Sam Harris on Sarah Palin

[_Analytics]

…You called me stupid and unreasonable, simply because I said I didn't know as much about the economy as someone who actually runs an economy for a living….

…And yes, even a few months as governor would give someone more understanding of the economy than whatever it is you think Obama absorbed in Law school.

...She could not have succeeded as a governor in Alaska without an understanding of the economy. It is idiotic to suggest otherwise….

What’s so ironic about this is that the very concept of the president “running the economy” of the nation is inherently communistic. In a America’s actual system, the chief executive manages a large portion of the economy, but it is a misnomer to say he “runs” it. In fact, right-wing pundits would lambaste anybody as a liberal with Marxist tendencies who suggest that the president “runs the economy”. Now we get the pleasure of a conservative telling us that somebody “running” Alasaka’s economy for 20 months has prepared them to “run” America’s economy? Priceless!

Now, it is true that the federal government can implement monetary policy and fiscal policy to help keep the supply and demand for money and for labor in balance. In that sense, the president has a significant amount of influence on the economy. But there are very few parallels to this on the state level; for example, the governor can’t and therefore doesn’t even need to worry about making decisions about interest rates to manipulate the IS/LM curves.

[_beastie]

I applaud your work on the Book of Abraham. Just about any other topic you hold forth on leaves many of us shaking our heads in bewilderment.

QFT

[_Jason Bourne]

Palin has spent two years as governor of the fourth least populated state in the United States. So, by your standard, that would mean that she has yet to cut her gums as a baby governor of a state whose importance you will exaggerate at any turn to suit your rhetorical aims. To hear you talk, you would think that a farm manager has the requisite "executive experience" to be president of the United States, whereas a sitting US senator is SOL. That is stupid, my friends.

I was thinking about this the other day. The county where I work had about 750,000 people. The republican female county executive has been in the position for 8 years. So technically she has more experience as an executive than does Palin. And she governs a county with about the same population of Alaska. She also was a news anchor before she left that for politics. So maybe she would have been a good choice for a VP for McCain.

[Guest]

Palin has a record that sticks out Jason, and she wasn't picked because of her experience alone. Most politicians end up doing nothing meaningful in their careers and they milk the system for personal gain. McCain wants to kill the greed in Washington, and Palin represents the antithesis of that. She is completely divorced from the norms of Washington, she is uncorruptible. She sells her luxury jet for crying out loud!

The only other politician who comes even close to doing something so unselfish would be McCain, who refuses to push earmarks for his state. I don't know why is it so hard for so many people to understand this is why she was picked. They are seriously wanting to reform Washington. The corruption has been out of hand for decades. Nobody has seriously talked about reforming it except McCain. Why? Because everyone else is benefiting from it financially. Palin isn't out for money. She isn't out for personal abition. She really does give a damn about the people, and she breaks her back trying to give them back money that belongs to them in teh first place.

Alabama kicked the hell out of Georgia last night, even though they started fifteen freshmen. Conventional coaching philosophy doesn't go that route. But these freshman have shown they can get the job done, so the seniors ride the bench and watch from the sidelines despite having more experience. That is a good analogy of other Governors who have been in office many years. They are unknowns in the political arena because they've done nothing to "wow" people. Palin has done plenty to catch the attention of fiscal conservatives. She was on the Glenn Beck Show last April because he was impressed with all she had accomplished up there.

Don't worry analytics, I haven't forgotten about you and your post from the other day. I hope you're hungry.

For those inclined to buy into his straw man, to "run" something is synonymous with to "manage" something. It doesn't mean to dictate by force! Good grief. Just go do a google search and tell me how many political venues are debating who would best "manage the economy," Obama or McCain.

[_Trevor]

Yes, so far you have called me stupid, dishonest, and a moron. I haven't even caught up to your insults yet, and you want to somehow accuse me of setting the standard here?

You have a well-established reputation for this Kevin. Most everyone here who has followed your posting for any amount of time is familiar with it. I know you like to think no one pays attention or remembers.

You see, you're doing it again. You wanted proof of experience, and it was given to you. Now you move the goals posts back and complain that she didn't do it long enough. Well Trev, how long is long enough? At what point does a governor meet your standards?

Maybe when their constituents have had time to decide whether or not they were worth a damn? Can anyone say re-election? Second term? It would be hard to judge fairly the impact her governance had on things like the economy when she hardly made a dent in her governor's chair. In other words, since she hadn't even reached the half-way mark of her first term, it is difficult to judge her "track record" in her job. Frankly, I am surprised that you are satisfied with such little evidence.

