The Second Post in the “Oh My Achin’ Head” Series: GOP Congressman Says Wives Should Submit to Their Husbands

Steve_PearceBy ELAINE MAGLIARO

It looks as if some Republican Congressmen haven’t gotten the message yet regarding how to go about winning over the hearts and minds of female voters. You’d think that they’d try a little harder considering Mitt Romney, their candidate for president in the 2012 election, “suffered from one of the biggest so-called ‘gender gaps’ in recent history.”

Rep. Steven Pearce (R-NM), a Baptist and a Vietnam War Veteran, published a memoir recently in which he expressed his belief that “the wife is to submit to the husband.” According to Aaron Blake of the Washington Post, Pearce said “that both the military chain of command and the family unit need a structure in which everyone plays his or her role.” Citing the Bible, Pearce wrote, “The wife is to voluntarily submit, just as the husband is to lovingly lead and sacrifice. The husband’s part is to show up during the times of deep stress, take the leadership role and be accountable for the outcome, blaming no one else.” He also wrote, “The wife’s submission is not a matter of superior versus inferior; rather, it is self-imposed as a matter of obedience to the Lord and of love for her husband.”

Pearce acknowledges that he delved into “controversial territory” in his book. He recounted the “time his wife broached the subject of submission with him’—and admitted that “he cringed at the conversation.” He wrote: “The principle is among the most controversial of all directives coming from the Bible. Critics abound, both Christian and non-Christian. Many of my friends dealt with the directive by ignoring it…”

I’d say good for his friends who ignored that Biblical directive!

SOURCES

GOP Congressman: Wives Should ‘Voluntarily Submit’ To Their Husbands (Huffington Post)

GOP congressman’s book: ‘The wife is to voluntarily submit’ to her husband (Washington Post)

This entry was posted in Christianity, Equal Rights, Fundamentalism, RNC, United States. Bookmark the permalink.

129 Responses to The Second Post in the “Oh My Achin’ Head” Series: GOP Congressman Says Wives Should Submit to Their Husbands

  1. swarthmoremom says:

    I don’t read the bible much but this passage from St. Paul to the Corinthians is embedded in my head due to the amount of time I resided in Texas.

  2. swarthmoremom says:

    Looked him up…. he was born and reared in Texas.

  3. Tony C. says:

    And I will remind the Congressman, the Bible says it is his right to sell his daughters to slavers. And heck, Lot slept with his daughters, so he should feel free. Isn’t there some rules in there on the protocol for sleeping with servants? I’m sure his wife would have no problem with that either. And don’t forget that old Testament story where the man has his wife marry a King (and sleep with him) so they could get some money.

    Go for it, Steve! The Bible Tells You So.

  4. bigfatmike says:

    If he thinks many wives are going to follow that advice he must really, really have strong faith.

    Senator, you might have better luck with Daniel over there in the lion’s den.

  5. pdm says:

    OT

    Elaine, I doff my hat to you and SwM for your efforts regarding Sherman and “It’s Not Racial” from Hall Monitor, but ever independent, Spinelli. What a disgusting, (who loves the bloodied ice from the wounded “warriors” of hockey) man.

    Apologies for interuppting. I have vowed never to be sucked into that propanganda playground ever again.

  6. swarthmoremom says:

    pdm, Turley called Sherman a “thug” and got nick and the “white privilege” boys all riled up. It does not take much. lol One of them, not nick, called me a “cyber stalker” for calling him out for posting that perhaps Sherman had paid someone to take his SAT’S. http://thinkprogress.org/sports/2014/01/22/3194121/richard-sherman-thug-acceptable-version-word/

  7. pdm says:

    SwM,
    Yes. That part of the conversation concerning SATs and questioning the authenticity of his grades was stomach churning. “Thug” has taken on a decided racial taint and I hope Turley drops it. You and Elaine are stronger women than I for venturing into Nick’s personal playground.

  8. Oro Lee says:

    It’s Ephesians 5:22-33, Swarthmoremom.

    I used this passage for a devotional on the sacrifices of a husband and almost got ran out of church. Been run out of worse, I suppose.

    I explained that Paul was using the marriage relationship to describe the inscrutable relationship of Jesus and the church, and that his words – by his own admission – were advisory: “32 This mystery is profound, but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 To sum up, each one of you is to love his wife as himself, and the wife is to respect her husband.”

    I noted that everyone focuses on the obligations of the wife, as enshrined in the SBC’s 2000 BF&M: “A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband . . . . [She] has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation.”

    I pointed out that submission is inherently a gracious act, and that gracious submission is nothing but code-talk for acquiescence to subjugation. I also pointed out that there was nothing in the passage that limited the role of the wife to keeping house and having babies.

    The BF&M’s description of the role of the husband is a bit more grandiose: “He has the God-given responsibility to provide for, to protect, and to lead his family.” None of that domestic stuff for this rugged Daniel Boone of a man! The BF&M also parsed scripture in stating that the husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. It leaves of the last part which reads: . . . and gave Himself for her.”

    Christ died for the church, and husbands are to die for their wives. If it’s a choice of a bass boat for him and a remodeled bathroom for her, she gets a new bathroom. The wife should drive the better car. Vacations are to visit her folks if she insists. I observed that hardly any wife would have trouble respecting a husband who gives himself for her. That so many do so when the husband continually falls short is nothing but grace, and that by their unearned respect most wives day in and day out better demonstrate the character of Christ than their husbands.

    My remarks were not well received, but I know they are true. I speak from experience. I’m just one of the few guys that has an inkling of the awesome grace of a strong woman. Like that of my wife. And the daughters we raised.

    Something Pearce will probably never know. Poor [delude] fellow.

  9. Oro Lee says:

    All that being said, the Abrahamic religions are of, by, and for patriarchs even to this day despite the reform efforts of the Christ. Mike once wrote of the sense of “ownership” which husbands and especially fathers have toward the women in their lives. Guys are dumb.

  10. annieofwi says:

    Elaine, thanks for being such a warrior. I don’t know what is going on over there, but it seems to me that a certain person feels they now run the blog for Professor Turley. It’s beyond ridiculous already.

    Republican men should continue in this vein, it will be more fuel to fire up women to vote Democratic. All the attacks on Wendy Davis, all the anti women’s legislation, it’s not all bad. It gives thinking women a heads up as to what could be a reality if these religious right conservatives got into any serious power nationally.

  11. swarthmoremom says:

    Oro Lee, Told you I did not know much about the bible. I was brought up catholic and we used catechisms and missals. Don’t know why I thought it was Corinthians. At least I got Paul right. lol

  12. Elaine M. says:

    swarthmoremom,

    I remember the missals and the Baltimore Catechism…as well as wearing a scapular. That was a long, long time ago.

  13. swarthmoremom says:

    I had scapulars in three colors, Elaine, but no bible.

  14. Blouise says:

    I’m intrigued but have taken a vow of chastity concerning that other place … in other words, I refuse to get phucked over … once was enough.
    ————————————————–

    As to Pearce and Paul and his famous letter writing and as sweetly as Oro Lee presents the setting there is also the fact that women in these early churches, experiencing a new found sense of freedom and equality (as being one in Christ) with their fellow male Christians, were simply mouthing off too much … expressing too many opinions and as a result causing friction within the group. These were predominately gentiles as Paul, after the blowup with Peter in Antioch, spent the majority of time converting gentiles … Corinth, Ephesus etc.

    As he travels he writes letters to these fledgling congregations, most of them who meet in members homes … many of those homes belonging to women. Their differences are marked, rich and poor, male and female, some Jews but mostly gentiles from different disciplines of worship trying to live and worship side by side and experiencing tensions that he fears will fragment the community. These folk were preparing for The Coming of the Lord and the women were being very vocal as to how the congregation should prepare itself so we have “silence in the church” and “wives submit”.

    However, there are some scholars who find these verses concerning women and wives to be so at odds with the rest of Paul’s teachings and similar to the versus found in Timothy that they consider them and the misogyny they represent to be post-Pauline interpolations coming from the same source as those in Timothy.

    Any good Congregationalist upon hearing the minister preach such things would stand up and argue … which is why they aren’t Baptists. 😉

  15. Oro Lee says:

    Baptist argue — which is why there are so many types of them. What’s hard to find is a Baptist who will listen.

    I used to be big-time evangelical SBC baptist — even led discipleship classes in a federal minimum security penal institution, took lots of seminary type courses, believed evolution was a hoax. Made a ton of hospital visits.

    Now I’m not even sure I’m a Christian. I believe that religion is probably some type of evolutionary adaption promoting group adhesion and which has probably outlived its usefulness as the world has gotten smaller and its problems universal. I think that the last scene of The Sopranos captures the essence of dying. My body will decompose and whatever else there was of me will be dissipated heated — only entropy is sovereign.

    A friend describes this as the next step in my spiritual journey — if it is, then all I did was step out of the lifeboat into water too deep and too far from shore.

    A quote commonly misattributed to Plato advises to be kind; everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle. I’m just trying to be kind

    Plato did say, “Wise is he who invented beer.”

  16. Blouise says:

    Oro Lee,

    Ah, beer … liquid bread. Yeast to alcohol is much more interesting than yeast to carbon dioxide but alas, both are wastes as far as yeast is concerned. 😉

    Flussig Brot!

  17. Byron says:

    as an old Hindu friend of mine said “the man may be the head of the house but the woman is the neck.”

  18. Oro Lee says:

    Behind every successful man is an exhausted woman.

  19. swarthmoremom says:

    Actually ,Oro Lee, on the protestant side of my family, I am descended from a Free Will Baptist preacher. He was born in Shenandoah VA in 1752.

  20. Blouise says:

    Happy is the daughter who listened to the mother when she said, “Stay away from that guy. He has no neck and will exhaust you.”

  21. Gyges says:

    That whole quote’s really ugly, not just for the gender essentialist (which is the worst part), but also who the hell compares families to the military?

