I am embarrassed by the continuing 15 minutes of fame the conservative movement has afforded Joe the Plumber. It's the worst type of anti-intellectual populism.
Speaking of which, conservatives need to realize something about Sarah Palin. I understand their infatuation with her. However, during the 2008 election she was woefully ignorant of basic facts that I expect an educated, involved citizen to know off-hand, forget somebody who would be next in line to the presidency of the oldest president ever sworn for his first term.
Yes, the media portrayed her as stupid, which she almost certainly isn't. But she actually didn't know stuff that she should have. For example, she couldn't say which newspapers she reads or name a supreme court case with which she disagreed. I can answer those questions easily. Furthermore, her answers in the debate left huge doubts in my mind. If she decides to run again the first thing she will have to do to get me to take her at all seriously is prove that she knows the equivalent of an educated, involved citizen. It ain't a terribly high bar. It wasn't simply a media conspiracy.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Mmm, not arguing in general (I like the woman, but I'm not at all sure I want to see her as President), but the Supreme Court question I think is really loaded. Whatever she says, she unleashes a firestorm of criticism from someone. And she was specifically excluded from answering Roe v. Wade by the question, IIRC. To be honest, on the Supreme Court decision, I think she had an answer (Exxon v. Baker, on which Palin has expressed negative opinions in the past) and didn't feel like playing ball.
And, also to be honest, FLG, I think we're going to differ on what a well-educated citizen should know here. If I were asked to name a Supreme Court decision I disagreed with besides Roe, I'd be hard put to give the official name of a recent one - I'd end up saying something like, "that NH property decision," thus unleashing even more accusations of stupid. And the decisions I do know by name - Brown v. Board of Education, Gideon v. Wainwright - it would be suicidal politically to disagree with. And "Dred Scott" is much too old to be a viable answer.
Similarly on newspapers, actually. Someone will find something to criticize whatever she says. I agree with the general point that she wasn't ready, but to "prove" your point you're using "gotcha" questions that are never asked of say, hopeful African-American politicians from Chicago. Who no doubt would have been much better at finessing the answer if he didn't know or didn't want to answer. I'd much rather vote for a Presidential candidate who is not good at finesse. As I did.
"that NH property decision" would've been entirely acceptable to me. But I think you mean CT property decision in Kelo v. City of New London. An attack on the particulars of the case being in one New England state or another wouldn't have swayed me. Nor would not knowing that it was Kelo. However, what I can only assume is inability to answer, rather than refusal to do so, was a huge strike against her. For the record, I would've said Plessy V. Fergueson.
On the newspapers she should have said I read the Anchorage Gazette, or whatever it's called, [insert your choice of conservative papers here] and the NY Times and the Washington Post because I like to be as informed as possible. It's a standard bullshit politician speak.
As regards gotchas, if she couldn't handle a hack like Couric, then how the heck is she going to handle Putin or some other world leader?
Post a Comment