A Blasphemous Question
26/11/10 15:33Is electing a "Smart" politician overrated?
Dumb question right? Of course we want our leaders to be smart, the more they're a "Magnificent Bastard" the better.
An internet aquaintance of mine posted this thought in his blog, and while it intitially sounds ludercrous, I think he makes a good case.
Smart is as smart does, and you don't have to be particularly smart to be a good politician.
People roll thier eyes and laugh about Sarah Palin being able to see Russia from her house, yet take Nancy Pelosi seriously whe she says "we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it".
Both of these comments are objectively stupid but only one demonstrates either (A) a critical failure in understanding how our government works or (B) a belief that all voters are morons.
Clearly they are both equally qualified ;)
Edit:
The full Pelosi quote was actually "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."
wich is what I get forposting trolling while drunk and not doing my research.
Still aside from coming accross as condesending it demonstrates a logic failure in that not knowing what effects a law will have is a good reason not to pass it. Aside from that, as a Senetor/Congress-person reading and understanding the bills put forth is basically your job. If you're not going to do your job why should we care how smart you are?
Also maybe there should be a rule that bills can not be over 30 pages. If your plan can't be explained in less it's probably a bad Idea any way.
Dumb question right? Of course we want our leaders to be smart, the more they're a "Magnificent Bastard" the better.
An internet aquaintance of mine posted this thought in his blog, and while it intitially sounds ludercrous, I think he makes a good case.
Smart is as smart does, and you don't have to be particularly smart to be a good politician.
People roll thier eyes and laugh about Sarah Palin being able to see Russia from her house, yet take Nancy Pelosi seriously whe she says "we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it".
Both of these comments are objectively stupid but only one demonstrates either (A) a critical failure in understanding how our government works or (B) a belief that all voters are morons.
Clearly they are both equally qualified ;)
Edit:
The full Pelosi quote was actually "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."
wich is what I get for
Still aside from coming accross as condesending it demonstrates a logic failure in that not knowing what effects a law will have is a good reason not to pass it. Aside from that, as a Senetor/Congress-person reading and understanding the bills put forth is basically your job. If you're not going to do your job why should we care how smart you are?
Also maybe there should be a rule that bills can not be over 30 pages. If your plan can't be explained in less it's probably a bad Idea any way.
(no subject)
Date: 26/11/10 23:42 (UTC)Palin's statement betrayed a lack of depth as a person and a willingness to say completely absurd things in order to score what she felt were political points. She obviously knows she cannot see Russia from her house, especially since she lives far from the western part of Alaska and even someone there would probably have a hard time seeing mainland Russia from their house. She was trying to dodge a question about her foreign policy experience and she tripped over her brain (what there is of it).
I have no way to know if Palin honestly thought the viewers would be satisfied with her answer, or if she was just too stupid to come up with a better one, but if the first is true it does indeed show "a belief that all voters are morons." Pelosi was simply pointing out a truth about the way Congress works, nobody expects to read every bill from front to back and by claiming otherwise the Republicans were just trying to score political points and bring the whole process to a screeching halt (it would have taken months for every member of Congress to read the entire bill).
(no subject)
Date: 27/11/10 00:07 (UTC)Whew...it's a good thing you did so much research on the topic and missed the glaringly obvious issue of how Tina Fey said it and not Palin.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:Some obsession.
From:Re: Some obsession.
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 27/11/10 01:47 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 27/11/10 01:53 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 28/11/10 10:13 (UTC)Nope, and even if they did, how would a non-specialist be any competent to vote on a specific legislation that they just dont understand?
In most cases, yes. They dont need to read it since they already know what vote they're required to cast on the matter. The entire system is fucked up.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 26/11/10 23:46 (UTC)Philosopher kings, ftw.
Be careful what you wish for:
Date: 27/11/10 01:54 (UTC)Re: Be careful what you wish for:
From:Re: Be careful what you wish for:
From:Re: Be careful what you wish for:
From:Re: Be careful what you wish for:
From:Re: Be careful what you wish for:
From:Re: Be careful what you wish for:
From:Re: Be careful what you wish for:
From:Re: Be careful what you wish for:
From:Re: Be careful what you wish for:
From:Re: Be careful what you wish for:
From:Re: Be careful what you wish for:
From:Re: Be careful what you wish for:
From:Re: Be careful what you wish for:
From:Re: Be careful what you wish for:
From:Re: Be careful what you wish for:
From:Re: Be careful what you wish for:
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:Re: Be careful what you wish for:
From:Re: Be careful what you wish for:
From:Re: Be careful what you wish for:
From:Re: Be careful what you wish for:
From:Re: Be careful what you wish for:
From:...
From:Re: Be careful what you wish for:
From:Re: Be careful what you wish for:
From:Re: Be careful what you wish for:
From:Re: Be careful what you wish for:
From:Re: Be careful what you wish for:
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:Re: Be careful what you wish for:
From:Re: Be careful what you wish for:
From:Re: Be careful what you wish for:
From:Re: Be careful what you wish for:
From:...
From:...
From:Re: Be careful what you wish for:
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:Re: Be careful what you wish for:
From:Re: Be careful what you wish for:
From:Re: Be careful what you wish for:
From:Re: Be careful what you wish for:
From:Re: Be careful what you wish for:
From:...
From:...
From:Re: Be careful what you wish for:
From:Re: Be careful what you wish for:
From:Re: Be careful what you wish for:
From:Re: Be careful what you wish for:
From:Re: Be careful what you wish for:
From:Re: Be careful what you wish for:
From:Re: Be careful what you wish for:
From:Re: Be careful what you wish for:
From:(no subject)
Date: 26/11/10 23:51 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 27/11/10 00:03 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 26/11/10 23:54 (UTC)As in, once the bill is passed, you'll see all the bullshit Republicans were raving about during its formation and passage (death panels, &al.) were just lies and/or hysteria.
I'm giving you F- on your report but a 5/10 on the troll scale. You'd get a 10 but I'm not sure your misquote is intentional.
(no subject)
Date: 26/11/10 23:58 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 27/11/10 00:30 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 27/11/10 00:30 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 27/11/10 01:00 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 27/11/10 01:42 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 27/11/10 01:17 (UTC)On the other hand... smart politicians tend to do that anyway. They also have a tendancy to twist themselves into knots trying to simplify difficult issues into media-friendly sound bites, or trying to appear more "normal" to win public approval. That drives me nuts. If I really wanted "normal" to be elected, I'd vote for mediocrity rather then the smart guy attempting to be mediocre.
See: Michael Ignatieff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ignatieff).
(My favorite The West Wing moment was probably the episode where they spend the whole thing trying to make Bartlett more "folksy", but no matter what they do he's always seen as arrogant. Then they realize that no matter what he'll be seen as arrogant... so he can actually ACT arrogant without being hurt by it. I know that's not reality, but I sure wish it was.)
(no subject)
Date: 27/11/10 01:50 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 27/11/10 04:03 (UTC)I know people with PhDs who literally can't tie their shoes without falling over. They shouldn't be anywhere near political office. I also know people who never went to college who would make fine politicians.
(no subject)
Date: 27/11/10 04:21 (UTC)No. So long as they are also wise, just, and Constitutionally minded. Unfortunately, most politicians- smart or dumb- are already compromised well before actually being elected.
(no subject)
Date: 27/11/10 09:23 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/11/10 03:19 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 27/11/10 10:26 (UTC)meet the Diomede Islands.
http://www.slate.com/id/2200155/
(no subject)
Date: 27/11/10 14:54 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 27/11/10 10:28 (UTC)Meet the United States of America, now with 57 states.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws
Really. If we're to REALLY discuss Palin's intellect, we better focus on some more serious stuff, like, say, her stances on particular policies.
(no subject)
Date: 27/11/10 10:51 (UTC)(no subject)
From:Idiocracy?
Date: 27/11/10 10:34 (UTC)Re: Idiocracy?
Date: 27/11/10 17:32 (UTC)Re: Idiocracy?
From:Re: Idiocracy?
From:Re: Idiocracy?
From:Re: Idiocracy?
From:Re: Idiocracy?
From:Re: Idiocracy?
From:(no subject)
Date: 27/11/10 17:10 (UTC)There's no comparing to the Moe, Larry and Curly of the political quote world consisting of Quayle, W, and Palin.
Problem is.....
Date: 27/11/10 17:37 (UTC)Look out Putin, Sarah is watching you
From:Re: Look out Putin, Sarah is watching you
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 29/11/10 05:27 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/10 21:24 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/10 21:57 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/11/10 22:19 (UTC)I'd vote for a below-average IQ politician who shares my political views before I'd vote for a genius who doesn't.