Maybe there’s some of that, but I think the anti-intellectualist stripe runs a lot deeper than you think. And I don’t think it has anything at all to do with humility. W passes the beer test handily, at least in middle America, but hasn’t shown so much as an ounce of humility.

Ignorance is not a virtue. We need informed, serious people who have studied the issues, formed opinions, and made those opinions public so that their opinions/positions can be judged. If judged well, then those folks are elected to office and given the opportunity to implement the changes they have espoused.

As an aside, a Fox commenter actually stated that Palin must have foreign policy experience because Alaska is in close proximity to Russia. This is true. I’ll go on record stating that living in Alaska does not, in and of itself, provide anyone with foreign policy experience.

It’s not just about the attitude, but also about the policies. And Palin is pretty much party-line GOP, meaning new face, same failed policies.

The beauty pageants comment wouldn’t bug me if it wasn’t for the fact they are coming from the holier-than-thou left that screams sexism and oppression any time someone on the right makes any type of comment like that.

I understood your comparison. But part of what Obama is pushing is the fresh new attitude that hasn’t been corrupted by the old boys network in Washington. Seems Palin will make that a tougher sell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKkydrUnBZE&eurl=http://dailykos.com/

pulled this from Kos…

Well, we could talk about the bridge I guess. She’s a big “cut the waste” crusader. Except she was in favor of the bridge when it was going to be paid for by the Feds. It was only when the federal money went away that she flipped on the bridge and decided to not support it.

But hey, you guys are all about minimizing risk, saying Obama is too risky. If this VP choice does not give you pause for concern, then I guess all must be OK. (Or else your position has changed 180 degrees due to the situation at hand.)

Of course no president can ever know everything they need to know to do the job properly. That’s what good advisers are for. But does that excuse not being intelligent at all, or not knowing anything at all about what the job requires? I certainly don’t think so.

Beyond that, when you bring up the “good” part, that’s supposed to cover improper convictions.

As for intelligence… No one is smart enough to answer every question the presidency brings up. I wouldn’t want Mensa trying the Presidency without advisers, nevermind the sort of people who actually go for the seat. That’s what the entire friggen executive branch of the federal government (and part of the legislative) is there for.

Intellect has not, in the past, been a great marker for success. Jimmy Carter, Adlai Stevenson, Lyndon Johnson, Nixon, Ford, they were all considered fairly intelligent… but they made some stupidly large mistakes. This worship of elitist intellectualism is almost a new pseudo-religion on the level of transhumanism, and potentially as dangerous when used for the wrong ends. It’s not that intelligence is bad, but the assumption that it makes up for poor judgment or makes a good leader on its own is.

I’m no genius, but I score fairly well on meters of intelligence. That doesn’t make me any good in a leadership position, and the President of the United States — like the President of any organization — is a leadership position. There’s an intellectual requirement, in ability to make decisions when presented with the information and to know who is and isn’t trust-worthy on a subject, but the ability to make decisions and the ability to deal with people are much, much more valuable.

And, again, there’s a difference between “not being interested in” and “not focusing on”.