are those scholars that do have great ideals and want very much to serve their fellow man with honor and respect and distinction. The problem is when they get to the "Emerald City" that is our Capital, certain elements get in the way of those great ideals. Money and corruption are the oil and fuel that make politics and politicians run as terribly and noisily as is the current state. Every election cycle we hear the same promises, corruption and special interest will not be involved in (pick your party) administration, but what always happens?

"Do you view all academics as elites who seek to control our lives?"

Simply, No I don't, but to place academia above other factors is stupid. To place little value on a person's upbringing, experience, and wisdom and only concentrate of the ability of a person to be eloquent, articulate and intelligent? Really, how intelligent is that?

"Do you see any redeeming qualities in higher education?"

I see education, coupled with experience in service of man, experience in life general, and a humble attitude, respect for others to be very redeeming. Unfortunately, the man and current administration seem to lack many of those qualities and are only relying on their Ivy League education and blue blood, it's all for show really.

You might say that may of us who are un-educated can spot the phony compassion for their fellow man and know an elitist blue-blood noble con artist when we see one.

I think Willie here is just... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

I think Willie here is just as qualified as Palin. Expresses himself about as well. Just about as smart. Nominate him. Got about the same chance.

Mr SPQR, I don't follow how my answer qualifies as bobbing and weaving. Is there, or is there not, a choice of two candidates in EVERY presidential election? I will vote for the candidate I think will do the most good for (or at least the least harm to) the country.

Simple as that. It's why I voted for Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dukakis, Mondale and Carter. I haven't voted FOR a candidate since George McGovern, and to be honest, I'm not sure how much of THAT vote wasn't just anti-Nixon. Excuse the double negatives, please.

If you wanna argue with a rabid Obamabot, you got the wrong guy.

Chip,Excellent poi... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Chip,

Excellent points, all the way through. I absolutely agree with your assessments and critiques. Including your critiques of Obama, who is certainly as well versed in political theater as anyone. Very well stated.

I think that when comparing... (Below threshold)
Deke:

I think that when comparing the classical education of our founders with the acedemic "elite" of today, whether Liberal or Conservative, one must remember that our founders, unlike modern acedemics, were members of the "real" world; they were def., not theorists with no real world experience.

Most were farmers, planters, merchants, tradesmen and lawyers, the majority of whom did not make a living from the practice of law. The thing they all shared is the understanding that for a society to succeed the drive of the individual should not be choked by a large, distant, out of touch, central authority.

Most of our modern intellectuals, again whether Liberal or Conservative, come from generational wealth and deal in theory and the abstract. They go to the right schools, have the correct connections, live in major urban areas and come across as condescending and snide.

Our last non Ivy-League educated president, one Ronald Reagan, understood the need to connect with the working class guy in fly-over country and was very effective at doing so. Even Clinton, who was not born to wealth, educated by the elite as he was, had a greater ability to connect than the common crop of political leaders. People like Palin are popular simply because of their ability to identify with the problems and concerns of middle-class America. I really feel that our Founders would have more in common with a 5 yr, 4 school, "simpleton" than they would with the theoretical drivel coming from our intelligensia today.

Most of our modern... (Below threshold)
ryan a:
Most of our modern intellectuals, again whether Liberal or Conservative, come from generational wealth and deal in theory and the abstract. They go to the right schools, have the correct connections, live in major urban areas and come across as condescending and snide.

This is a serious over-generalization about "modern intellectuals." And this is exactly the kind of thing that gets us into these polemic rhetorical traps about "intellectual elites." To pretend that all US academics somehow live this elite existence is to fundamentally disregard reality.

MOST of our scholars and intellectuals are part of the run of the mill colleges and schools around the country that are nowhere near as prestigious as Harvard or Yale. Sorry, but you're way off here.

Dang, BruceYou are... (Below threshold)
Greg:

Dang, Bruce

You are right for once!

Willie is a smart guy.

I've been reading his comments fopr a few years now, and he is consistent, concise, and his true beliefs show.

I wish I could write as well as Jay, but it won't happen. WW seems to express himself as well as anybody. Especially you.