    Yeast to alcohol is much more interesting than yeast to carbon dioxide but alas, both are wastes as far as yeast is concerned.

    Alcohol has the benefit of keeping competitors for the sugar out of the mix.

  22. Blouise says:

    SwM,

    Tex is descended from a Baptist preacher who was stabbed to death in the early 1700’s. Seems this guy was exceptionally tall and liked to tease short men about their lack of stature. On the day of his death he had entered the local tavern to preach on the evils of rum when one of the short men he had teased quietly pulled up a wooden crate behind him as he was preaching, climbed up on the crate and reached over the preacher’s left shoulder stabbing him in the heart.

    The reason we know all this is that the short man was arrested, put on trial and convicted. The notice of his hanging was published in the local paper with all the particulars.

  23. Blouise says:

    “Alcohol has the benefit of keeping competitors for the sugar out of the mix.” (Gyges)

    Is it true that it becomes toxic to the yeast around 16% thus the reason for distilling? I have a couple of friends who brew beer and wine and I over hear them talking about such things.

  24. Blouise says:

    SwM, (OT)

    Priorities USA Action is now raising money for Hillary’s unannounced 2016 Presidential ambitions. Interesting

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/us/politics/biggest-liberal-super-pac-to-fund-possible-clinton-bid.html?emc=edit_na_20140123&_r=0

  25. Gyges says:

    Is it true that it becomes toxic to the yeast around 16% thus the reason for distilling?

    For most yeast, that’s pretty accurate, although really that plus the lack of fermentable sugars just signals for most, but not all, of them to drop out. I think the current strongest beer is somewhere north of 65% ABV, and that’s not distilled.

  26. swarthmoremom says:

    That is very good news, Blouise.

  27. Blouise says:

    SwM,

    I believe we will be able to openly discuss her campaign, if she does run, on this blog as it is not peopled by as many misogynists as that other place.
    Don’t get me wrong, I suspect most here wouldn’t support her for president but those reason wouldn’t be born out of misogyny so the discussions could be civil.

  28. Blouise says:

    Gyges,

    I’m going to have to pay closer attention to their discussions. My one friend now sells his product to high-end restaurants and pubs. He went through about two years getting licenses, putting up a building to meet code requirements etc. His operation is small but doing quite well and word of mouth has increased the demand for his product. He hopes to be able to quit his “day job” in a couple of years and devote all his time to the brewery.

  29. swarthmoremom says:

    Blouise, I think most of the opposition here would probably come from those that view the Clintons as the ultimate insiders. A case can certainly be made for having that opinion. I truly doubt that many here will be supporting Christie, Rand Paul or Cruz either. We know Rand Paul and Cruz will be popular on the Turley blog because the hatred of anyone with a “d” by their name is so rampant there. Nick calls himself a libertarian but he sounds live a conservative “r”.

  30. Blouise says:

    SwM,

    I rather thought Jeb Bush would be in the running but according to much of what I read after his dismal performance a few months ago, it doesn’t appear likely. The republicans have a real mess on their hands.

    It’ll be interesting to see where Gene, Tony C., and others of like mind come down on potential candidates. I’ll also be interested to see where pete hangs his hat and eniobob too.

    Should be fun. Maybe we’ll win this time. 😉

  31. Blouise says:

    Gyges,

    When I say pay attention to the discussions … I was initially more interested in his business plan and familiarized myself with the product production only from that standpoint. Now I’ll pay attention to the technical and technique.

  32. rafflaw says:

    I am a bit late Elaine, but a great article. I saw this news item and I almost choked on my tongue. If my wife ever asked me about “submitting” to me, I would know that I am already in trouble! These conservative nut jobs can let the Bible run their lives and marriages, but keep it out of the government.

  33. Oro Lee says:

    FYI, my paternal grandfather was a SBC bivocational, itinerant evangelist. A maternal uncle was an independent baptist. Both about blew a fuse when Mormons with genealogy charts showed up at their respective family reunions.

    Both had tough rows to hoe in their lives, especially my uncle — we was a farmer and allergic to dirt.

  34. Blouise says:

    “Both had tough rows to hoe in their lives, especially my uncle — we was a farmer and allergic to dirt.” (Ora Lee) … lol … I think

    Yep, Tex’s great X (whatever number) grandfather was allergic to knives. I could make a generalization fallacy about Baptists but that would be taking advantage of Gene’s flu bug.

  35. Charlton Stanley says:

    This clown would not have done very well if he had ever encountered my Scots Irish wife. Somebody once asked me how I managed to deal with her. That was right after she had ripped him a new one. Told him I didn’t even try, that every night when I went to bed, I reminded myself this woman beside me was descended from the guy who cut off the head of the king of Scotland….in a church. She was a MacBeth.

    Then again, there is my youngest daughter. Several young men have tried to boss her around. It never worked out well for them.

  36. Tony C. says:

    Blouise: I do not forgive Hillary for “duck and cover.” I do not forgive Hillary for the campaign spending account excesses ($10,000 night suites in Vegas, $250 per plate dinners with nobody but staffers and $300 bottles of wine to boot), I do not forgive Hillary, when her campaign came up short in the end, for choosing to pay her campaign managers millions while stiffing the many small businesses in multiple states that set up her stages, sound systems, port-a-potties, first aid and refreshments. I find it inexcusable.

    However, other candidates could be worse; but there would be bile in my throat voting for a person that tells pointless lies to puff herself up, that cares more for her millionaire buddies that lost her the election and that don’t need the money, than she does for the people that do need the money and got robbed. By her. I admit I do not know if they ultimately got paid (they hadn’t been when she was soliciting post-election donations), but even if they did they should have been paid first, not last. Let the fucking moron that ran her campaign stand last in line.

    All of that said, in retrospect she almost certainly would have been better than Obama for the country.

  37. Byron says:

    tony c:

    that about sums it up.

  38. swarthmoremom says:

    Blouise, Hillary will have the Obama people run her campaign this time. Jim Messina has signed on. The campaign staff is more competent than the whitehouse staff. She will win by an even bigger margin than Obama did in 2012. Christie was the best hope for the republicans, and he is going away.

  39. Blouise says:

    SwM,

    I remember when they deserted her for Obama in the first place way back when. This is why I would be no good at politics. I am definitely not a forgive and forget type.

    The Koch boys must be seriously freaking out.

  40. swarthmoremom says:

    Blouise, They thought that he was so much more progressive. It did not turn out that way did it?

  41. Blouise says:

    Tony C.,

    They all got paid and I remember last time around when your favorite son was Ron Paul so tit for tat on that one.

    Why don’t we give someone with some actual day to day strong work ethic experience in the field of politics, national domestic policy and international foreign policy a real consideration? She’s no flash in the pan wonder boy/woman … just a sit down, roll up your sleeves and get to work type.

    What I don’t know is how she will react to the Military/CIA cabal that currently runs things but I plan to ask her ’cause I know she has some working experience/knowledge in just how pigheaded those boys can be.

    Now, tell me who you’d like to see in the White House come 2016 … realistically.

  42. Blouise says:

    SwM,

    Hell no and if they’d listened to us they wouldn’t have been able to claim that lack of knowledge. But, in fairness to them, he did capture the imagination of the whole country just like he caught theirs and couple that with his lack of “a history” … well, they took the path of least resistance.

  43. I heard this is where all the smart kids are playing, these days.

  44. Tony C. says:

    Blouise: I think Elizabeth Warren is just as realistic an option as Obama was at the beginning of 2006. I would prefer her. I don’t care if Hillary’s work ethic any more than I care about a Mafia bosses work ethic. I do not think she is smart, she told stupid lies, knowing she was on camera, knowing there were witnesses to contradict her, knowing she was under intense and microscopic scrutiny as a Presidential Candidate. Why? Because she was trying to inflate her First Lady experiences into some weird kind of front-line battle experiences in order to bolster her “Commander in Chief” credentials.

    Do you deny that?

    As for Ron Paul, I personally do not think he was lying. I think the evidence is inconclusive, hearsay, and I recognize his naive approach in letting employees do work without oversight because I have seen it in businesses literally dozens of times, especially when the situation is analogous to Paul’s, I think he agreed to let his Name be used to cash in on some national fame and recognition after leaving office.

    Any proof that Ron Paul is secretly a racist is weak in comparison to the juxtaposition of Hillary on camera claiming she was ducking sniper fire to Hillary on camera smiling and accepting flowers from a child. If she truly remembers that incident as a harrowing battle experience, I claim she is not sufficiently in touch with reality to be President. I think she was knowingly lying; she’s no better than Christie or Bush or Obama in that regard. And I think spending campaign funds on luxuries and hedonistic pleasures is just a corrupt stewardship of funds, she is no better than Sarah Palin in that regard. And I think she was morally bankrupt and it was a telling abuse of power to pay rich campaign managers first because she knew she could stiff the (relatively) poor, or slow-walk them and endanger their livelihood.

    And if Ron Paul falls in that camp of liars too, so be it, it is a relative wash. Because every political action Ron Paul has taken in office tells me he is a true old-school libertarian and civil rights advocate that follows the Constitution, and I would rather have had an executive in office for the last six years that did that, racist or not, misogynist or not, than be subjected to the wholesale destruction of civil rights we have experienced under Obama. The price we have paid for Obama’s betrayal of the Constitution is far more, and far more uncorrectable, than any damage Ron Paul could have done, operating within the Constitution as I believe he would have, to any race or gender issues. For one, he would have had far more opposition by Democrats on any such issues, so I imagine a stalemate on the entire cultural front. But Ron Paul was (and remains) anti-war, and anti-war-on-drugs, and an advocate of a much smaller military. A Ron Paul presidency would have saved many lives of soldiers and foreigners, and I think saved the ruination of many American lives in the war on drugs.