My guess is that what you demand is that she be a theist and a conservative Republican. The rest is just a toolbox for your rhetoric. Maybe I am wrong.

Oh you think you're being charitable? You brought this on yourself Trev. You couldn't let it slide. You called me stupid and unreasonable, simply because I said I didn't know as much about the economy as someone who actually runs an economy for a living. Wow, how "stupid" of me!

I know you think it benefits you to misconstrue what I am saying. Actually it just compounds the problem of your lack of credibility.

Write this down Trev, it was your intolerance towards me for holding a view of Palin opposite your own.

Write this down, Kevin. It was my intolerance of patently stupid rhetoric. You might have indulged in it in reference to anything. I know it is difficult for you to grasp that anyone might be bothered for anything other than partisan motivations when it comes to politics. Maybe you are too much of a political snob and elitist to believe it. It actually happens.

I am the only one between us who actually researches the facts. You're the one jumping to conclusions without them. Now your silly quibble about time spent in office is just straight from the talking points at CNN. Can't you come up with something original?

I see little or no evidence of your research on Palin. All I see is you complaining that I have not done my homework. Is this because you didn't do yours? Is it because you are simply repeating the mantra of "executive experience," no matter how little of it the person has actually had? I would have been happy with 1 term, Kevin... 1 full term as governor. The we may have really had something to look at.

We could mention one mistake of basic fact, one which is rather shocking given the claims made about her experience with energy, when she said that Alaska provides 20% of the US's domestic supply of energy--something that is patently false no matter how one slices it. Was she just getting carried away? Did she slip? DId she ever know? I'd hate to think it was the latter, and that one of her big selling points is actually a point of weakness.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/energetically_wrong.html

Good to see at least one of us cares what others on this forum thinks about him.

LOL. Sure, Kevin. I care so much about that. Where have you been? I have cared so much about what others think that I have been willing to stick up for apologists when I think they are right, willing to stick up for you when I think you are right. Obviously, I am so concerned about what others think, that I have abandoned my integrity entirely and just hope for the slightest nod of praise.

Or is it that I was reminding you that other readers follow what we write and can judge for themselves what we do? I am concerned with the facts, not approval. I am not sure what it is you care about, other than winning cheap points for the sake of your own ego. Or was it nothing more than your concern for learning that motivates you? Pure knowledge, the noble quest. Since you think so little of everything I have written, maybe you are better off spending your precious truth-seeking on others.

I said experience is her education.

Too bad she has had such precious little.

You cleary give points to Obama, not because you have a single standard and can show that he actually knows something about the economy, but because, *gasp* went to Harvard! Oh My! Isn't that where George Bush went too?

So I will point to the difference between admitting George and Barack, and then you will bring up the minority preference, and also discount any difference in performance or leadership during his time there (Harvard Law Review), since he didn't write an article, but then it doesn't matter because only the school of hard knocks, where one is lucky to get elected to office because her predecessor was so well loved, counts... And so it goes.

Do you really want me to list the idiots who went to Harvard? Or more importantly the dishonest people who went to law school?

Is that any more productive that going through the list of idiots that have served as governor in nowhere states? Or maybe the average IQ of people who attended Matanuska-Susitna? Is it possible that the standards and requirements at Harvard are better than those at Matanuska-Susitna? That the faculty is better? How many Nobel laureates or Pulitzer prize winning authors, or world leaders have lectured at Matanuska-Susitna? Does that make a difference? Does exposure to such things help in any way? Or is it sufficient to sit around the dinner table talking about hockey with mom and dad in the school of hard knocks?

It is apparent to me that you really have a bone to pick with Harvard. I can't help that. Since my dad grew up on a potato farm in east Utah and I grew up on a horse farm in Virginia, I suppose I could have come to resent Harvard too, or maybe resent Princeton because they turned down my application. Or perhaps I could worship them, thinking they are gods and I a mere mortal. Unfortunately, none of the above would be true, except for my own humble background. I know a couple of things about the school of hard knocks and the Ivy League. I don't devalue one utterly at the expense of the other, but I also do not pretend that it doesn't make an important difference that one has been exposed to Columbia and Harvard.

You already made up your mind because McCain picked a woman you never heard of.

I made up my mind because McCain made a bad decision. A number of people in both parties realize this. I can't help it that you are too sympathetic with her to see that she is woefully under-qualified and yet very close to the presidency.

