Americans can only tolerate so much dumb. When your kids are smarter than your candidate, that's pretty much the end for the candidate.

/bye bye Sarah

McStinky: Americans can only tolerate so much dumb. When your kids are smarter than your candidate, that's pretty much the end for the candidate.

/bye bye Sarah

Where was this sentiment 4 and 8 years ago?

CONSERVATIVES are still alive.
Its the Republican Party that Sarah Palin has sealed the coffin on.

Remove all Republicans: I don't know about you, but I've never heard anything from a conservative that sounded remotely intelligent. Michael Moore has always sounded smarter than Buckley to me.

Then I'd say that you are completely clueless about conservatives in general and neocons in particular. worlds of difference between the two, not that most people bother to understand that fact o'life.

There was a time when conservative intellectuals raised the level of American public debate and helped to keep it sober. Those days are gone.

I used to listen to a talk radio station here in NJ where the hosts regularly derided teachers and white collar workers in general as not real Americans or not real workers, saying they were too educated to be of much use. Granted their audience tends to be more Joe 6-pack, and the anti-intellectual BS was only a few hours a week, but they made it seem that if you were thoughtful on a matter you were a pig. I used to get the feeling they would blast Alito if he offered a view that was against their gut because he was too intellectual.

As to the conservative intellectuals, they'll be back eventually. Probably we'll see the Democratic tent get bigger like it was in the 1930s-60s and have a conservative, intellectual base. This base will not be the Palin base, but the Buckley base. Sooner or later they'll migrate to either the Republican party or a new conservative party.

This country needs fewer Sarah Palins and Joe the Plumbers and more P.J. O'Rourkes. I tend to disagree with P.J., but at least he puts forth his wrong-headed ideas brilliantly.

Conservative intellectuals may be in decline, but not because of Palin. George Will was never going to be Vice President.

Ford was not an intellectual. Nor Reagan. GHWB ran as the second coming of Reagan and turned out to be a big-government bureaucrat at heart. Dole was not an intellectual. GWB was not an intellectual. Among the VPs, the closest to an intellectual, and we're talking about a big gap, was Cheney when the left saw him as an evil genius rather than a failure.

I'm not talking about IQ, I'm talking about the style they wanted to project. This issue showed up in the 1988 campaign. Dukakis wanted to be the intellectual, and lost on a platform of "competence, not ideology." (They switched sides briefly in one of their debates, when Bush talked statistics and Dukakis said words to the effect that people aren't statistics.)

The conservative movement worked with Reagan preaching minimal domestic government and a strong foreign policy while others filled in the details. It needs a leader with a vision of government and the ability to communicate it.

Weaver95: Then I'd say that you are completely clueless about conservatives in general and neocons in particular. worlds of difference between the two, not that most people bother to understand that fact o'life.

He's a troll. It's his mission to spew whatever idiotic far-left talking point he can get his hand on. I view him like Neo in the Matrix. Given all the stupidity coming from the far-right with all the multiple Agent Smiths, the One must stand against them all to try and balance the stupidity.

Because, let's face it, we need stupidity from both ends of the spectrum.

Palin ..... you managed to do what many before you have failed to do ..... you finally killed off the neo-cons!

/thanks!
//oh .............. and goodbye footnote!

Remove all Republicans: I don't know about you, but I've never heard anything from a conservative that sounded remotely intelligent. Michael Moore has always sounded smarter than Buckley to me.

And it is comments like this that give you Dems a bad wrap. Help out your party and think before you speak/ write or just STFU

Please Please PLEAAAASE run in 2012 Sarah. I'm willing to shoot an eye-dropper of bleach down my ear canal for a few years to keep your momentum going.

damageddude: There was a time when conservative intellectuals raised the level of American public debate and helped to keep it sober. Those days are gone.

I used to listen to a talk radio station here in NJ where the hosts regularly derided teachers and white collar workers in general as not real Americans or not real workers, saying they were too educated to be of much use. Granted their audience tends to be more Joe 6-pack, and the anti-intellectual BS was only a few hours a week, but they made it seem that if you were thoughtful on a matter you were a pig. I used to get the feeling they would blast Alito if he offered a view that was against their gut because he was too intellectual.

Was it NJ 101.5?

The liberals were the eggheads till the New Deal/WWII, the conservatives since. But the conservative thinkers have turned from philosophy to manipulation. Palin is is only one of the latest monsters created by that cynicism, and she's not dead yet.

It's a crisitunity for intellectual conservatives now.

Though, being naive in the ways of the old intellectual conservatives, and having grown up entirely in the new conservative creed "stupid is good" era, I can't imagine conservatism having any good intellectual arguments. Even Commentary (that's intellectually conservative, right?) isn't very persuasive.

We actually may be shifting to a new debate entirely. Old conservatism v. liberalism was small gov't v. big gov't, basically.