    Anyway, that’s your answer. I would rather see Elizabeth Warren run, and I would vote for her and contribute to her campaign if she did. If she steps aside in deference to Hillary, I would be very disappointed in her judgment and commitment to society.

    I think Hillary is running, and I think Warren should run, and if Warren cannot beat Hillary I would be mollified if Warren became Hillary’s VP pick. I would vote for that ticket with 50% less bile. I haven’t been keeping up with candidates this early, so I know of no other Democrats, Republican or Libertarians that have a chance, or that I would support (I think Rand Paul is stupid and unprincipled). That is just ignorance on my part. I will contribute to Wendy Davis’s Texas Governor campaign, later in the race. I never heard about her before her filibuster in the State Senate, but that action was enough for me to start following news about her (and from her, but I cynically discount self-reporting), and I am sufficiently convinced she deserves support.

  45. swarthmoremom says:

    Elizabeth Warren is not running. She won’t be the VP pick either. That ticket lacks geographic balance. It will be a man from the midwest or near west like Colorado. I am not wasting any more time discussing the racist, homophobic, creationist Ron Paul, Blouise. One thing, Tony, the Paul family despite their professions of libertarianism are in their hearts Christian fundamentalists that do not hold the separation of church and state in very high regard.

  46. Byron says:

    Tony C:

    I think Elizabeth Warren is going to get the nod. There is something going on against Hillary Clinton in the press. It is sort of subtle and I have been wondering why but you nailed it, Elizabeth Warren. The powers that be, I am guessing, either think or know Clinton is old and tired and possibly sick so they are giving her hints to get out and let Lizzy play in the sand box.

    I dont think Hillary can win, she doesnt look well and I think the Clinton name has lost some of its magic. She lost to an unknown with Rush pushing republicans to vote for her in the primaries. That isnt much of a resume, at least in my mind.

    What has she really ever done on her own except go to law school? She road her husbands coat tails and suffered his serial philandering. The only reason she was elected senator is because she had been first lady. All in all, I wouldnt call Hillary an independent woman. Elizabeth Warren is a different story and the plus is that she is much more liberal than Hillary. Clinton has republican baggage in that her parents were republicans; as the Jesuits say “give me a child until she is 7 and she is mine for life.” She has that programming at some level and may not be able to control it as she gets older. All in all I would say Warren would be the better choice for democrats to move the gains made by Obama further down the road.

  47. swarthmoremom says:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/23/why-women-do-not-love-mike-huckabee.html Another GOP contender speaks up about “helpless” women and contraceptives.

  48. swarthmoremom says:

    Bron, I don’t think you and Tony spend much time talking to rank and file democratic primary voters. For the most part they are pro Hillary because they want to win.

  49. elainemag46 says:

    swarthmoremom,

    I just posted a blog about Huckabee. Thanks for that link. I hadn’t read that article.

  50. Byron says:

    Smom:

    the base will vote for Hillary just like the conservative base will vote for Mitt or whomever.

    Tony had a good post on why voting for the party was a bad idea in that you keep getting what you dont want. Warren would be an attractive candidate for the left, attractive, articulate, well educated and she probably uses a decent parfume so there is the smell factor as well.

  51. Blouise says:

    Tony C.,

    I wholeheartedly agree on your Warren pick but would caution that like Obama in 2007, she really hasn’t been tested enough even on the campaign trail … just one local state election. Like Obama in 2007, she inspires, but we have no real way to judge her suitability for that Oval Office pressure cooker and I’m getting tired of these “give me a year to figure out where the bathroom is” types. And SwM is correct that Warren would not balance a Hillary ticket. SwM is also correct when she points out that the rank and file dems like Hillary, they always have and they have, unlike republicans with their flash-in-the-pans candidates, remained loyal to her for decades.

    I won’t deny the on camera lies you bring up but Hillary won twice in New York because she worked hard in her first term, pleasantly surprising her constituents and became an early team player in the Senate earning their respect also. The riding her husband’s coattails was what everyone expected and was not what they got. I like her work ethic and consider it proven.

    I am waiting to see what lessons she learned from her first presidential campaign. What I am not pleased with is that I’m seeing this “inevitability” approach again. As to her looks … we can’t all be ‘Bills or Jackies or Michelles’. However, if she is sick then now is not the time to have another ‘Ronnie’ stumbling along the corridors of the White House. Health is always an issue that should be looked at carefully.

    There is something else I would like to address concerning the person who occupies the Oval Office but that will take some time to pull together in a post. It has to do with the ability of an individual to react quickly when circumstances change and how that ability enhances their leadership. Think Kennedy and Reagan, then think Carter, Bush I and Obama. More later …

  52. pdm says:

    One caution regarding Warren (who I would be delighted to vote for): she is not the best campaigner. Her senate campaign had, at least initially, a very rocky start and one winning campaign may not be enough “seasoning”. She is a terrific professor, but that doesn’t help her win hearts and minds.

    I sure don’t want to misread Tony’s position regarding Ron Paul without addressing Paul’s social policies. Remember he offered no apologies (it was more of a shrug) when a top campagin aide died (was it cancer?) without health insurance. To me, that is a pretty big piece of the rot that is Ron Paul and, in fact, all libertarians.

  53. Byron says:

    pdm:

    Why did the aid not have insurance? Did he choose not to have insurance and take a risk? Could he not get insurance because of a pre-existing condition?

  54. Oro Lee says:

    I had a hard tie deciding between Obama and Hillary. I felt Hillary was mainstream Democrat which at that tie and now is nothing more than a Reagan Republican, and that Obama was tiny bit more liberal. He also didn’t have baggage. But mostly I voted for Obama because I though that by driving the nail into racism all the other -isms would fall. I think just the opposite happened. I thought racism was a defect in the American character, now I realize it is part of its soul.

    I’ll vote for Hillary because I don’t see a more viable option. That there is so much early opposition to her indicates the other side believes the same. But i won’t be happy about it, any more than I now am with Obama

    The Republican and Democrat Party are owned by corporate interests. Capitalism, instead of a mere economic tool, is the religion of both. Nothing much will change with Hillary, things just won’t get as bad as fast with her. Like with Obama.

    What I would like to see in the Democratic primaries is a candidate like Eugene Debs, who was the 1920 presidential nominee of the Socialist Party of America while sitting in the federal pen. I have been unable to locate the party’s 1920 platform but I came across this article concerning its 1928 platform —

    http://butnowyouknow.net/those-who-fail-to-learn-from-history/the-1928-socialist-party-platform/

    The SPA helped to change the conversation. (Admittedly, Debs died in 1926 but “we stand on the shoulders of giants” and in speech and deed there were few as ardent in support of the people than Debs, and in speech none as spectacular.

    This is an excerpt from his pre-sentencing statement to the court —

    “I am opposing a social order in which it is possible for one man who does absolutely nothing that is useful to amass a fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars, while millions of men and women who work all the days of their lives secure barely enough for a wretched existence. . . .

    “Your Honor, I ask no mercy and I plead for no immunity. I realize that finally the right must prevail. I never so clearly comprehended as now the great struggle between the powers of greed and exploitation on the one hand and upon the other the rising hosts of industrial freedom and social justice.

    “I can see the dawn of the better day for humanity. The people are awakening. In due time they will and must come to their own.”

    http://users.wfu.edu/zulick/341/Debs1918.html

    We need a new conversation.

  55. pdm says:

    Both, Bron, Both. And Ron Paul calls that “Freedom”.

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2011/09/ron_pauls_campaign_manager_die.html

    And that audience that clapped their support of “let him die”? Full of libertarians. Lovely folks.

    And as far as Paul’s “solution” that the churches take up a collection? Well, those are government dollars, too, thanks to those tax exemptions for churches and non-profit hospitals.

  56. pdm says:

    Bron,

    So what is your response to the question that Blitzer asked Paul? Do we bar the door and let him die?

  57. Oro Lee says:

    I had a hard time deciding between Obama and Hillary. I felt Hillary was mainstream Democrat which at that time and now is nothing more than a Reagan Republican, and that Obama was tiny bit more liberal but probably not a progressive. He also didn’t have baggage. But mostly I voted for Obama because I thought that by driving the final nail into the coffin of racism all the other -isms would fall. I think maybe just the opposite happened. I thought racism was a defect in the American character, now I realize it may be part of its soul.

    I’ll vote for Hillary because I don’t see a more viable option. That there is so much early opposition to her indicates the other side believes the same. But i won’t be happy about it, any more than I now am with Obama

    The Republican and Democrat Party are owned by corporate interests. Capitalism, instead of a mere economic tool, is the religion of both. Nothing much will change with Hillary, things just won’t get as bad as fast with her. Like with Obama.

    What I would like to see in the Democratic primaries is a candidate like Eugene Debs, who was the 1920 presidential nominee of the Socialist Party of America while sitting in the federal pen. I have been unable to locate the party’s 1920 platform but I came across this article concerning its 1928 platform —

    http://butnowyouknow.net/those-who-fail-to-learn-from-history/the-1928-socialist-party-platform/

    The SPA helped to change the conversation. (Admittedly, Debs died in 1926 but “we stand on the shoulders of giants,” and in speech and deed there were few as ardent in support of the people than Debs, and in speech none as spectacular.

    This is an excerpt from his pre-sentencing statement to the court —

    “I am opposing a social order in which it is possible for one man who does absolutely nothing that is useful to amass a fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars, while millions of men and women who work all the days of their lives secure barely enough for a wretched existence. . . .

    “Your Honor, I ask no mercy and I plead for no immunity. I realize that finally the right must prevail. I never so clearly comprehended as now the great struggle between the powers of greed and exploitation on the one hand and upon the other the rising hosts of industrial freedom and social justice.

    “I can see the dawn of the better day for humanity. The people are awakening. In due time they will and must come to their own.”

    http://users.wfu.edu/zulick/341/Debs1918.html

    We need a new conversation..

