Why GOP embraces simpletons and how it hurts America

That's actually a pretty damn good assessment.

 

You won't ever hear me do that. Although MBA admissions, I believe, are a little more subjective than law schools.

 

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media

From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

 

I don't know the context for the quote, but maybe it was his favorite because he read it to his daughters.

And, even so, I'm not sure how that one comment makes you not believe his recent reading list.

What's the connection? I could pull out any number of misstatements by any politician. That doesn't mean I can use it as evidence against any specific claim by them.

 

Because they're proxy governments designed to grease the profit track for American businessmen.

 

From the very beginning, this has been the most ironic thread in sj history.

 

I believe we should have.

I believe we should have imposed our Constitution on Iraq. Sure, they would not have liked it at first, but long term, it would have been a great help for them to become a modern nation.

I'm sure this will be unpopular. But, I believe exactly as you spelled it out. It is the best system. We should export it.

 

We can't even figure out WTF most of our Constitution means. I can't imagine it translating into Arabic.

It is a severely flawed document with a decent framework for a government underlying it. I give more credit to the courts and Congressmen who have followed and salvaged it than to the document.

 

Actually the thread and the article raise an issue worth talking about. Say what you will about GWB at Yale/Harvard, he certainly didn't campaign on the strength of his "elite" education. He ran as a Texas roughneck.

In fact, the best-"educated" GOP candidates run away from their elite educations these days.

Sort of bears on my Buckley question a few pages ago. Why?

 

It was definitely not phrased as such -- was part of a panel and the other panelists had no problem answering with the books of their youth. So, OK, maybe a misunderstanding.

I just don't believe W had any intellectual curiosity whatsoever. You can say that's just politics, but I don't think that is the case -- there are plenty of GOP pols that I do consider very smart and educated and plenty of Dems at I consider to be unmotivated lackeys. There is just nothing in W's background or off-the-cuff speeches that show much indication. Very similar to the GOP all-comers debate when he was asked for his favorite philosopher, he hemmed and hawed and then said Jesus.

I would bet you that if you asked W for a two-paragraph book report on any of those books he allegedly read, he would have a hard time giving it to you.

 

This presumes that exporting American democracy has ever been the aim. It has not.

 

This is called "populism."

I wouldn't just say it started with Reagan and leave it at that. It's been a more textured evolution. We see some old-school Republicans on this board. But if they were animals, they'd need a protected habitat. It's become a populist party.

I do think the Forbes article was inflammatory, but if the article was titled "Why the GOP embraces populism and how it hurts America" it would have the same effect and wouldn't have Mizzou questioning the validity of the thread.