I think we've found that we've shifted into a permanent big government model. There's zero way we're going to dismantle the social safety net or gut environmental regulations or be successful at any form of isolationism. New era concerns will be efficiency in government, accountability of government, regressive v. progressive taxation schemes, extent of programs, and so on.

There needs to be a new argument framed. Republicans cannot win at all in the future by clinging bitterly (ha) to a conservatism that is outdated. It's time for intellectual conservatives to think about conservatism's principles when applied to a permanently "big" government.

And it is comments like this that give you Dems a bad wrap

1/10

conservative intellectual....

//I laughed so hard...

Bring-out-your-dead: And it is comments like this that give you Dems a bad wrap

for all intensive purposes, the dems are just towing the party line.

Palin Nailin' ?

It's more likely than you think.

intensive purposes ?!

I really don't think this is something new...I mean in the history of ideas when has conservatism ever been the chosen path of intellectuals? Conservative politicians in America have made deriding "pointy headed intellectuals" a key part of their platform since at least the 50s. This is nothing new, it's just more in your face because cable TV and the internet (along with all the other advancements in media) inundate you with information all the time. Conservative anti-intellectualism will never fade away, no matter how much we wish Sarah Palin was the final nail in the coffin. There will always be people who resent those smarter then them, and there will always be politicians (usually conservative, but I'm not going to claim the Democrats are wholly innocent, I'd also fault the 60s new left for a lot of anti-intellectualism within the academy) who pander to them. Sorry, but the smart people won't always win, no matter how much we wish we could.

Don't read the article guys - the author hates America and is a Al Kada recruiter

Inability to change has always been the key ingredient in extinction pie.

It wasn't that long ago Republicans kept proclaiming themselves the "party of ideas." Now they've started losing, you don't hear that so much.

when a centerpiece of your campaign is to demean your opponent as "elitist" because he went to college, you don't get to whine about being called stupid.

Sorry...victim card, not yours.

I think the Republican Party picked Palin so they would have an excuse for losing the election. They only ran McCain because they knew they couldn't win this year,they didn't want to burn a potential good future candidate and McCain was willing to "Take One For The Team". I don't think they anticipated her connecting with the Republican base the way she did and they're pretty perturbed that she won't just slink away quietly. Expect more fun facts to be released by the McCain "insiders" discrediting Sarah Palin .

Dear Jerk: intensive purposes ?!

Towed the line?

Remove all Republicans: I don't know about you, but I've never heard anything from a conservative that sounded remotely intelligent. Michael Moore has always sounded smarter than Buckley to me.

Agree with him or not, William F. Buckley Jr. was way more intelligent than Michael Moore will ever be.

Intents and Purposes
The correct phrase is "to all intents and purposes." This phrase dates back to the 1500s and originated in English law, where it was "to all intents, constructions, and purposes." In modern usage, "for all intents and purposes" is also acceptable. The phrase means "for all practical purposes" and is generally used to compare two nonidentical acts or deeds

I became of voting age watching 'Firing Line' on Public TV. Buckley's TV show was one of few offering a discussion of current events by presenting people from **both sides of an issue. All without ANY screaming, and seldom were there any personal attacks. It was a debate about ideas, philosophies and their real, not their intended, consequences. I became a conservative because of what I heard there (not a popular thing in 1977).

Then Reagan was elected. Hurray, a true conservative in the White House! Only I noticed a disconnect there: Government still grew and still wanted to tell me what to think. Only where it grew and what I was supposed to think had changed. I also noted that no matter how long they governed, these 'conservatives' called themselves 'outsiders' and declared government the enemy of the people. Even when they were the ones in power.

Labels such as 'liberal' or 'conservative' mean nothing in today's politics. The only true test you can trust is what they actually do IF they have the power to do it.

** I have also discovered that there are more than 2 sides to most issues. Just because your opponent is wrong does not mean that you are right.

Bartleby the Scrivener: Bring-out-your-dead: And it is comments like this that give you Dems a bad wrap

for all intensive purposes, the dems are just towing the party line.

Oh yeah? You've got another thing coming. You and your kind will be in dire straights when Bush turns over the reigns to Obama. It'll be the penultimate smackdown. I'm waiting with baited breath.

thatmanfromtexas: I think the Republican Party picked Palin so they would have an excuse for losing the election. They only ran McCain because they knew they couldn't win this year,they didn't want to burn a potential good future candidate and McCain was willing to "Take One For The Team". I don't think they anticipated her connecting with the Republican base the way she did and they're pretty perturbed that she won't just slink away quietly. Expect more fun facts to be released by the McCain "insiders" discrediting Sarah Palin .

Actually, the (awesome) 7-part Newsweek article does a pretty good job of explaining why Palin was chosen. It was linked on Fark a few days ago.

Really, it's a mute point.

I found this image rather succinctly sums up the choice of Palin for VP.

Bartleby the Scrivener: for all intensive purposes, the dems are just towing the party line.