  58. Oro Lee says:

    I got filtered — twice; the second is the corrected version

    Feel like Edwina: I’m barren!

  59. Tony C. says:

    SWM: the Paul family despite their professions of libertarianism are in their hearts Christian fundamentalists that do not hold the separation of church and state in very high regard.

    Sorry, it took me three and a half hours to have lunch. There’s apparently a new Ice Capades show rehearsing in town, I’m calling it MAIM. Moronic Assholes In Machines. But I successfully navigated to Pizza and back!

    I know that, SWM. And I am an atheist and think they are morons. But at this point (in fact at the better point we were at in 2012) I recognized this erosion and would prefer a moron that saw it as his duty to roll back the unconstitutional acts of his predecessors, end wars, end the waste of the military and war on drugs. IMO we are both willing to vote for the lesser of two evils, I think I just see the relative dangers differently. I was convinced, and remain convinced, that Ron Paul is no genius, but what he could and would do, would be better for the country than what Obama had already done by 2011, and has continued doing. It is a trade off; what we have paid for a repeal of DADT and a corrupt ACA is thousands of soldiers dead and tens of thousands permanently maimed and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi and Afghani women and children and innocent men, and a breathtaking dismissal of the entire Bill of Rights as a Bill of Suggestions to be taken under advisement when convenient.

    I do not believe those costs would have been incurred under Ron Paul, and I think any costs for alternative actions he might have taken would have paled in comparison. I do not believe that only in retrospect, I believed that at the time we were blogging about it when Paul was running.

  60. Byron says:

    pdm:

    The system is very messed up. I would like to see health insurance rates affordable so all can have access. I think there are other ways to make that happen than by letting government take it over.

    My question is why did a 49 year old man not purchase insurance? I certainly think it is cold to say let him die. Would you stop someone from swimming in shark infested waters without protection if that is what they wanted to do? Assuming of course they knew the water was shark infested. Do you physically restrain them and force them not to swim? If they take a swim anyway, is it your duty to save them from being eaten?

    At some point people are responsible for themselves, especially a 49 year old man with a job.

    I wouldnt shut the door on him but I wouldnt be happy about having to subsidize him either.

  61. Tony C. says:

    Blouise: And SwM is correct that Warren would not balance a Hillary ticket.

    I do not think that is important, among Democrats. Maybe I am out of touch, but I cannot imagine voting for a President because the VP is from my area. It is moronic. And how many places can a VP be from anyway? Palin was not from anybody’s area, and I think there is no denying she got votes. The deficits she brought were not geographic, nobody cared about that.

    Blouise says: I am waiting to see what lessons she learned from her first presidential campaign.

    I am more concerned about the lessons I learned from her first campaign!

    Blouise says: As to her looks …
    I seriously don’t care about that. The job is intellectual, it should not be a beauty contest.

    Blouise says: There is something else I would like to address concerning the person who occupies the Oval Office but that will take some time to pull together in a post. It has to do with the ability of an individual to react quickly when circumstances change and how that ability enhances their leadership.

    Personally, I think Warren fits that bill better than Hillary does. I have noticed on several occasions that Warren thinks very fast.

  62. Tony C. says:

    PDM says: Remember [Paul] offered no apologies (it was more of a shrug) when a top campagin aide died (was it cancer?) without health insurance.

    Yes, I do. Do you remember Paul has repeatedly delivered babies without charge to couples that could not afford it, including numerous black couples, because he thought it was the right thing to do?

    Paul is principled to a fault. I presume he shrugged because he doesn’t know how to solve the problem within his principles, and isn’t smart enough to figure out new principles. He named his son after Ayn Rand, for goodness sake. If he can’t see through Ayn Rand, he is logically impaired. I presume he was a cookbook physician and obstetrician.

    I don’t consider that rot, I consider it a con, they have been conned into thinking their ideology, if ever implemented, would correct the ills. It won’t. It can’t. But they have an irrational belief in it, like 95% of Americans have an irrational belief in God and the supernatural, like 50% of Demcrats that irrationally support Obama’s violations of the Constitution because he is “their guy.”

    A true faith in an ideology bordering on religion (or actually religion) is not rot, it is just delusion, and delusions are part of the human condition. I have my own, I am sure. Rot, at least IMO, is intentional harm for gain. I think Paul saw that death as akin to an avoidable gun accident, and the “cure” for that accident (public health care) as worse than the cost of the cure, because he believes that oversteps the bounds of his view of freedom and government.

    I disagree with Paul on that, but I still think he has principles, including an irrational faith that somehow a freer market would have somehow provided for that victim.

  63. pdm says:

    Bron, I have read two articles and provided a link to one in which his sister says he had a pre-existing condition and could not afford insurance. Paul shrugged and said Freedom.
    I have answered your questions.
    Great that you want everyone to have access to affordable healthcare.insurance. Now please explain how that is done without subsidies.

  64. pdm says:

    consiglieri39
    Those are the two words that I want to come off Bron’s keyboard.

  65. Tony C. says:

    How about one word? NationalizedHealthCare. (Say it fast).

  66. Byron says:

    pdm:

    I just dont think it would work like you think it would work. And there is that freedom thing. Why not change the regulations to allow for more freedom and have a government plan for those who cannot afford health care on their own or let the insurance companies have plans which are partially paid for by government for 20% who dont have it? Why does it always have to be less freedom?

    I am realistic enough to understand that some subsidies would be needed but I would not want to nationalize the whole damn thing. I think if you freed up some unnecessary regulations and started to get prices to come down, you could do it.

    And what about the doctors? Maybe they dont want to be hourly employees? My opthamologist told me, when I asked if she was ready for Obamacare, “I will quit befor I work under that system.” I really like her and she is a great doctor and loves medicine. It wasnt an easy thing for her to say.

    • “Why not change the regulations to allow for more freedom and have a government plan for those who cannot afford health care on their own or let the insurance companies have plans which are partially paid for by government for 20% who dont have it?”

      Well, the ACA provides for both. Please explain how you would have the ACA, with extra freedom.

  67. pdm says:

    Bron, it is EASY for her to say. My cardiologist has been saying it for years. Now ask her how much she makes. Now ask her what she plans on doing once she quits. Then please write us when she mails you the notice that she is closing her practice.

  68. pdm says:

    Tony, no I didn’t know about Paul doing free deliveries. I’m not sure why the attention to babies from black couples, but it is all commendable. But why did you single that out? It makes me recall the Paul newsletters and ask why a principled man does not denounce Lew Rockwell.
    And I have no objection to exchanging “con” for “rot”. But I do have great concerns about those with unassailable principles. Your principled politician may be my zealot. And I bet there are a lot of tea party members of the House whose constituents would describe them as principled. As well as a few Cardinals and Hobby Lobby CEOs. You and I would likely agree that they are delusional.

    Finally, I don’t understand why you assign to Obama the deaths and maiming of hundreds of thousands of Iraquis and Afghanis and our own terrible losses and then assume (I guess) that some Dems are willing to accept that cost as a trade off for ACA and the end of DADT. I get it that the killing has continued and he played a greater role in Afghanistan,but responsibility for Iraq…???

  69. Tony C. says:

    PDM: Precisely. Medical Doctors aren’t going to quit and become 7-11 clerks.

    And even if they do, there will be plenty of medical students that would fill their shoes, because it is still going to be
    A) a highly paid profession, and
    B) an altruistic profession that saves lives and makes lives better,
    Which are the typical twin motivations, in some measure or another, that compel people to become doctors.

  70. Tony C. says:

    PDM: Because he is an old man, and at the time, it was statistically more likely that black couples could not afford medical care.

  71. Blouise says:

    “I do not think that is important, among Democrats.” (Tony C)

    Certainly not to tried and true Democrats but very important to Independents and moderate female Republicans. Can’t win without ’em. Also important in coattail races.

    —————————————————

    The other area I wish to explore with you … and let’s leave particular candidates out of the discussion for the time being … is that ‘thing’ called Executive Intelligence (Menke defines it pretty well). EI is more than emotional intelligence or IQ. It’s almost a sixth sense, one of those talents no one can really describe that is a combination of the above plus personality and experience … an ability to act and execute and carry others with you. Almost an instinctual ability that combined with all the other things I’ve mentioned produces effective, long term leadership. Politics doesn’t offer the proper platform to see such an instinct until one actually reaches the Oval Office. So there is really no way to judge a candidate’s Executive Intelligence. Obama doesn’t have it … he’s far too logical a thinker and too wedded to census building. Kennedy had it, Reagan had it, FDR had it. I think Eisenhower had it and let it go. But Nixon, Johnson, Ford, Carter, and both Bushes didn’t. I think Clinton may have but his lack of sexual discipline overshadowed it completely. Anyhow … it’s the ability to lead, really lead and there is no way, thanks to the nature of politics in this country for us to judge that special ability in a candidate. I suspect it is something none of them know they have (or perhaps all of them think they have) until they are faced with that first, nationwide leadership problem.

    I wish there was a way we could test for it in candidates because if there is one thing a President has to do and do well, it is react.

  72. Tony C. says:

    PDM: I assign them to Obama because I believe it has been his choice to stay in the wars and continue fighting. I believe Ron Paul, as commander in chief, would have drawn down and exited the wars far sooner; he stated repeatedly he would and we had no business being in Iraq and had accomplished all we could in Afghanistan. He is an anti-war zealot, he has made remarks questioning our involvement in WW II. I think he is wrong, but under the circumstances, I would have welcomed getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan ASAP.

  73. Tony C. says:

    (I think he was wrong about WW II.)

  74. Charlton Stanley says:

    C39, Ron Paul is not only a that, but that spawn of his loins is an embarrassment to the medical community as well as the human race in general.