Going to law school teaches you nothing about the economy, except how to twist facts and maniuplate laws to serve your own purposes. Obama did plenty of that to be sure, but I wouldn't call that qualifying experience for commander-in-chiefe. There is a reason attorney's are put in the same category as assassins. Palin isn't the typical politician. She actually has integrity. So does McCain.

LOL. What a doofus. Your simplistic moral outrage over lawyers is very revealing (all lawyers are evil, they "twist" the eternal code of perfect laws to their sinister advantage!). Do you know how ignorant that sounds? Do you have any concept of how crucial American law is to the global system? Can you tell me how many of the post-WWII presidents have been to law school? Do you understand at all why that might be a good thing, when foreign businesses and judicial systems use American law and the expertise of American judges as they form or reform their own systems and contracts? I suppose that good old fashion "integrity" is a sufficient substitute for knowledge where Palin is concerned. I would prefer someone who possessed both integrity and knowledge, but we can't have everything. I will say that good old fashioned integrity will not be sufficient if one hasn't the first clue of what it going on.

Maybe you would hire Palin to read schematics in a particle accelerator based on her integrity.

Apparently you don't understand the importance of accomplishment as a distinction from a "record." Her accomplishments and what she stands for is why McCain picked her.

Methinks you are more concerned with what you imagine she "stands for" than this list of "accomplishments," but I could be wrong. Do you consider her failing to sell the governor's jet on eBay one of her "accomplishments"?

Which is why the deciding factor for you, between two men who hold entirely opposite political philosophies, is boiled down to a female VP pick who you don't like because she attended too many non-Ivy league colleges.

The deciding factor for me is that I don't want a president who is probably crazy as bat-s**t, which he must have been to choose Palin over the many qualified alternatives. It won't matter what his political philosophy is when he is six feet under and Palin is running the country. Hell, she doesn't share his political philosophy either. Instead of choosing novelty running mates, she'll just populate the White House with her friends from high school.

You just proved you're in the same league as those idiots who voted for Hiollary because she was a woman, or the blacks who vote for Obama because he's black. The issues mean nothing to you and you're clearly not interested in inducing a conclusion about who is more likely to run the government better.

Yes, I am just like all those people, because I want an experienced running mate in the presidential candidate who could die any minute after he takes the oath of office. You are such a genius to pick up on that.

You're being a complete jerk and an unreasonable one at that. You set standards that you cannot even define. All you know is you want someone with more... more... something. Maybe someone with a JD from Harvard and a PhD in Mathematics from MIT. They're bound to learn about the economy somewhere in there.

Or maybe they would know how to understand what they are reading when they read it! Here is a standard for you. I want a literate (vice)president who knows a lot about history. I want a (vice)president who has been reelected by constituents numbering comfortably over 50,000. I want a (vice)president who has not suffered from malignant cancer, nor is a septuagenarian. Are those unreasonable things to ask for? I guess so if you want to vote Republican presidential candidate this cycle. And, you know, I would have gladly tossed out the demand concerning cancer and age if McCain had not picked an obvious lightweight as his veep.

Leave it to you to defend an obviously bad decision like this.

The best thing one can do to prepare himself for the Presidency, is to actually take on similar responsibilities like an executive position. A step down from that would be a governor of a state. State governors, run the state's executive branch of government, they are the commander-in-chief of the military, they manage the state budget, they veto bills, and work under pressures that don't apply to Senators. Of all the governors in the country, Palin's record has stuck out like a sore thumb.

Sure, if you don't read past a check list without details. Gotcha. Governor? check. Commander of National Guard? check. Executive "experience"? check. Female? check. Conservative? check. Biblical literalist? check. If only the McCain camp had thought a little harder or exercised a little more statesmanship. Sorry they did not. I really am.

I know it pisses you off that you're looking like the moron instead of me, and that you're the one who actually cares what your audience thinks, must make this fact more annoying to you. But deal with the facts. By your standard, there is no explanation why Palin could have been so successful as a governor, despite her lack of academic credentials.

Yes, Palin is so successful at governor that no one called for a recall on the election or an impeachment. She managed to stay in office for 21 whole months! She is an unqualified success. Why wait until she has completed a term? She is already a huge, resounding success! She has been tested by the fires of adversity and has come through with a tested and well-proven economic track record of solid achievements. Her 21 months in office will place what was a totally wrecked economy on a solid grounding for decades to come. Or is it too early to make such sweeping claims?

Yeah, I am really deeply concerned that people around here will think I am a moron. It will especially hurt my tender feelings if you, Droppy, and bcspace think I am a complete moron. Maybe I should vote for McCain/Palin just to prove that I am an objective, rational, unbiased, genius like you guys.