Intents and purposes

Toeing the party line

I For One Am Outraged: Really, it's a mute moat point.

/sorry, pit poove

The die was cast. Over the next 25 years there grew up a new generation of conservative writers who cultivated none of their elders' intellectual virtues -- indeed, who saw themselves as counter-intellectuals. Most are well-educated and many have attended Ivy League universities; in fact, one of the masterminds of the Palin nomination was once a Harvard professor. But their function within the conservative movement is no longer to educate and ennoble a populist political tendency, it is to defend that tendency against the supposedly monolithic and uniformly hostile educated classes. They mock the advice of Nobel Prize-winning economists and praise the financial acumen of plumbers and builders. They ridicule ambassadors and diplomats while promoting jingoistic journalists who have never lived abroad and speak no foreign languages. And with the rise of shock radio and television, they have found a large, popular audience that eagerly absorbs their contempt for intellectual elites. They hoped to shape that audience, but the truth is that their audience has now shaped them.

Ladies and gentlemen, the explanation for most if not all of the problems in this country today, distilled to one paragraph.

Steve Zodiac: I became of voting age watching 'Firing Line' on Public TV. Buckley's TV show was one of few offering a discussion of current events by presenting people from **both sides of an issue. All without ANY screaming, and seldom were there any personal attacks. It was a debate about ideas, philosophies and their real, not their intended, consequences. I became a conservative because of what I heard there (not a popular thing in 1977).

Then Reagan was elected. Hurray, a true conservative in the White House! Only I noticed a disconnect there: Government still grew and still wanted to tell me what to think. Only where it grew and what I was supposed to think had changed. I also noted that no matter how long they governed, these 'conservatives' called themselves 'outsiders' and declared government the enemy of the people. Even when they were the ones in power.

Labels such as 'liberal' or 'conservative' mean nothing in today's politics. The only true test you can trust is what they actually do IF they have the power to do it.

** I have also discovered that there are more than 2 sides to most issues. Just because your opponent is wrong does not mean that you are right.

Whoa, a thoughtful conservative. Interesting...

Dear Jerk: Intents and Purposes
The correct phrase is "to all intents and purposes." This phrase dates back to the 1500s and originated in English law, where it was "to all intents, constructions, and purposes." In modern usage, "for all intents and purposes" is also acceptable. The phrase means "for all practical purposes" and is generally used to compare two nonidentical acts or deeds

dear jerk:

thank you for pointing out the etymology of this phrase. linguophiles like yourself help to keep people like us honest. here, here!

ps. my response was to: Bring-out-your-dead: And it is comments like this that give you Dems a bad wrap

it's bad rap, not bad wrap.

please move back two internets. and take bartink with you :)

McStinky: Americans can only tolerate so much dumb. When your kids are smarter than your candidate, that's pretty much the end for the candidate.

/bye bye Sarah

If only that were true . . .

She's got a very passionate following. Did you see the Palin Purge thread?

See also:
"Sarah Palin: The GOP's Best Hope in 2012"
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/sarah-palin-the-gops-best-hope-in-2012/

Majupra: I found this image rather succinctly sums up the choice of Palin for VP.

Palin takes up too much bandwidth? I don't get it. :P

I think what everyone's getting at:

Micheal Moore: Smart and smug, is willing to skew emotional footage to further his own propaganda. Even if the cause for which he speaks makes good common sense, he cripples his efforts with heavy-handed subject treatment.

William Buckley, Jr: Serious heavyweight smart, but off-putting in his intellectual righteousness. There is no way Moore "sounds" smarter than him, but someone might agree far more with Moore than Buckley. Of course, Buckley is dead (long live Buckley,) but the author's original take was:

Sarah Palin: Me zugzug Palin. You vote me.

Independent as Fark: Bartleby the Scrivener: Bring-out-your-dead: And it is comments like this that give you Dems a bad wrap

for all intensive purposes, the dems are just towing the party line.

Oh yeah? You've got another thing coming. You and your kind will be in dire straights when Bush turns over the reigns to Obama. It'll be the penultimate smackdown. I'm waiting with baited breath.

god bless you. may the llama of evil never spit in your eye.

TripSixes: Please Please PLEAAAASE run in 2012 Sarah. I'm willing to shoot an eye-dropper of bleach down my ear canal for a few years to keep your momentum going.

THIS!

I have nothing against conservatives, but love to see neocons with egg all over their face.

I missed 'towed the line' even when bartink put it right in my face, which is now red.
Anyway, some people who are new to politics may have not yet noticed that conservatives run on anti-intellectualism, while funding most of the think tanks.

Hey, Remove all Republicans is back.

The comments FTFA are so full of denial...ranging from "he says he's a conservative but he's really a secret liberal" to "Republicans aren't anti-intellectual!"...it's sad really

Yeah, it takes a lot of balls and insight to write that after a humiliating electoral defeat. I could have told you that years ago.

Seems to me she's nailing the coffin after the stable door's been bolted.