  75. Tony C. says:

    I don’t get to choose the candidates. Of the entire field, Ron Paul was the only candidate in the race for whom I believed there was any chance whatsoever of the Constitution being restored, the wars ended, and Rights restored. If that comes with being a bigot, so be it. If that means white supremacists vote for him, I don’t care, my vote is not determined by who else votes like me, my vote is based on what is best for the country, and if what is best for the country makes some racists happy, it remains what is best for the country.

  76. elainemag46 says:

    FACT CHECK: Ron Paul Personally Defended Racist Newsletters
    By Judd Legum
    December 27, 2011
    http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/12/27/395391/fact-check-ron-paul-personally-defended-racist-newsletters/

    Recently, Ron Paul has been subject to intense criticism over controversial newsletters written under his name in the 80s and 90s that frequently included racism, bigotry, and conspiracy theories. Over the last few days, Paul has responded that he did not write the newsletters and disavowed their contents, claiming this has been his consistent position for 20 years. Here’s what Paul told CNN on December 21:

    PAUL: I never read that stuff. I never — I would never — I came — I was probably aware of it 10 years after it was written… Well, you know, we talked about [the newsletters] twice yesterday at CNN. Why don’t you go back and look at what I said yesterday on CNN, and what I’ve said for 20-some years. It was 22 years ago. I didn’t write them. I disavow them and that’s it.

    Paul’s denials, however, are not supported by the public record. When the newsletters first arose as an issue in 1996, Paul didn’t deny authorship. Instead, Paul personally repeated and defended some of the most incendiary racial claims in the newsletters.

    In May 1996, Paul was confronted in an interview by the Dallas Morning News about a line that appeared in a 1992 newsletter, under the headline “Terrorist Update”: “If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be.” His response:

    Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation…

    In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

    “If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them,” Dr. Paul said.

    Paul also defended his claim, made in the same 1992 newsletter that “we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in [Washington, DC] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal” Paul told the Dallas Morning News the statistic was an “assumption” you can gather from published studies.

    Paul’s failure to deny authorship was not an oversight. He was repeatedly confronted about the newsletters during his 1996 campaign and consistently defended them as his own. A few examples:

    – In 1996, Ron Paul’s campaign defended his statements about the rationality of fearing black men. (“[W]e are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational.”) The Houston Chronicle reports, “A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fear of black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson.” [Houston Chronicle, 5/23/96]

    – Paul said that his comments on blacks contained in the newsletters should be viewed in the context of “current events and statistical reports of the time.” [Houston Chronicle, 5/23/96]

    – Paul defended statements from an August 12, 1992 newsletter calling the late Rep. Barbara Jordan (D-TX) a “moron” and a “fraud.” Paul also said Jordon was “her race and sex protect her from criticism.” In response, Paul said “such opinions represented our clear philosophical difference.” [Roll Call, 7/29/96]

    – “Also in 1992, Paul wrote, ‘Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions.’ Sullivan said Paul does not consider people who disagree with him to be sensible. And most blacks, [Paul spokesman Michael] Sullivan said, do not share Paul’s views.” [Austin American Statesman, 5/23/96]

    Contrary to his statements to CNN last week, it was not until 2001, that he first claimed that newsletters were not written by him. He told the Texas Monthly in the October 2001 edition that “I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren’t really written by me.” The reporter noted, “until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret.”

    There is no evidence that Paul denounced the newsletters in clear terms until he ran for president in 2008 when he said “I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.” Paul has never explained how this blanket denial squares with his vigorous defense of the writings in 1996.

    Further, some of the disturbing ideology embedded in the newsletters is reflected in Paul’s legislative record. In 1999, he was the only member of Congress to oppose the issuing on a Congressional Gold Medal to Rosa Parks. In May 2011, Ron Paul said in an interview that he opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

  77. Tony C. says:

    Elaine: And that is the best you can do; he did not deny anything. In everything you write, he also did not claim anything or make any overtly racist comment. In effect he exercised his right to remain silent, and offered no explanation whatsoever.

    Probably for exactly the reason given, he did not want to give the impression he was an incompetent manager that was so naive he let his name be misused; and after the fact informed us he had not written the letters at all; and there is a great deal of evidence that is true — He did not write them. There is no evidence he reviewed them. As I said earlier, the parsimonious explanation is he mistakenly put his trust in a friend, the publisher, that was sociopathically trying to make a buck on racist innuendo, that (because the publisher was lazy and didn’t want to write ) crossed the line into overt racism, while Ron Paul was cashing checks without looking to see how that money was made in his name.

    Ron Paul gave non-racist, valid Constitutional reasons for opposing ONE element of the Civil Rights Act, and endorsed ALL of the civil rights act as it applied to any governmental office. He opposed, on free market principle he has held to firmly, forcing civilian business to serve anybody in particular, for any reason. He had no opposition to Congress forcing the military or any federal government operation to abide by rules preventing discrimination of any kind.

    You got nothing. A refusal to deny something, a refusal to condemn something, is not an admission of guilt or authorship, it is not an endorsement of it.

  78. Tony C. says:

    consiglieri39 says: He’s is utterly and completely unfit for office,

    So are nearly all politicians, including Romney, Obama, Hillary, McCain, Bush I and II, Reagan and many more, by the same criterion you damn Paul.

    So is anybody that convicts and sentences another on innuendo, hearsay, and by association.

    I do not doubt that Paul may have some racist beliefs, born in 1935, he was raised to adulthood in a culture where racism was openly acceptable and common. It is difficult to not be infected by a pervasive pathogen. Same goes for gender discrimination, or sexual orientation discrimination.

    But as for being fit for office, all of those are legally held views, and none of them can be encoded into law without the aid of both the House and Senate. The question is not their views, but what they have tried to do about them or have proven they would try to do about them. On that point you also have nothing.

  79. elainemag46 says:

    Tony C.,

    I’ve been out for a couple of hours. Back a couple of years ago, you and I had a go round about Ron Paul on the Turley blog. I provided lots of information to you about the man–but you chose not to accept any of it as factual…or kept making excuses for him. The man may have been born in 1935. Should we still make excuses for racist views he seemed to have clung to by the 1980s and 1990s? I believe he has been disingenuous regarding what he knew/what he didn’t know about the content of his news letters.

    I have agreed with Paul on some issues. That doesn’t mean I think he’d make a good president.

  80. Blouise says:

    Elaine,
    My neighbor is a die-hard Ron Paul fan and has been for years and years. He supported him due to his anti-tax and anti-war platforms. My neighbor was an original Tea Partyer when it was defined as purely anti-tax (Boston Tea Party date used as a fund raiser for Paul). Now my neighbor would probably do just fine living up on Ruby Ridge, if you know what I mean, and he’s a bit of a bigot, she’s-a-good-girl wifey type. Then we have Dennis Kucinich who is very liberal and a great supporter of Ron Paul’s, and then we have Tony. Three very different political viewpoints but there is something in Ron Paul that calls out to each of them.

    I stopped trying to figure it out a long time ago.

  81. Tony C. says:

    Elaine: I don’t think he would make a good president, either. I think on many points, including his stances on abortion and his anti-regulatory bent, I think he would be a quite bad president.

    But I would prefer a president that firmly believes in the Constitution to one that is willing to be judge, jury, and executioner of American citizens without evidence, hearing, or trial, and I don’t think Hillary, Obama, Christie, or Romney would say a word against that power. I think Ron Paul did, and would follow through.

    Choices are trade offs, and I choose the Constitution over any particular cultural issues of the day, Democratic or Republican. What I want for the country, as tiny as my voice may be, is never going to happen if the Bill of Rights is not restored from its very tattered state, begun by Bush Cheney and embraced and extended to jaw-dropping extent by Obama Biden.

    The point isn’t to BE a good President or to advance any Liberal or Progressive agenda, at this point I do not even care of progress is reversed, the only point is to elect somebody with the courage (or just bull-headed ideology) to insist upon restoring the Bill of Rights no matter WHAT the cost may be. What we need is emergency heart surgery without anesthetic. Screw the pain, we are about to lose the patient.

  82. Tony C. says:

    Elaine says: I believe he has been disingenuous regarding what he knew/what he didn’t know about the content of his news letters.

    I don’t think so. But that is because, as I said, I have seen too many examples of people that trust friends and business acquaintances far more than they should, and I think that is what happened to Ron Paul.

    But even if he IS being disingenuous — So what? Hasn’t Obama been far more so? I have never seen a President break more campaign promises than Obama has, and more immediately. No lobbyist appointments, remember that? A transparent White House meeting schedule, that was a good one. His on camera promise that no health care bill would be signed without a public option, which we now know was thrown under the bus within two months of taking office. His promise to close Guantanamo. His promise of trials for prisoners, followed by his redefinition of the criminal justice system to “heads we win, tails they lose.” His promise to embrace whistle-blowers, then tolerance for literally torturing Bradley Manning. The killing without any due process whatsoever of Al Awlaki, and his innocent 16 year old son.

    Even if Ron Paul was disingenuous, and there is no smoking gun to show that and a plausible excuse in which he was not, it has done nobody any harm and what you think he is disingenuous about falls squarely within the rights of free speech. I think anybody that thinks Ron Paul is not fit for office but Obama IS fit for office is a flaming hypocrite, willing to excuse murder for somebody they like, either that or unprincipled, willing to excuse any crime for political expediency.

  83. elainemag46 says:

    The problem with Ron Paul
    11/10/11
    http://www.examiner.com/article/the-problem-with-ron-paul

    Excerpt:
    Ron Paul has become a hot topic in yet another Republican primary. Many young voters (both liberals and conservatives) have been lured in by the man who claims to be a strict Constitutionalist. Ron Paul wants to withdraw all military forces from foreign soil. Great! So do many liberals. Ron Paul wants to legalize marijuana, or at least leave it up to the states. Great again! Many college students are smiling as their Bob Marley flag hangs on their dorm wall. The modern libertarian model, Ron Paul has made a name for himself by claiming to support individual rights. With that said, it’s time for Ron Paul’s farce to be exposed.