Why is she more successful than other governors who actually went to Ivy league schools? Whenever you figure that out, you'll be a little bit closer to coming to grips with the ignorance of your position.

Why do you think that you know all you need to with such little data? Whenever you figure that out, you'll be a little closer to coming to grips with the meaning of ignorance.

Trev, you are the one who engaged me so I could educate you on the basics of fiscal conservatism. You even thanked me for giving you information that you were apparently too lazy to research yourself. Frankly, you have no business even voting if you're this old and still this ignorant on the basics that separate republican and democrat philosophies. You said you were going to get with an expert to verify if my tax figuires were right. Did you? And why would you even need to if you are so sure I'm a moron?

Yes, I did get a tax expert to verify your tax figures. She said that you were full of s**t and that most responsible economists and tax academics would laugh in your face. But to explain this in detail would have required her to come on to educate you, which she wasn't willing to do. She recommended you read the book Taxing Ourselves for a basic primer that represents a realistic view based on actual expertise on the topic instead of crackpot conservative talking points and political stunts. You are free to do it if you like. What scares me is that given your smattering knowledge on a plethora of topics, you think you really know the skinny on all of it.

Since you were so kind as to share some ancient wisdom with me, I have some for you:

"If you want to be a success, concentrate all of your energy and intelligence on one thing and play the fool in all others."

I think you will find that this is the direct opposite of the tendencies you display on this board.

Being a governor only counts if the governor is governing a state with a certain population level. So where do you draw the line between governors who learn about economics and governors who learned nothing about economics?

Kevin makes up my standard for me.

Ronald Reagan fails your test on every level.

And now he tells me that Ronald Reagan fails the test Kevin attributed to me. And we accomplished absolutely nothing in the process, except to confirm Kevin's talent for making s**t up.

Nor would I give a rats a$$ what they though.

As you love to tell us. Over and over and over and over...

Whetever one makes of her ability to handle off the cuff rhetorical traps by the liberal interviewers, she couldn't hope to screw up as much as Biden has, but I suppose this is where you say you don't think Biden hasn't the requisite experience either.

Yes, the demand that she know basic facts is a liberal trap. Right.

You're not interested in the truth.

As is anyone who does not agree with Kevin.

Oh I get it all right. You found a conservative who thinks like you and you feel all warm inside.

I found a couple of Republicans, one who actually has experience, who is concerned that Palin has so little. I guess that means very little to you as long as Sean Hannity and Rupert Murdoch are happy. Who you? Nah. No way. You are happy because you are a scholar of the American presidency.

You make it sound like a "President Palin" would make the country instantly implode or something. I think this says more about your bias than it does her.

Instantly implode. I said that? Can you quote me saying that? I know that you are only interested in the truth, because you said so, so surely you are not exaggerating or misrepresenting me. You have far too much integrity to do such a thing (guffaw).

I hope we are both done wasting our time on this, because this has gone exactly nowhere.

[_Jason Bourne]

Palin has a record that sticks out Jason, and she wasn't picked because of her experience alone. Most politicians end up doing nothing meaningful in their careers and they milk the system for personal gain. McCain wants to kill the greed in Washington, and Palin represents the antithesis of that. She is completely divorced from the norms of Washington, she is uncorruptible. She sells her luxury jet for crying out loud.

Dart

I like Palin but I really think that pick was unwise. There were other reformers. Heck Romney could have been billed as an outsider and a reformer as much if not more than Palin. She just seems like she needs about 2-4 more years as a governor. Then she may be a great pick.

And yea I agree that Obama lacks experience as well and Palin has strengths he does not. I think he has some that she does not as well.

This year is a tough choice for me. I really think given McCain's age someone more seasoned that is a reformer would have been a better choice.

[_dartagnan]

Reuters/Zogby: "Half of all voters said the economy was the top issue, and the poll showed McCain narrowly led Obama on the question of which candidate could best manage the economy by 47 percent to 45 percent. But that was a significant gain for Obama from McCain's 9-point advantage last month. The poll was taken before Sunday's upheaval on Wall Street with the fall of Lehman Brothers Holding and the sale of Merrill Lynch."

Gallup: "In the Sept. 5-7 USA Today/Gallup poll, 48% of Americans say Barack Obama can better handle the economy, while 45% choose John McCain. This marks a significant gain by McCain; just before the Democratic National Convention in late August, Obama had a 16-point margin over McCain on the economy."