Oh, you think you are smarter than Sarah Palin. THAT shows us how smart you are!

Small "B" for bruce from now on.

2012 I'd like to see co... (Below threshold)
MF:

2012 I'd like to see conservative governors or business men/women run (versus lawyers or senators) for the Presidency with the values of getting back to the intentions of the Constitution.

Liberal & Republican Snobs ... (Below threshold)
Jack:

Liberal & Republican Snobs - Can't have THAT Women from Alaska in the White House. She dosen't speak correctly - she hunts, she has five children - Stay at home woman and take care of your children. You can help with the fundraising though, but the men will take over when you have electrified and jump started the base. Thats your job Women , then sit down and shut up. Elites Rule aka snobs ...

See You in the White House Sarah!!!

Wow! Greg I am humbled. I o... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Wow! Greg I am humbled. I of course will not run, but it is my right as a citizen of this country to run, even though Bruce and his team think you have to pass a litmis test to run.

No matter how much denial Bruce wants to live in, Palin possessed more experience then Obama and she was running for the second spot. Of course, now we see what inexperience brings us. An embarrassment to our country. It is just like a business, when you hire someone, you want experience for what the needs. Bruce and his team didn't care then. They do now, all of a sudden. The left brought this on themselves. Obama is truely and empty suit. Nothing there. We knew that, now the independents and america knows that. Only the left are holding out. Right Bruce? ww

Ryan -I have absol... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Ryan -

I have absolutely nothing against education. But I'm looking at the hard sciences - engineering, math, biology and such - with respect, while the fuzzier stuff I'm not so sure about. "Womyn's Studies", ethnic-oriented studies, all sorts of programs that are designed to provide a degree in something in return for a lot of money paid out - and whether that degree will do the posessor one bit of good is another matter.

What I have is a problem with is an intellectual elite that is a self-styled elite simply because of the education they've received - not because of any actual accomplishments they have. (In fact, from my experience on the fringes of non-hard science academia, the concept of actually accomplishing anything solid is... icky. You MIGHT get accepted as an architect, as long as you never actually MADE anything.)

Education is not the problem, I agree. We'd be in damn lousy shape if it weren't for our system of colleges and universities... but there comes a point where you've got to wonder whether what's coming out is worth the money going in.

Had a girlfriend one time who was going for a PhD in Theology and Personality. She was willing to spend a couple of years and roughly $50k for a degree that would enable her to MAYBE get a teaching position at a college for $30k. And she could never explain to me the utility of that course of study in the real world.

We didn't last... just too much difference.

Besides, if you want a culture that completely avoids education, all you need to do is look at black urban culture. There you'll find learning isn't being authentically black - and you'll see the results in the demographics.

Re what you wrote...

Sorry, but I think Palin's populism is a complete dead end. Her rhetoric sounds good to many people, feels great to them, but there's really not much behind it.
As opposed to Obama's ideas? Hope and Change! Change and Hope! I'll promise you anything if you vote for me!
I was looking at Obama's record - it's easy to deride Palin's accomplishments as long as you don't match them to Obama's.
If you're at all impressed with the words and ideas of people like Jefferson, Adams, Buchanan, Lincoln, then it makes sense to drop the nonsense about "intellectualism" that pervades so much of the rhetoric of people like Palin.
You know, it's kind of funny - I read Obama's bios, and Palin's bio. There's no comparison between the two - Obama comes off as a two-bit shill trying to inflate his image. Palin doesn't.

And there's an 'intellectualism' that's very pervasive on the left, in my opinion, that doesn't let you admit that you've made a mistake. That you DON'T know everything, that you AREN'T capable of doing the job. Obama's stuck in that.