    Ron Paul has become a hot topic in yet another Republican primary. Many young voters (both liberals and conservatives) have been lured in by the man who claims to be a strict Constitutionalist. Ron Paul wants to withdraw all military forces from foreign soil. Great! So do many liberals. Ron Paul wants to legalize marijuana, or at least leave it up to the states. Great again! Many college students are smiling as their Bob Marley flag hangs on their dorm wall. The modern libertarian model, Ron Paul has made a name for himself by claiming to support individual rights. With that said, it’s time for Ron Paul’s farce to be exposed.

    Another issue with Ron Paul’s policy, also a result of his religiosity, is that as president, he would not support the core American value of separation of Church and State. His views on this are plain; the Founding Fathers (You can read my issue with this argument here) did not mean that Christianity shouldn’t be prevalent in the public sphere, but that the nation cannot establish a national Church like the Church of England. Otherwise, Paul believes this is a Christian nation founded on Christian ideals. This view of the Establishment Clause in the Constitution is common amongst Republican politicians, but James Madison, one of the authors of the Bill of Rights, was an early supporter of the separation of Church and State. Additionally, the Treaty of Tripoli literally said, “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…”, and this was written by another Founding Father, John Adams. Putting this aside, since really the views of 200 years ago matter little in the 2012 election, Paul’s views do nothing to honor individual liberties, as it would allow state and federal institutions the opportunity to favor Christianity over other beliefs. Separating Church and State is vital in the nation’s ability to afford opportunity to all and honor individual rights over those of a majority.

    Ron Paul is also a Creationist. While this in itself doesn’t run over individual liberties, he does take a position that would directly harm our children; he wants to ‘teach the controversy’. Teaching Creationism alongside evolution waters science and the scientific process down. One side, evolution, uses a vigorous process of scientific review, empirical testing and observation, and direct natural evidence, all consistent with science, which is the study of the natural world. Creationism uses the Bible, supernatural explanation, and a use of God to fill in what we don’t understand. Using the God of the Gaps to justify Creationism essentially renders science over; if God did everything we can’t figure out, why try to figure it out? Every attempt by Creationism to get scientific recognition has rightly failed. Ron Paul, if he truly wants to fix our nation, needs to support education, and that includes science and allowing scientists and science teachers to do what they does best, which is teach and do science.

  84. Tony C. says:

    Elaine: Okay, I will argue with your expert.

    Expert says: Another issue with Ron Paul’s policy, also a result of his religiosity, is that as president, he would not support the core American value of separation of Church and State

    Probably true. How does this make a difference? The President’s “views” are not the law of the land, if they follow the Constitution, and that is what Paul does. The Supreme Court will review the law, and the Congress will set the law, not the President.

    Expert says: Ron Paul is also a Creationist. While this in itself doesn’t run over individual liberties, he does take a position that would directly harm our children; he wants to ‘teach the controversy’ [in regard to evolution].

    Having faith in the Bible does not make one unfit for office; in fact I doubt an openly atheist person of any race, gender or age could get elected in this country. And again, the President’s views on what should be done are not the law.

    Expert says: Ron Paul, if he truly wants to fix our nation, needs to support education, and that includes science and allowing scientists and science teachers to do what they does best, which is teach and do science.

    That is a load of crap, Expert. If any President wants to truly fix our nation, science does not enter into it. They need to stop the violations of our Constitution and return to the principle of law that Congressmen and politicians are not ABOVE the law, that citizens have a right to privacy and free speech, that elections should not be rigged, that Gerrymandering should be illegal, that campaign contributions for favors (tax and legal) should be outlawed. What is taught in schools is hardly an issue at all, and whether the President “supports” education or not is immaterial to the problems of our country, and education would be automatically fixed if politicians had to answer to their constituents to be elected and could not pander to corporate interests and tax-haters that defund education. Whether anybody “teaches the controversy” or not is in the footnotes, in 6 point type, on the list of the problems in our country. Many of which are within the Constitutional power of the President to fix.

    This is just more of the same BS, a failure to recognize what is within the power of the President to do, and what is not. It buys into and promotes the whole “Imperial Presidency” ideal, that the President is all-powerful (and something Ron Paul explicitly rejects). I don’t care what his views are on Creationism, Race, or Abortion, even though they are opposite of mine, because there is very little he can do (he doesn’t set law by decree), Democrats and liberals would oppose him vehemently, and anything he DOES manage to do can be undone in a subsequent term, and he himself has said his priorities would be on ending wars and the war on drugs and restoring the rule of law.

    I wanted (and would still take) Ron Paul precisely because he is ideologically bull-headed about the Constitution. Not because he is smart, or great, or I like him. I honestly don’t. I think I would like somebody different in the White House that would use their presidential power to restore the Constitution and reduce the power of the Presidency, which is what his ideology demands of him and he has promised repeatedly to do. If he damages some cultural furniture in the process, I think it can be fixed later, and even if it cannot then it is like chemotherapy and radiation treatment, that is the price of survival to excise the cancer of the Imperial Presidency that is increasingly destroying America.

  85. pdm says:

    Blouise, I like your idea about EI and although I might not have a good grasp on what exactly you mean by EI, I wonder if Johnson didn’t have it. He was a hell of a leader in the senate – an overbearing one to be sure – but he had SOMETHING. Civil Rights, War on Poverty, Medicare? If it wasn’t for that GD miserable misbegotten war…

  86. Tony C. says:

    Blouise: That is interesting.

    I found and read about “Executive Intelligence” so I could answer. So I have Menkes lecture on it; that’s it.

    I had significant success as a manager; both from scratch (in my own business and another business as a contractor) and in saving projects. I don’t know how to judge management, honestly, and on first read I don’t see Executive Intelligence as providing any help. It seems to be saying that what works is what works!

    I don’t see how that tells me to do anything differently that what I have already done.

    But I have been very successful as a manager, both in getting things done and building long term loyalty, without socializing hardly at all with my subordinates. I am not good at socialization or small talk at all. I know nothing about any sports, next to nothing about the arts. At lunch I talk shop, or business, or science. I’m not arrogant, I’m just a Dilbert, outside of those topics my employees and I share no interests because I have no other interests.

    That is not absolutely true, but my interests in politics, or cultural issues like racism, atheism, etc I consider off-limits for discussion with employees, and my interest in various TV series or recent movies are worth a few minutes of conversation at best, if we both watch the same show. In general I keep my guard up, I want to be friendly but not friends, if that makes sense. I have to be able to give orders, reprimands, praise and ultimately be able to fire these people, and I don’t want friendship to sway my judgment in what is fair treatment or the right thing to do, in work assignments or otherwise.

    In fact I avoid working with friends as a subordinate or superior. If I choose to work with friends it has to be as partners with equal votes (not necessarily equal equity or ownership percentages, but equal decisive power and fair rules for deciding disagreements).

    But the EI stuff… I think the reason that is hard for you to measure is because when we try to get specific (as we must to measure anything) we really can’t, it is formulated vaguely, or maybe it is even circularly defined, e.g. “good managers manage well.” (at least on my first take, perhaps there is something more subtle there I am missing).

  87. Blouise says:

    Tony C.,
    There have been some significant papers and lectures on the subject since Menke. Most of them pertain to business … The difference between a good CEO and a great CEO etc

    I was interested in jumping off that business platform to the political platform and our efforts to determine who, among the candidates offered during any Presidential election cycle, would make the best leader. I found it difficult to determine as the offices available to politicians before they run for President simply don’t provide the kind of experience upon which we can judge a candidate’s ability … where we might see that “extra” something that indicates a “great” leader. (I suppose the closest is Governor which may be why we tend to elect so many Governors)

    The President, in order to succeed in getting the country to follow him must be able to react quickly and what office before the Oval Office offers the opportunity to judge a candidate’s ability to react quickly?

    What do I mean by “react”? Think George Bush sitting in that elementary school room as his aide whispers in his ear that a second plane has hit the towers and we are under attack … the “deer in the headlights” look in his eyes followed by hours spent out of touch as he flies around in an airplane. Then wait a few more years and think “Katrina”. Perhaps the twin towers attack is too much to expect though FDR handled Pearl Harbor with the correct reaction as did JFK during the Cuban Missile Crisis but a Katrina type event is far more common and Bush proved wanting there too as did Obama to the unexpected financial collapse. I would posit that Bush had the leadership skills of a child and that Obama is too logical a thinker and always looking for consensus to be any good at a job that calls for quick reaction that inspires confidence in his ability to lead.

    That’s what I am referring to when I say a President, as the leader of the country, needs to know, to be able, to react quickly so that he/she may effectively lead.

    So, for want of a better place to hang my thinking cap, I chose EI as a means to get in to a conversation as to how we, the electorate, can judge a man or woman’s ability to be a great leader … to have that extra something that leads to the ability to react quickly (and properly) thus reassuring the country that this is the person to follow.

    Or, is it impossible to know until the person actually gets into the Oval Office and is presented with his/her first crisis?

  88. Tony C. says:

    Blouise: Okay.

    For the sake of conversation, is that what we want? I’m not so sure. I can analogize to business. Theoretically, there is a division of duty in a business between the Board, the CEO, and the COO (Chief Operating Officer; for some readers). That division of duty corresponds to their time horizon. The board of directors is responsible for one year to five year plans, and we want people there that focus on the horizon, remote threats and opportunities that will take time to prepare for. They are the ones that are supposed to investing now, so we won’t be flanked, or left behind. When Amazon was rising, Borders and Barnes and Noble had at last five years to respond and respond aggressively, but it was their Board that is responsible for the failure, sitting on their asses and doing nothing while they were surrounded by Amazon (and may still be bankrupted).

    The CEO is responsible for the quarterly, and to a large extent the annual results. His time horizon, instead of one to five years, is one to five quarters.