What a bunch of Marxists!

[_Trevor]

Palin has a record that sticks out Jason, and she wasn't picked because of her experience alone. Most politicians end up doing nothing meaningful in their careers and they milk the system for personal gain. McCain wants to kill the greed in Washington, and Palin represents the antithesis of that. She is completely divorced from the norms of Washington, she is uncorruptible. She sells her luxury jet for crying out loud!

Good Lord! Can we get someone from the McCain campaign over here? He has got it down pat! You can't pay for such complete devotion! And it came from completely objective analysis of the issues too!

Kevin, I think you have found yourself a new career. Please, drop the keyboard now and run, don't walk, to the nearest McCain-Palin campaign headquarters. Your post shows the appropriate worshipful awe and reverence to have "paid for by the committee to elect John McCain" at the bottom. I hear sweeping string sections cueing as I read this. I think I am tearing up...

A private moment please.

McCain through the eyes of Kevin Graham...

[_dartagnan]

I like Palin but I really think that pick was unwise. There were other reformers. Heck Romney could have been billed as an outsider and a reformer as much if not more than Palin.

Look, I never said she was the best pick. But two rich white men wouldn't stand a chance against Obama. Besides, Romney bad mouthed McCain too much. It would be disingenuous to pick him for teh same reason it was stupid for Obama to pick Biden. Biden just recently told the nation on live television that Obama wasn't ready to lead. I mean really, this has to be the worst tandem in political history.

She just seems like she needs about 2-4 more years as a governor. Then she may be a great pick.

That wouldn't hurt, but McCain is just living up to his reputation as a maverick. No sense in moaning about it and acting liek we allk know for a fact that Palin couldn't turn the US economy around like she did Alaska's. Comparing Wasilla's economy to Alaska's is similar to comparing Alaska's to the US economy. There was no reason to believe she could turn Alask araound either, but she did. And in record time too. That's what we need. It is her economic philosophy that makes the difference, not where she went to school. Obama had a huge plan for spending hundreds of billions,a nd now all of that was turned on its head because of the recent bail outs. Now he has to go back to the drawing board and conjure up another "plan" and sell it to people who are easily convinced by eloquent speech.

And yea I agree that Obama lacks experience as well and Palin has strengths he does not. I think he has some that she does not as well.

He's more comfortable speaking in public, that's about it it seems. Since when does that make or break a President? It is a luxury not a necessity.

This year is a tough choice for me. I really think given McCain's age someone more seasoned that is a reformer would have been a better choice.

A month ago I posted in the off topic forum. I was talking about how I had shifted views since living in Brasil and I was looking for reasons to vote democrat. I asked for democrats to convince me I was making teh right transition. But then I realized the only real reason for me to turn democrat, was the fact that I would be voting against Bush. It would give me some sense of gratification after having voted for him twice. I rooted for Obama last year when he was fighting Hillary. Hell at one point I even thought he'd make a great President too, but then I decided to research his record, and I found it to be void of substance and fraught with problems.

How can we trust this guy? I'm not worried about Palin trying to swindle Americans.

Obama is an enigma. He has the most liberal voting record and suddenly he tells us he's going to be the first democrat ever to operate like a fiscal conservative and cut everyone's taxes? WTF??

He recently voted 94 times to raise taxes, and suddenly he's a conservative over night? He requests nearly a billion in earmarks in just a couple of years in the Senate, and then suddenly he says he's abandoned the process once it becomes a strong point for McCain?

He strikes me as a guy who will say anything to get elected, and this is what one can expect from someone like Obama. His whole life has been carved from people who owed him favors, and vice-versa. He is a product of Washington, and even worse, teh Illinois senate.

When McCain nailed him on invading Pakistan, I was praying he would say something like, "Now look whose acting like George Bush!" Because only George Bush has actually ordered military strikes within Pakistan.

[_Trevor]

I was thinking about this the other day. The county where I work had about 750,000 people. The republican female county executive has been in the position for 8 years. So technically she has more experience as an executive than does Palin. And she governs a county with about the same population of Alaska. She also was a news anchor before she left that for politics. So maybe she would have been a good choice for a VP for McCain.

But Jason, she never met the Alaska National Guard! She can't see Russia while she eats breakfast! She didn't have a luxury jet to put up for sale on eBay! You are leaving out so many important, substantive credentials! I think you are just a liberal, ivory-tower elitist. I can dismiss anything you say from here on out. Next thing you'll be telling us that McCain is really old and has questionable health! Communist.