If conservatives really appreciate the ideals of the founding fathers, and are actually interested in finding candidates who can address the contemporary problems we face, then it makes sense to me to move away from the Palin/Beck platform and toward the strand of conservatism that doesn't shy away from the importance of education, scholarship, and well versed candidates.
You know, I'm just not seeing where you get this idea that conservatives hate education and scholarship. Heck, if we did I'd be able to save a significant amount by putting the little guy in public school. Could it be that we're in a 49th ranked state, and where we are zoned for had a 30th percentile ranked school? I hate to say it, but maybe you need to re-examine some of your assumptions about 'conservatives being anti-intellectual' and anti-education.
There are plenty of articulate, bright, well informed conservatives out there...and to me it's pretty shocking that so many people keep gravitating toward the hollow ideas of Palin. To me, it makes no sense.
You think they're hollow? I'd say the promises and ideas of Obama have proven as hollow as a $1 chocolate bunny from the drugstore at Easter. It may well be that your preconceptions of Palin keep you from assessing the actual worth of her ideas.

I think you're right, though - politicians from both sides have been troublesome. It's time to start paying a lot more attention to them.

We are in a historical cros... (Below threshold)
Carmelo Junior:

We are in a historical crossroad. A young woman might be on the verge to become the most powerful woman in history. The historic momentum in on her side. Her common sense conservatism might catapult her to the zenit of American history.

Gone are the days when political elites ran this nation. Now, a new generation of well spoken individuals led by Sarah Palin are on their way to take back America. For God and for Country. Let it be!

A big time Japanese Auto ma... (Below threshold)
Raymond:

A big time Japanese Auto maker loves Sarah Palin and will support her financially if she intends to run. How do I know this fact?? I work with them, that's why... Lastly, read Ford's analysis about Palin, that she is a very formidable force to beat Obama. Sarah Palin's tough job is winning the GOP nominee. If surpasses this, she will win the general election against Obama. The rest GOP nominees like Paul, Mitt and Huck will suffer defeat from Obama. This the main reason why The left and the democrats are so fearful of Palin.

What is known my the politi... (Below threshold)
Carmelo Junior:

What is known my the political elites and by the political left, that a historic presidential nomination is on its way. A young mayor and governor, a young mother and grandmother, a hunter by occupation and a leader by profession. The woman destined to lead this nation of God to its fianal destiny.
God bless Sarah Palin and may the Almighty guide her by the roads of Justice and Freedom.

Anybody know why my previou... (Below threshold)
Sapwolf:

Anybody know why my previous post was taken down?

Or, does this sight have some kind of restrictions I'm not aware of?

Not a troll, but merely pointed out that Palin only needs to win the GOP Primary and that she walks conservatism even if she is not an intellectual giant like say Buckley or Kirk. The general election will be certainly winnable by any GOP contender given the country is not interested in the larger government power pushed by Obama/Reid/Pelosi.

Is this site devoted to another GOP candidate? If so, I can move on. No hard feelings.

Jay Tea,You need t... (Below threshold)
Sapwolf:

Jay Tea,

You need to get out and about.

At my GOP Precinct Training Class, the woman leading it asked how many of us were there because of the Cincinnati Tea Party.

Over 3/4's of the people raised their hands.

The GOP in 2010 would be near zero without the efforts of the Tea Party to get feet on the ground, energy, and to help reform the party internally.

Sapwolf, I dunno what happe... (Below threshold)

Sapwolf, I dunno what happened to your first comment. It shouldn't have vanished, and I'm looking into it right now. If I can, I'll put it back up.

That being said... I stand by what I said: the Tea Party IS a fringe element. It's not part and parcel of what is currently the mainstream of the Republican party.

But as someone wiser than I said, what they seem to be doing is an attempted hostile takeover of the GOP. And I think that would do both a world of good.

To me, sap, "fringe" does not mean "crazy" or "bad. "It just means "not part of the mainstream." I'd wear it as a badge of honor.

J.

Sapwolf, I think you're ref... (Below threshold)

Sapwolf, I think you're referring to your comment about "conservative leaders vs. conservative intellectuals." It wasn't deleted; it is on the "Brains!" thread.

J.

JLawson,"I hate to... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

JLawson,

"I hate to say it, but maybe you need to re-examine some of your assumptions about 'conservatives being anti-intellectual' and anti-education."

Don't misread me. I'm actually arguing the opposite of what you think--there are tons of conservatives who are very well educated, and who see value in education. What I am talking about is Sarah Palin's rhetoric. I don't think that conservatives are anti-intellectual at all...but I do think that Palin pushes a definite anti-intellectual kind of populism. To me, this doesn't add up. It seems like she would alienate a lot of conservative voters.