    It is the COO that is responsible for the day to day operations. And also the COO that has the most experience with fingertip information, informants, and who to call to make shit happen right now. She does that every day.

    I would argue the smart CEO, upon hearing of a disaster, should quickly stand beside their COO and say, repeatedly and to the point of comicality, “Whatever it was she just said. Do that!”

    For the President (a CEO) that COO may be various persons or heads of department, but I am more interested in a CEO that is a good long term planner than I am a CEO that is just a good emergency thinker. Good emergency thinking (and planning) should be somebody’s job, and somebody with a good track record of making snap decisions with large sums of money and personnel (like a battle-tested general), which (also IMO) is a different skill set than deep thinking. Somebody may not have both.

    To me, a Board (like Congress) and CEO (like a President) should have the good planning sense to give a COO some well-defined temporarily greater power to deploy assets, money, and personnel in the event of an emergency.

    Bush was a deer frozen in the headlights. Obama, if he is smart and thinking, should apply his smarts NOW for the plan of what to do should emergency strike. Who’s the fast thinker? If his cabinet members are just political favors, ask them the same thing. Who’s the fast thinking emergency go-to guy in your department? Identify them, define their powers, lets brief them and talk to them and see what they need.

    It is kind of astonishing to me Bush’s reaction; I cannot believe they did not rehearse this stuff; what to do if you get gob-smacked and don’t know what to do: Excuse yourself on “Presidential business” and find the person that should be managing this emergency, and then stand beside them. Practice nodding while looking sorrowful, resolute, or threatening. That is your job on camera for a day or two, besides that stay out of the way and try to keep up.

  89. Tony C. says:

    To me a great leader is not somebody fast on their feet. Heck, some of the business disasters I have seen are precisely because a manager was always in short-sighted reactive mode, and proud of it. They averted a lost sale, with a bad patch but it worked for that sale. And after ten patches, their product was a piece of crap, impossible to maintain, and they were getting calls left and right from upset customers. What to do? You can’t stop putting out fires!

    But what you can do is specialize, you can make 70% of the team dedicated to putting out fires and 30% dedicated to fixing the source of the fires. We have to think long term, and sacrifice immediate satisfaction for longer term satisfaction. Every added complexity should be offset by an added simplicity or maintainability, we work on these in pairs to maintain a balance.

    I use the metaphor of the river. A river is crooked because it takes the path of least resistance. But it would be just as crooked if it took the path of greatest resistance! The straight path gives us the river that wastes the least energy and moves water fastest, but to get it we have to ignore difficulty and chart our path based on our destination. To me, a great leader sees a realistic destination, and charts the straightest realistic path to it. When the path is easy, a leader builds reserves for when the path is hard. When they make camp, the leader tells them what is coming, and the victories they won.

    Leadership, to me, is inspirational (and as such it cannot be about the leader, it has to be about the great things the team (or country) is going to accomplish.) As Lombardi said, the battle begins in the heart, not on the field. We need people to strive for a goal, to believe they can do great things, to make the world a better place, to know that their job is making a difference and they are appreciated. (And conversely, that selfishness, pettiness, jealousy and shirking are intolerable.) Leadership is inspirational.

    Obama had me on that one, but it turned out to be an act to get elected. While he was telling us to not be bamboozled, he wasn’t laughing with us at a funny phrasing, he was laughing at us because he was bamboozling us. I certainly have not been inspired by his “leadership” since the election was over.

    Martin Luther King was a leader.
    JFK was a leader, both on the moon shot and with “Ask not…”.

    MLK and JFK were not leaders for putting out fires, but for shining a spotlight on an inspirational goal, for making it seem achievable and desirable, for changing the hearts of millions.

  90. Blouise says:

    Tony C.,
    What I’m attempting to get at is the ability to react properly (a word I put in parenthesis last time around based on assumption) and quickly. The president must unify the nation as citizens turn to the him/her for assurance and direction especially in a time of crisis. Americans expect presidents to be crisis managers. When presidents react quickly to a crisis (foreign or domestic) their leadership is strengthened and their approval ratings increase.

    Presidents unable to react properly and quickly in this day of 24 hour media coverage lose the public to others just as quickly. Bush’s failure during 9/11 effectively gave the leadership to the Mayor of New York city but the public forgave Bush when he finally got off the plane with his act together. Bush’s failure to immediately get on top of Katrina caused his approval ratings to plummet almost overnight and his leadership never recovered because the public wasn’t going to forgive him a second time.

    Whether they like it or not, Presidents spend a great deal of their time reacting. If you disagree with that then we don’t have anything to discuss. If you agree, then perhaps we can discuss how best we can judge a candidate’s ability to think on his feet and react properly to typical situations a President can face on any given day (natural disasters, acts of war, domestic terrorism etc.) thus providing the crisis leadership that is immediately needed.

    Remember … I’m thinking out loud here so my thoughts are forming as I look at EI, a term thus far applied to business and wondering if can be amended, modified and then morphed to political offices or if we are always doomed to the “crapshoot” now in place.

  91. Blouise - HELP says:

    I just posted a reply to Tony and it isn’t appearing … could someone hunt it down and release it please.

  92. Elaine M. says:

    There you go, Blouise.

  93. Blouise says:

    Elaine,

    Thanks.

  94. Tony C. says:

    Blouise: Well, maybe they spend time reacting, but to a large extent that should be an act, as I said. Whatever the crazy situation may be, extraterrestrials land in Oklahoma, Denver vanishes, a nuke goes off in Miami — You (as President) are not really going to know shit for an hour or so, so you better practice your best “the situation is fluid but don’t worry, I’m on it” speeches, while your staff is speed dialing those pre-identified emergency managers off-camera.

    How could we judge that ahead of time? Before Obama, I would have said by how they managed their campaign; but that was stellar and I don’t think he has dealt with crisis very well in office.

    I don’t see anything in EI other than an inventory of general traits that are only identifiable after the fact.

    And your statement, “The president must unify the nation as citizens turn to the him/her for assurance and direction” is talking about an inspirational leader, not a crisis manager. A crisis manager is deploying resources and giving orders, not talking to the people about their feelings.

    I guess my question for you is: Looking back, do you see clues in Obama’s behavior that should have told us he would NOT be good at it?

  95. Blouise says:

    Tony C.,

    “Looking back, do you see clues in Obama’s behavior that should have told us he would NOT be good at it?”

    Good lord, yes! Remember, I didn’t vote for him because there was no way in the world I would have voted for anyone with just two years experience on the National scene and next to nothing on the local scene. There was nothing there to indicate he WOULD be good at it … resume wise.

    And of course part of it is acting … that’s a politician’s life-blood … but there has to be solid intelligence there, a sense of the right direction that is born out of experience and all those other factors mentioned in the EI material and being inspirational when managing a crisis is part and parcel of good leadership and not an easy thing to accomplish and often the difference between good leadership and great leadership. Remember EI is noting the difference between a good CEO and a great CEO. I’m wondering if we can note the difference between a good candidate and a great candidate … minus all the emotional crap.

    As I said, it may not be possible.

  96. pete9999 says:

    Blouise

    at the time i did think it was really funny that the republicans spent seven and a half years telling themselves and prepping for hillary in 08 that when she didn’t get the nomination they had no game plan and no idea how to attack. the one thing that was the biggest deal but they couldn’t say was “but he’s black”.

  97. Tony C. says:

    Blouise: I don’t think inexperience is much of a tell. Firstly everybody has to have a first time. Secondly, the wrong kind of “experience” can be worse than starting from scratch. Thirdly, younger correlates with idealism and principles that I think are more desirable than cynicism and principles eroded by time into disposable bargaining chips.

    So, on to possible tells. I know three very good managers and leaders quite well: One I met on the job, and two I hired directly out of college for their first jobs. One of my hires, after three years, took over my job when I left. The other two moved on to other technical managerial jobs.

    In all three cases they were Summa Cum Laude graduates for their Bachelor’s (IMO such rankings mean much less in graduate school and are not comparable between schools or even within the school or department, IMO).

    Assuming their undergraduate college is not a diploma mill of some sort, it isn’t easy for students to graduate Summa without being both conscientious and able to work under pressure. It typically requires a 3.9 GPA, nearly straight A’s (my GPA was 4.0, all As). Sure, somebody might take easy classes and electives, we could look at that, and for some degrees good grades are more difficult than others, but core classes and technical classes tell fewer lies.

    I have had very good fortune hiring straight out of college, with zero experience, and paying high (about 20% more than any other offer they get) for Summas, or at least hiring high GPAs if that is all I can get.

    I strongly prefer high grades in all subjects, on the grounds that I want people that do a good job on principle, even if “art history” or “Greek mythology” is never going to be part of their job as, say, an electrical engineer. I do not expect them to remember most of what they learn, I look at grades as proof of an ability to develop expertise in a topic, even if temporary. Which is what I need, in the real world we don’t often get easy textbook problems, we need people that can get up to speed fast no matter what the job is. We want A students, and the more As the more generally applicable their intelligence and the more doing a good job is important to them, a matter of duty, pride, principle or possibly, competitiveness. That’s okay, I can appeal to any of those motivations.

    Not only do I get outstanding workers that haven’t learned any bad habits or shortcuts, they end up being good managers themselves, first of themselves and later of others.

    I know political candidates don’t have to release college transcripts, but perhaps that could change, if political organizations (like Move On, perhaps, or Daily Kos, etc) asked for them, and looked askance at pols that refused to provide them.

    Bush Jr. had a Yale GPA of 2.3 and a rich daddy to boot which may have inflated even that. I presumed (I think correctly) he was intellectually lazy, his actual acumen was probably about the 11th grade, and probably he was not conscientious, or not good under pressure (test taking), and could not generate mental options very quickly.

