That's what John McCain is. One of the reasons it's hard to get enthused about him. I suspect that Palin might be a little better.
[Update a while later]
Both presidential candidates are completely economically incoherent.
No surprise, since they're both economic ignorami. Though in Obama's case it's worse, because he thinks that he understands economics, and much of what he knows for damned sure is wrong.
You may disagree with Obama's economics but you can't call him incoherent. Obama could take on McCain and Palin together for days on economics or international issues. As much as you hate him, he is an intellectual - something the current GOP and its enablers disdain. The problem is that Obama isn't white and certain people simply will not vote for him.
Maybe McCain-Palin should win - give the white majority of this country the leadership they want, give the talk radio morons the so-called patriots they want, give the GOP the fruit of what it has sown. Run us all into the sewer while rebuilding Iraq and waging war all over the world while shrieking about the benefits of the free market sans all regulation.
As much as you hate him, he is an intellectual - something the current GOP and its enablers disdain.
I don't hate Obama. And the notion that he's an "intellectual" is hilarious. It does explain why cowardly anonymous dim bulbs like you will vote for him, though.
I'm not sure it's possible to win an election with an economically competent platform.
Economic competence doesn't win you a lot of votes, compared to incompetent pandering.
(And, seriously, IH, what does "intellectual" even mean in your use?
Beyond its improper use as a synonym for "smart and educated" or its even more improper use to mean "all of the above and on our side!", that is?
Obama's a smart guy, and he's got an education - the former I'll grant on credit on the available evidence, and the latter is beyond question on the same grounds.
But that doesn't make him "an intellectual" - I see no particular evidence that he prioritizes the life of the mind over politics [Indeed, no even half-successful Presidential candidate can do that - intellectuals necessarily disqualify themselves], or that he's deeply concerned with theory and intellectual support for his policies.
Every candidate uses his advisors, his received knowledge, and his intuition to talk like he has a deep, consistent, intellectual grounds for his policies.
Nobody should believe that for a second, from any candidate that hasn't done serious, independent, published work on the subject.
I won't be holding my breath for that candidate to appear from >any party with a chance of winning.)
Doesn't Obama use this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austan_Goolsbee) - he seems to be a lot more clued up than Blackberry guy.
"The problem is that Obama isn't white and certain people simply will not vote for him."
He's more white than he is black. But I wouldn't vote for him even if he were 100% white--his race has nothing to do with it.
The problem is that Obama isn't white and certain people simply will not vote for him.
Right, that's why Kerry lost too.
Excuse me, but in what sense is "an intellectual," meaning someone who graduated high up from Harvard Law School, equivalent to someone who knows a lot about economics from the practical point of view?
I thought your side didn't believe in g, the general measure of IQ measured by SATs and such. You're always on about how experience in a given field, or a particular form of competence, is what matters, and that it's racist and sexist to make statements like one's general intellectual capacity matters more than time on the job, specialized training, et cetera.
In any event, my experience -- and bear in mind roughly half the people I know have PhDs in one field or another -- says that intellectuals in their field are to be respected, but outside of their field should be trusted considerably less than amateurs, because they very often do assume that because they're good at field X, they must be pretty good at random field Y, too.
Top engineers think they'd make great managers, top lawyers feel free to second-guess physicians, physicians think they know more about economics than businessmen, businessman and legislators think they understand engineering as well as the engineers, and of course well-spoken journalists and TV pundits think the ability to reason well and persuasively out loud or on paper qualifies them to second-guess any expert whatsoever.
It's weird that the Angry Left has spent 8 years criticizing George Bush for "arrogance," and yet they've put up a most remarkably arrogant guy, who thinks his general prowess at speaking dramatically qualifies him to do pretty much everything better than those who've been doing it for decades.
Unfortunately a real free market, knowledgable about economics type wouldn't stand a chance of winning the presidency in the current eonvironment. (Or ever?) So as usual we're faced with the choice of the lesser of two eveils. McCain and a Republican administration are likely to do less damage to the economy, especially with the probability of a Congress controlled by the Democrats. So McCain is the clear choice among ignorami.
> Doesn't Obama use this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austan_Goolsbee) - he seems to be a lot more clued up than Blackberry guy.
Obama did (and Goolsbee is an excellent economist), and then ditched him while campaigning for the primary in Ohio because Austan was attempting to reassure people in Canada that Obama didn't -really- want to completely screw over trade relations with them. I can't remember if Obama flipped on that and hired him back after the primaries, though.
A quick Googling still shows him turning up in news items listed at Obama's chief economic adviser, so they must have hired him back.
IIRC even David Friedman had some not unkind words for Goolsbee.
Wasn't Wilson the last "intellectual" President?
As George Orwell said (and I may be mangling the quote) "there are some ideas that are so stupid that only an intellectual could believe them." When it comes to Obama, and the garbage that comes out of his mouth in the rare, rare occasions that anything substantive is said, I am inclined to agree that (1) he is indeed an intellectual (2) Orwell was right, and (3) Obama is a perfect example of what he was talking about.