"As opposed to Obama's ideas? Hope and Change! Change and Hope! I'll promise you anything if you vote for me!"

Look, just to make things nice and clear, I am well aware of the discord between promises and results with the current admin. Just so you know.

"You think they're hollow? I'd say the promises and ideas of Obama have proven as hollow as a $1 chocolate bunny from the drugstore at Easter. It may well be that your preconceptions of Palin keep you from assessing the actual worth of her ideas."

I won't argue with you about Obama's campaign promises. But that doesn't affect my assessment about Palin. I have taken the time to read her ideas, seen plenty of her speeches, and even read through her books and websites. Sorry, I'm not impressed. If you have some amazing political treatise she wrote that I haven't seen, please send it my way.

"I think you're right, though - politicians from both sides have been troublesome. It's time to start paying a lot more attention to them."

Now THERE is a point where we agree. Especially the part about the need to start paying more attention to these folks. Damn right.

Amen, Ryan. And f... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Amen, Ryan.

And for some reason, I don't think they like the attention!

Well, we can agree to disagree re Palin. The best mind is useless if it can't get a message out. I've liked a lot of what I've seen from folks like Victor Davis Hansen and Krauthammer - but they're also smart enough to stay out of the political blender and don't want to run for office. It takes a certain personality to want to get into politics in the first place, much less climb to a point where you can be President.

We'll see just what/who makes it to the top for 2012. Do you think Obama's going to run again, or find some excuse to bow out?

JLawson,"It takes ... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

JLawson,

"It takes a certain personality to want to get into politics in the first place, much less climb to a point where you can be President."

You know, considering all the scrutiny and criticism, anyone who actually runs for president has to be partially insane these days. Especially with the constant media coverage and obsession with finding any and all faults. It's madness, and it's no surprise that every president looks thrashed by the end of their term.

"We'll see just what/who makes it to the top for 2012. Do you think Obama's going to run again, or find some excuse to bow out?"

You know, sometimes I think Obama looks like a one-term president. He seems pretty rattled these days. I think Obama's whole political future relies on the economy. And things aren't looking too good. Still, I have no idea who the Dems would put up in his place that isn't a complete fool. At least we never have to hear about Edwards again. I'm hoping the Dems avoid Hillary at all costs.

Is it too much to ask for a candidate that actually finds a way to quell the tension between liberals and conservatives? If we need anything to get ourselves out of the current situation, that's what we need, IMO. I could care less what party they come from. This partisan crap has gotten way out of hand.

The 2012 election will see ... (Below threshold)

The 2012 election will see President-Elect Palin swept into office. During her eight years will, by the power of her leadership, President Palin will prepare the ground, lay the foundations for and begin the reconstruction of our republic. After which -- and for the years 2021 through 2029 -- President-Elect Chris Christie will continue the Good Work!

"Is it too much to ask f... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

"Is it too much to ask for a candidate that actually finds a way to quell the tension between liberals and conservatives? If we need anything to get ourselves out of the current situation, that's what we need, IMO. I could care less what party they come from. This partisan crap has gotten way out of hand."

Or not gone far enough, depending on who you ask - but that's like one hand demanding the body cut off the other one. There's no good to come of it. Hyperpartisan bullshit doesn't do anything good for the country - it's a lot like rooting for your own team to win, that's ALL that matters. Lie, cheat? Hell yeah, if it pulls out a win!

But politics isn't sport, and the ramifications are much more important and longer-lasting than stats in a record book for a Sunday game.

"You know, sometimes I think Obama looks like a one-term president. He seems pretty rattled these days. I think Obama's whole political future relies on the economy. And things aren't looking too good. Still, I have no idea who the Dems would put up in his place that isn't a complete fool. At least we never have to hear about Edwards again. I'm hoping the Dems avoid Hillary at all costs."

There's a remarkable lack of vision on the left. As far as who they could field as an Obama replacement... Biden? No. Pelosi? (Shudder) Hell, no. Reid? No. Hillary? I... don't think she'd be willing to put up with the crap a second time. She got burned by the Dems once for a charismatic blank slate - it'd be pretty surprising if she went back for a second helping, and kind of worrying too.