    Mitt Romney’s GPA was 3.97 (in English) (which does not indict this approach, but proves it cannot be the sole criteria, because to me Mitt seems an epic fumbler as a leader.)

    Bill Clinton’s undergraduate GPA was (I think) 3.42. Better, but not outstanding.
    Hillary Clinton’s UG GPA is unavailable, but she graduated “with honors” which typically means over 3.5 (Laude) but under 3.75. So she passes this filter.

    If you want to test them under pressure, look at the tests they took under pressure. It hardly makes a difference why they didn’t do well in their undergraduate career. In the modern world I think all presidential candidates will have at least a Bachelor’s degree, and if they obtained it in their twenties, I think that is early enough they might have been thinking about a political career (like Bill Clinton was) but still early enough to be telling us something about their native intelligence and core personality traits at a time when they are still young and not accustomed to (or thinking much about) public scrutiny. i.e., less likely to be faking conscientiousness and industry.

    I don’t think this is a complete solution by any means; but it may be a component. So there is more questions for you:
    Do the leaders (in any office) you admire tend to be good students?
    Are the people you think of as bad leaders also bad students?

    I would also say this idea fits with the first EI inventory item; leaders have to be good at making things work. That requires some intelligence and ability to learn, some rational capacity to understand new situations. So maybe their academic record is a place to start, some evidence of their behavior when not many people were watching, and can provide evidence (for or against) of some prerequisites of an ability to lead.

  98. Tony C. says:

    HELP please, I had a reply to Blouise that has been lost…

  99. Blouise says:

    pete,

    You are so right about that and I’ve always wondered if that was part of the reason, a small part perhaps, that they went with him. There was no real history to attack.

  100. Elaine M. says:

    Tony,

    I just retrieved your comment from the spam filter.

  101. Blouise says:

    Elaine and Tony,

    Thanks, Elaine.
    Tony, I haven’t read it yet but judging from the length it’s no wonder you asked for retrieval help. Many months ago over at that other place, Nal asked that when we needed help retrieving a lost post to put the word HELP next to our name in the details portion (Tony C. – HELP) so that the request could be easily spotted.

  102. Blouise says:

    Tony C.,

    “I don’t think inexperience is much of a tell.” In certain areas, yes, many of them which you list, but certainly not in the President of the United States or a heart surgeon, or a tool and die maker or an opera singer (experience builds repertoire).

    I do, however, very much like your idea of releasing transcripts because that is a real indicator of work ethic and the level of difficulty a student has been willing to tackle plus the other areas you mention including fields of interest.

    “Do the leaders (in any office) you admire tend to be good students?
    Are the people you think of as bad leaders also bad students?”

    Those are two good questions and I have to admit I haven’t thought about leadership from that viewpoint though I have constantly lectured my kids and grandkids on the importance of good grades as an indicator of work ethic and basic character to a future employer.

    There aren’t many political leaders I admire but I can think of one I do and I have no idea what his university days entailed so I’m going to do my best to find out. Interestingly enough, I dismissed Bush Jr. right out of the box because of his dismal performance at university and his evading real military service while claiming to have served. There is really only one individual leader I knew well and admire and his performance at university was spectacular and he had 3 PhDs earned through continuing education.

    So, yes, I’m going to factor performance at university into the formula that might put an end to this crapshoot approach we employ in electing a President.

  103. swarthmoremom says:

    Blouise, One thing we know is that Hillary and Bill Clinton were Straight A students at their respective undergraduate institutions. One has to be to gain admittance to Yale Law School. Neither had legacies. Sometime I help my husband sort through resumes and I often chose the ones with the high grade points because of the work ethic.

  104. Tony C. says:

    Thanks, Elaine.

  105. swarthmoremom says:

    Then, again, Ted Cruz was magna from Princeton and Harvard Law, and I would not vote for him for anything.

  106. Tony C. says:

    Swarthmore: Straight As would be a 4.0 GPA. My Internet search says Bill’s GPA was 3.42, that is at least some B’s. It also said Hillary graduated “with honors,” which in my experience is usually synonymous to “Laude,” in most schools a GPA of 3.5 to 3.74. If students graduate Magna Cum Laude, they usually say that (3.75 to 3.89). And the same for Summa Cum Laude (3.9 to 4.0). It is possible Hillary had straight As, but I doubt it, “with honors” is a much weaker designation than “Summa.”

    Some people will also get into the habit of claiming they were a “straight A” student, and upon query will say in their specialty courses, i.e. they blew off World History and American History and Intro to Psych and Astronomy and English and Art…

    As an employer I prefer candidates that are not lazy because they think something doesn’t really matter. Or I prefer candidates that have the bandwidth to do well at all the courses.

    BLOUISE: There is another element you can consider it transcripts; and that is bandwidth, measured by how long it took the student to finish. Did they flash through?

    One might also measure persistence and dedication, I know a straight A graduate that took ten years to finish his Bachelor’s, taking one and two classes per semester while raising a family and holding down a full time job.

  107. Tony C. says:

    Swarthmore: Yeah, Ted Cruz is insane. I think we need a separate filter for egomaniacs and sociopaths. Bad university performance may be more powerful an indicator than good university performance.

  108. swarthmoremom says:

    Now you do need straight A’s to go to Yale Law School as it is No. 1. Maybe Bill took a good LSAT and they weigh grades from Georgetown more heavily than some. Hillary is known to be the harder worker but neither of them are slackers by any means.

  109. Blouise says:

    Tony C.,

    “Bandwidth” … adapted buzz-word … excellent … 🙂 It can also indicate a student who did not wish to accumulate too much debt in student loans. (I know a young man whose grandparents have promised him a certain amount of money when he graduates … this money was offered to all the grandkids to help pay off their student loans. This young man decided, after consultation with said grandparents, that accumulating too much in student loans was not in his best interests so he works and goes to school knowing that course would add a year and a half to a degree that would normally take 4 years. Thus his student loan debt is low and he will use the rest of the money towards a new car to replace the very old one that he presently drives. He will graduate in Dec of this year with a GPA ono lower than 3.6 and begin his career with no student debt and a reasonable car payment. Also, this young man was not fooled by that “unpaid” internship carrot … all his internships are paid and include well earned letters of recommendation. He figures his resume will get his foot in the door or, better yet, into graduate school … which will mean he drives the old car for another 2 years.)

    Yep, the more I think about it, a full accounting from those early years would be most helpful in determining a good candidate for President.

  110. Blouise says:

    SwM,

    “Hillary is known to be the harder worker” and more disciplined.

  111. swarthmoremom says:

    Bill Clinton also won a full scholarship to Georgetown and became a Rhodes Scholar. He studied at Oxford and then Yale law School. Both Clintons are smart, high achieving, and hard working.

  112. Blouise says:

    SwM,
    But I think he’ll be more fun as first lady than she was.

  113. swarthmoremom says:

    It has been reported that McCain barely passed at the Naval Academy. Palin hopped from school to school.

  114. swarthmoremom says:

    Well let’s hope he is not too fun. 😉

  115. Blouise says:

    SwM,

    Hmm … yeah, there is that.

  116. Blouise says:

    But can you imagine the viewership when Bill Clinton does a “Tour of the White House” and then poses for Vanity Fair? He’ll have to get a dog and have a naming contest.

  117. Blouise says:

    Speaking of testing and grades etc.:

    “The number of Air Force service members implicated in a scandal involving alleged cheating on tests of nuclear missile launch operations has roughly doubled from the 34 initially cited by the Air Force, officials said Tuesday.
    It wasn’t immediately clear whether the additional 30-plus airmen suspected of being involved in cheating on proficiency tests are alleged to have participated in the cheating directly or were involved indirectly.”

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/apnewsbreak-implicated-nuke-cheat-probe-22266419

    • bigfatmike says:

      @Blouise “The number of Air Force service members implicated in a scandal involving alleged cheating on tests of nuclear missile launch operations has roughly doubled from the 34 initially cited by the Air Force, officials said Tuesday”

      I read about this situation earlier. That article seemed to suggest that part of the motivation to cheat was the extreme high score necessary to progress in that field of the military.

      The situation goes to honesty which is necessarily troubling.

      But an important question is does this also go to competence. That is not clear. I am prepared to be a lot more worried if personnel do not know the rudiments to operate nuclear weapons and are cheating to pass the tests.

      In my view it is a very different, but still troubling, problem if they are cheating to get ahead.

      It seems to me that distinction is important because, I would argue, the solutions are different.

  118. Tony C. says:

    The problem with including grad school is that frequently the only grades are “A,B,C” and “B” or “C” is rather rare; most students get “A” due to the regulations about getting a “C”, which can put you on probation, lose you a student job (like as a tutor or grader), etc. Professors can be too kind-hearted to give a “C” when deserved, and so “B” is their only “you did terrible” grade, and when they get used to “B” meaning that, they are cautious about even giving that out, lest other professors think the kid is a loser (and refuse collaborations on projects or whatever).

    I don’t know how it is in law school, though. Or in most schools. But in the hard sciences, I can say on this blog, and in my experience and hearsay, grad school grading can be all fucked up.

  119. swarthmoremom says:

    Tony, many law schools operate on a strict curve. When the Clinton’s attended, they all did. University Of Texas Law still uses the curve.

  120. Tony C. says:

    SwM: Sounds like the same deal. It is a bit weird, I think it is easier to catch a break and pass on the curve for a Master’s than on the Bachelor’s. But then, the PhD is harder again, I have seen several students unable to pass the qualifiers despite a second try, and a few more quit ABD (All But Dissertation).

  121. Oro Lee says:

    My law school you earned your grade or you didn’t. First year grades looked like the USDA food pyramid. Graduating class was 1/3 smaller than when it was the incoming class.

  122. Blouise says:

    “But an important question is does this also go to competence. That is not clear.” (bigfatmike)

    I agree. We need to find a better source that will answer that important question.

Comments are closed.