Obama does look rattled. I think he knows he's out of his depth here, and sinking fast. What looked to be an easy job (because that's ALL he's ever had) is proving to be much more than he can reasonably handle - and his ego won't let him backtrack on bad decisions OR hire competent help. (IE folks with real-world experience instead of academics who are wedded to their theories to the exclusion of reality.)

He saw all the perqs of being Prez, and none of the responsibilities. It's a gilded cage, to be sure, with all sorts of goodies inherent to the position, but it's still a cage and he's still got two more years until he can get out of it.

I feel sorry for the poor sap.

"But politics isn't sport, ... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

"But politics isn't sport, and the ramifications are much more important and longer-lasting than stats in a record book for a Sunday game."

Exactly. And I think we have been dealing with the ramifications for quite some time now. When Bush was president, the left became so polemic that everyone to the right of Joe Lieberman was a totalitarian pro war fascist who wanted to conquer the entire planet. Now, with Obama as president, everyone to the left of Colin Powell is a supposed socialist who wants to implement a stalinist totalitarian state. Hell, maybe some people think that Powell is a marxist too.

Meanwhile, the same old bullshit persists while the population fights about left/right issues. Our economy is shot and our government is basically useless in helping out. The different sides of congress won't even consider trying to actually solve problems across the aisle. And to me a lot of this stems from all of this hyper-partisanship, and I really do think we're paying for it pretty substantially. It's a heavy toll when each side only serves their own base, and continually calls the "other side" the enemy.

Last time I checked, we're all Americans.

Partisan politics will heal... (Below threshold)
Olsoljer:

Partisan politics will heal when the elected officials realize they are in office to serve the American people, not their inflated sense of ego and power/political/monetary ambitions. THAT will happen when we elect a real leader who adheres to the Constitution we begin to rid ourselves of the entrenched pigs currently feeding from the trough, and begin doing the RIGHT things not the politically correct things.
It is long past time for us to rebuild, to go into a modified isolationist policy bringing back our industries, business and manufacturing to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. We need to take care of US first and quit worrying about "saving" the rest of the world.

Jay Tea,The... (Below threshold)
Sapwolf:


Jay Tea,

The Tea Party Movement is not fringe anymore.

Here in Ohio in Hamilton County, The Cincinnati Tea Party and other area Tea Party groups are very vibrant and have rejuvenated the GOP.

Ohio has many great tea party groups and they are leading the effort to reform the GOP. They have already captured 8+ of the State Central Committee spots out of 66 and within about 4 more election cycles will probably have the majority to hold the GOP to a limited government, fiscal conservative, and free-market capitalism principles.

However, there are pockets of the country where it is not as vibrant.

It's not fringe anymore. Our county head of the GOP has worked with the Tea Party Movement here quite well although the state leadership will have to be changed.

3/4 of my Precinct Executives in my PE training were there due to the Cincinnati Tea Party. Many PE spots have been filled by Tea Partiers.

This is a permanent movement and the Dems can't attack it because it is a truncated pyramid with no leader at the top. It cannot be easily 'Alinsky'ed'.

Thanks for the heads up that my other post is on the other thread and see you in DC on 9/12.

Ryan A,You ... (Below threshold)
Sapwolf:


Ryan A,

You need to study Palin more.

Sarah is not against intellectualism. She is against leftism and statism.

One of her favorite intellectuals is Thomas Sowell of the Hoover Institution. Heck, I handed her Russell Kirk's book "The Conservative Mind" and we joked that if she was seen with it it would give George Will a 'thrill up his leg'.

You can be intellectual and still have common sense and search for truth. What Sarah fights is the idea that because you are of what is referred to as the 'elite' that you have a right to be an 'elitist'.

I'm from the SF Bay Area and there are so many people there who are quite educated in their specialty, but very arrogant even when they betray their idiocy outside of their specialty.

By the way, the average education level of the average Tea Party member is higher than the average American.

It's not anti-intellectual but pro-Constitution. Just read "The 5,000 Year Leap" to get an idea of some of the principles it stands for.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy