June 29, 2011

Honest Question, Seeking Answers
— Ace

I've been wondering about this, but before I write a post postulating "This is what I think is going on," I thought I'd ask for input.

Because it doesn't matter to Andrew Breitbart what I say, after all. He skips to the comments.

Here's the question, with a preamble. There is a lot of anger at the Establishment, and, as a first matter then, at the idea of credentialism.

I've attacked the idea of credentialism myself. But I think there are two different strains of anti-credentialism, which I'll term Weak Form and Strong Form.

The Weak Form of the anti-credentialist impulse says that just because you have relevant training or experience, or some degree, doesn't necessarily mean anything. Perhaps you know what you're talking about. Perhaps you don't. But the credentials you carry are but most weak circumstantial evidence that you know what you're talking about.

The Strong Form of the anti-credentialist impulse says that typical credentials are not only not necessarily evidence of competency, but in fact positive evidence against competency. That is, where the Weak Form would say a credential is at most weak evidence you're the right sort of person for a task, the Strong Form would call it evidence, but in the opposite direction, that your credential makes it less likely that you are qualified for the task.

I'm curious about this because things I've generally considered good credentials for high executive office -- such as experience in high executive office on the state level -- seem to not only be largely diminshed in terms of relevancy, but almost taken as relevant in the wrong sort of way, that is, as affirmative evidence of the taint of corruption and Establishmentitis and the rest of it.

Is this the current tension in the Republican Party? Between Weak Form anti-credentialists and Strong Form anti-credentialists?

Note this implicates an almost exactly parallel argument about "elitism," as credentialism and elitism are inextricably intertwined.

Posted by: Ace at 07:36 AM | Comments (682)
Post contains 331 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Credentials or not, the only worthy thing are results.  Always be closing.

"Can you make them sign on the line...that is dotted?"


Posted by: EC at June 29, 2011 07:40 AM (GQ8sn)

2

My own post hoc ergo propter hoc logic - We're boned, we've been represented by those with strong credentials, strong credentials caused our being boned.

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at June 29, 2011 07:40 AM (jx2j9)

3 Isn't the Strong Form a kissing cousin to Deconstruction?

Posted by: John P. Squibob at June 29, 2011 07:40 AM (/U/Mr)

4 3 Isn't the Strong Form a kissing cousin to Deconstruction?

Posted by: John P. Squibob at June 29, 2011 12:40 PM (/U/Mr)

Frankly, it's time for the right to do the deconstructin'.  The Left has done it for too long.

Posted by: AmishDude at June 29, 2011 07:41 AM (T0NGe)

5 The problem with credentialism, Ace, is that people confuse experience for genius.

Posted by: AmishDude at June 29, 2011 07:41 AM (T0NGe)

6 42.

Posted by: Duchess Sebelius and Queen Chewbacca at June 29, 2011 07:41 AM (x7g7t)

7

I think there are two different strains of anti-credentialism, which I'll term Weak Form and Strong Form.

I was told there wouldn't be any physics on this blog.

Posted by: 57 states at June 29, 2011 07:42 AM (sMgrb)

8
I need a 'for instance.'

Posted by: soothie at June 29, 2011 07:42 AM (G/zuv)

9 I believe it's more the case of false dualism.  We know that RINOs are bad, and screw us over regularly, but far too many on our side make the leap that whoever is not the RINO must therefore be the best we can do, irrespective of said non-RINO's character, accomplishments, or acumen.  SO we support them to our detriment.

Example 1 is O'Donnell.  2 is Buck.  3 is Angle.

It's now becoming clear that 4 is becoming a tossup between Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann.

Posted by: Lou at June 29, 2011 07:42 AM (48Azh)

10 SHAZAM! sock off.

Posted by: Blindside at June 29, 2011 07:42 AM (x7g7t)

11 Credentials and 'credentialism' is not the problem.  The tainting and ruining of the whole concept of 'demonstrated competency' is the problem.

People are given credentials because they are a certain race or gender or other Approved / Placated Group

Affirmative Action has so badly damaged the whole concept and meaning of competency that it's difficult to maintain reasonable standards.


Posted by: SantaRosaStan at June 29, 2011 07:42 AM (UqKQV)

12

Nah, you are overthinking this.  The tension is between the Washington, DC Republicans and the non-Washington, DC Republicans.  Period.  The perception is that there is a monolithic "Establishment" of Republican longtime politicians, consultants, staffers, lobbyists, and other operatives in Washington; that this "Establishment" generally chooses the Republican nominee for President; and that this Establishment is not idologically conservative but only wants power for the sake of power, and so will spout conservative platitudes to get people to vote for their nominee, but if the nominee wins he will not giovern as a conservative. 

This conflict has been going on within the Republican Party since the 1950s.  It isn't anything new.

There is a subset of this conflict between the old Reagan people and the old Bush people. 

Posted by: rockmom at June 29, 2011 07:42 AM (u8gFC)

13 Bacon makes everything better.

Posted by: IE Con at June 29, 2011 07:43 AM (/COcn)

14

The current tension in the Republican party is between those willing to face the music, and those hoping the music will keep playing long enough to allow them to escape whole. Those hoping the music will keep playing are in the majority.

Credentialism is for observers, not those boiling in the fire. 

Posted by: Meremortal at June 29, 2011 07:43 AM (7FgWm)

15 42.

Since we got the answer from Deep Thought, when will we get the question?

Posted by: John P. Squibob at June 29, 2011 07:43 AM (/U/Mr)

16 >>>We're boned, we've been represented by those with strong credentials, strong credentials caused our being boned. So you're more in the Strong Form camp, as I've termed it, yes?

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 07:43 AM (nj1bB)

17 Strong form sounds irrational.  Weak form sounds like me.

Posted by: rdbrewer at June 29, 2011 07:44 AM (Sfu+M)

18

Is this the current tension?

Not at all.  The dispute in the GOP as it the country at large is between folks who want to be left alone to screw up or succeed on their own, and folks who want the power to do it all for us.  To the former group, credentials are utterly irrelevant. To the latter, credentials are the stuff on which the build their alleged right to run the rest of us.

Posted by: glowing blue meat at June 29, 2011 07:44 AM (K/USr)

19 >>>Nah, you are overthinking this. The tension is between the Washington, DC Republicans and the non-Washington, DC Republicans. Period. The perception is that there is a monolithic "Establishment" of Republican longtime politicians, consultants, staffers, lobbyists, and other operatives in Washington; that this "Establishment" generally chooses the Republican nominee for President; and that this Establishment is not idologically conservative but only wants power for the sake of power, and so will spout conservative platitudes to get people to vote for their nominee, but if the nominee wins he will not giovern as a conservative. This fails to explain why a DC-based politco like Bachmann should be favored over a non-DC one like Perry or Pawlenty.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 07:45 AM (nj1bB)

20 My Temperament leads me to follow the weak form, but my Experience suggests to me that the Strong Form most closely models reality.

Posted by: Tom Servo at June 29, 2011 07:45 AM (T1boi)

21 Credentialism in its truest form is a positive.  Someone with experience in government will usually look like a better candidate than someone without.  (See also: Barack Obama.)  However, most of the credentialism espoused by longtime GOP politicians simply shows how out of touch they are.

Any politician who has lived inside the Beltway for a decade or so has no idea what goes on in the real world.  Sure, they have experience in matters of government, but that experience goes hand-in-hand with a cluelessness that makes them less than capable to handle the challenges our country faces.

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at June 29, 2011 07:45 AM (igASc)

22 I find a certain degree of merit in Weak-Form Anti-Credentialism. 

I consider Strong-Form Anti-Credentialism to be a blight not only upon our party and our base, but upon humanity itself. 

Posted by: Jeff B. at June 29, 2011 07:45 AM (hIWe1)

23 Credentialism is the fig leaf for the Washington-vs.-notWashington conflict.  Washington Republicans cite a non-Washington Republican's "lack of credentials" as a reason to oppose them.  That way they don't have to say what they really mean, i.e. you just aren't one of our favored crowd and we don't like you; or, you really are a conservative and we aren't.

Posted by: rockmom at June 29, 2011 07:46 AM (u8gFC)

24 zzzz ... Hwuh?!

Posted by: Joe Biden at June 29, 2011 07:46 AM (BSWJE)

25 >>>The dispute in the GOP as it the country at large is between folks who want to be left alone to screw up or succeed on their own, and folks who want the power to do it all for us. To the former group, credentials are utterly irrelevant. To the latter, credentials are the stuff on which the build their alleged right to run the rest of us. Would you say then you are more in the Strong Form camp (as I've termed it)?

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 07:46 AM (nj1bB)

26 Ok, so someone with years of political experience is somehow not qualified to be a politician? Because they're a ....lifelong politician?

But someone with a razor thin resume and a good patter is qualified?

Since we got the latter in this last election, I'd like to go back to hiring the former.

Posted by: mpurinTexas supports Rick Perry, bitch at June 29, 2011 07:47 AM (5d6vv)

27 You forgot the third form:

Being credentialed in something not only doesn't insure that you are competent and able at that area, but it certainly doesn't mean that you are competent to do things that are outside of your area (which is the assumption that is really being pushed by the elitists).  Lawyers end up running all government entities (like Fannie, Freddie, on the Fed boards, even the insane and unnatural globalist entities, the cabinet departments, ...) and the argument from the lawyers is that they are so smart that they can do anything better than anyone.  In fact, lawyers can't do much better than anyone, and there are many lay people who are better at law than lawyers.

Posted by: progresoverpeace at June 29, 2011 07:47 AM (G/MYk)

28 How about the argument that so far we've tended toward electing strongly credentialed candidates.  Maybe they start out OK or with good ideals. But through systemic bureaucracy and the tendency for power to corrupt, these  strongly credentialed folks end up, um ... sucking.  Now we're (I'm) sick of strongly credentialed candidates.

That's not to say that a weakly credentialed candidate after elected would be any less subject to the bureaucracy and corruption, but hey, it's a change, and really, it would be hard to do worse than we currently have.    
 

Posted by: someone at June 29, 2011 07:47 AM (bqjJT)

29 Credentialed people, once given their Ticket To Ride, are relatively immune to being judged and found in contempt if they can play the Race or other Card.

What we have is an increasing number of people who are more qualified to be credentialed than those already rewarded--and most of this group are White men.  They've been told that they owe, and they are paying some sort of inter-generational bill.

So we get the New Entitled, arrogant but insecure and defensive.  They know who they are.....

 

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at June 29, 2011 07:47 AM (UqKQV)

30 Term limits for Senate and Congress would fix a lot of this.  Get them out before they are poisoned by the Beltway.

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at June 29, 2011 07:48 AM (igASc)

31
let's take Romney, for example

Mitt's credentials include a governorship and a very successful record in the private business sector. Here we have two very different 'credentials.'

Would I dismiss either or perhaps favor one over the other? Yes. Mitt's cred in the private sector supersedes the govt cred.

Posted by: soothie at June 29, 2011 07:48 AM (G/zuv)

32 As to the two forms you mentioned, I think you skip the part about the credentialing institution, which is the key part of many of these issues.

Posted by: progresoverpeace at June 29, 2011 07:48 AM (G/MYk)

33 I sorta feel like that credentialism question is relevant to the republican is Palin electable question, but not much else.

Posted by: taylork at June 29, 2011 07:49 AM (5wsU9)

34 Screw credentials.  I have a driver's license, but it doesn't make me Dale Earnhardt.

Posted by: kathysaysso at June 29, 2011 07:49 AM (ZtwUX)

35

... all that and the fact that we have come to equate having a law degree as a prerequisite to holding office.  That has caused a real Empire State Building sized chanchor on the ass of this country. (two brothers are lawyers.  Lawyers make fair lawyers - shitty representatives - based on my own unscientific observations.)

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at June 29, 2011 07:50 AM (jx2j9)

36 Would I dismiss either or perhaps favor one over the other? Yes. Mitt's cred in the private sector supersedes the govt cred.

That's not the entirety of it, though.  By that standard, Herman Cain's the most credentialed, but any objective observer can tell he's a policy lightweight.  Elected officials do indeed need to have experience in policy as well as traditional education.

Posted by: Lou at June 29, 2011 07:50 AM (48Azh)

37 how about electing someone with common sense and credentials......but sitting in washington dc and waiting for a turn is not my idea of credentials...

Posted by: phoenixgirl at June 29, 2011 07:51 AM (eOXTH)

38 Mitt's credentials include a governorship and a very successful record in the private business sector. Here we have two very different 'credentials.'

Posted by: soothie at June 29, 2011 12:48 PM (G/zuv)

That's "experience", not credentials the way ace is applying it.  If Mitt had gotten a Ph.D. from Hah-vahd in governing Massachusettes, instead of actually doing it, that would be a credential issue.

Posted by: progresoverpeace at June 29, 2011 07:51 AM (G/MYk)

39 The example I would use to oppose credentialism:

Having a Harvard Business degree and going on to create Collateralize Debt Obligations

Example for pro-credentialism:

The JEF winning the highest elected office and then trashing America. Hell, the average american housewife could do a better job than he.



Posted by: sTevo at June 29, 2011 07:51 AM (vi3pQ)

40 Screw credentials.  I have a driver's license, but it doesn't make me Dale Earnhardt.



So, if you need brain surgery, you want the guy fresh out of med school or the guy who has performed the surgery hundreds of times?

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but credentials also includes on the job experience, yes?

Posted by: mpurinTexas supports Rick Perry, bitch at June 29, 2011 07:51 AM (5d6vv)

41 This fails to explain why a DC-based politco like Bachmann should be favored over a non-DC one like Perry or Pawlenty.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 12:45 PM (nj1bB)

I would not consider Bachmann a Washington Republican AT ALL.  Ed Rollins latched on to her for that reason.  He hates the Washington GOP establishment because they have been cutting him out of the most lucrative consulting jobs for years. 

Thanks to the Bushes and Karl Rove, Texas has become an extension of Washington, DC.  Rick Perry would not have ever been Governor of Texas without the blessing of the Bushes.  I think some of the Establishment is backing him because they really want Romney but they think he can't win because he can't fool enough conservatives into voting for him.

Pawlenty is kind of an outlier, he is neither fish nor fowl in this dichotomy.  Which explains why nobody is supporting him. 

BTW, the real Establishment candidate was Mitch Daniels.  He fucked up a whole lot of people's plans by not running.

Posted by: rockmom at June 29, 2011 07:51 AM (u8gFC)

42 A parallel, perhaps?
I work in a somewhat esoteric engineering area, been doing so for 35 years.
There are people I know who have MS and PhDs in engineering, and a State license (PE).  I also know people with a tech school associate's degree and no paper.  When you get to the bottom line, some in the first camp should not be allowed to call themselves engineers, some in the second camp are pure walking genius. 
It's not the credentials per se.  It's what you've done and what you've learned and how you apply that WISDOM to the situation.

Posted by: Dastardly Dan at June 29, 2011 07:51 AM (56hk3)

43 Credentials also come with self-interest.

A sports reporter doesn't cover "sports" objectively.  He can't possibly be "anti-sports".  A government reporter is the same.  A climate expert is dependent on climate science money and, more generally, in climate science being seen as important and relevant.  An experienced politician is interested in government expanding in size and scope because it's his business.

In addition, the New Socialism requires credentials.  We think that Socialism is all about the working class rising up, etc., etc. but that's not what it is anymore.  With Socialist party members living it up in $3000/night hotel rooms, Socialism is now about central planning by "experts".  The goal of the Socialist is now to put the experts in and they will solve problems.

But as we see with economists, climate scientists, and virtually every other expert, they don't have any answers.  If they did, we wouldn't need experts.  Experts exist because the problems are intractable and we need people to study them in depth and try to understand as much as possible.  If the problem is really difficult, the expert doesn't really know much.

Posted by: AmishDude at June 29, 2011 07:52 AM (T0NGe)

44 Interesting how this tension really only exists in the political arena. We would never say because a fellow is a CPA he must necessarily be a shit accountant.

Posted by: taylork at June 29, 2011 07:52 AM (5wsU9)

45 What you refer to as weak form anti-credentialism is just a reaffirmation of why "appeal to authority" is a logical fallacy.

Strong form anti-credentialism is argumentum ad hominem and doesn't really pass muster.


Posted by: Andy at June 29, 2011 07:53 AM (5Rurq)

46 I'm curious about this because things I've generally considered good credentials for high executive office -- such as experience in high executive office on the state level

Sorry, soothie,  I did a half-Brietbart and only read half of ace's post.  I was wrong.

Posted by: progresoverpeace at June 29, 2011 07:53 AM (G/MYk)

47

>>>The Strong Form of the anti-credentialist impulse says that typical credentials are not only not necessarily evidence of competency, but in fact positive evidence against competency.<<<

 

Exhibit A:  Herman Cain fans.

It's an emotional, non-thinking overreaction.  Throw the bums out!  Which is fine and dandy until your candidate turns out to be a high-functioning retard like Christine O'Donnell.

If I'm pissed at my doctor, I don't start auditioning plumbers, chimney sweeps or the sex offender that runs the Tilt-a-Whirl at the county fair to be my next general practitioner.

Why is this one endeavor the only one in which we're supposed to be begging for someone who knows fuck-all about the job for which they're applying?  It's a stupid argument and every time I see it I have to bite my tongue to keep from tearing a strip off commenters I otherwise like.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 29, 2011 07:53 AM (lGFXF)

48 I must be misunderstanding, the GOP has a division over whether someone who has "credentials" is partially full of shit or completely full of shit? This will end well for the GOP.


Posted by: Penfold at June 29, 2011 07:53 AM (1PeEC)

49

Is this the current tension in the Republican Party? Between Weak Form anti-credentialists and Strong Form anti-credentialists?

I think you are on to something here.  After years in the business world, put me in the weak form anti-credentialist camp.  Credentials are merely training and tools - they help form a foundation for success, but what you do with them is what counts.  Those that follow the strong form seem to almost argue that any experience or education is a bad thing.

Posted by: Vashta.Nerada at June 29, 2011 07:53 AM (hiFDo)

50 Credentials are important for your very first position.  Employers need to know that you understand the basics.  Voters need to know that you understand the basics.

After that, they are meaningless.  Your actions are the only thing that are important after your first job or successful election.

Posted by: Kevin at June 29, 2011 07:54 AM (IJz/s)

51 44, CPAs don't get the title by convincing people to vote for them.

Posted by: Dastardly Dan at June 29, 2011 07:54 AM (56hk3)

52 Rick Perry would not have ever been Governor of Texas without the blessing of the Bushes.

They supported Kay Bailey Hutchinson rather vocally in the last primaries.  She was defeated easily.

Posted by: AmishDude at June 29, 2011 07:54 AM (T0NGe)

53 The problem with credentialism, Ace, is that people confuse experience for genius.

Posted by: AmishDude at June 29, 2011 12:41 PM (T0NGe)

At one place I worked we had an expression: "He doesn't have twenty years of experience, he has six months of experience repeated 40 times."

Posted by: Nighthawk at June 29, 2011 07:54 AM (OtQXp)

54 Whether credentials without or not seems to depend on a couple of things:

1) Which credentials?   If they're not executive functions (governor, running a business), who cares?  (I know, Democrats do).

2) Does anything else corroborate them?  A string of consistent "credentials" of the right type makes it more likely that (to paraphrase Inigo Montoya), "they mean what you think they mean". 

The problem with Barky's credentials illustrate this:  (1) the wrong credentials (senator, community organizer, instructor @ a law school) and (2) lack of corroborating evidence that he could handle the job. 

And we know how that turned out. 

Posted by: RightWingProf at June 29, 2011 07:55 AM (UOcNk)

55 This fails to explain why a DC-based politco like Bachmann should be favored over a non-DC one like Perry or Pawlenty.

You're starting to answer your own question.  Perry and Pawlenty have the appearance (rightly or wrongly) of being supported by... Credentialed People (in more simpler terms, Top.Men.); Bachmann doesn't.  And who's attacking Bachmann, and yes, Palin right now?  Top.Men. (be it from the Left).

Posted by: John P. Squibob at June 29, 2011 07:55 AM (/U/Mr)

56 Geez.  I even misread ace's first half of the post.  Dang!

Needless to say, the word "credential" means something a bit different to me.

Posted by: progresoverpeace at June 29, 2011 07:55 AM (G/MYk)

57 >>>Thanks to the Bushes and Karl Rove, Texas has become an extension of Washington, DC.  Rick Perry would not have ever been Governor of Texas without the blessing of the Bushes.  I think some of the Establishment is backing him because they really want Romney but they think he can't win because he can't fool enough conservatives into voting for him.

See, but this is just nutty to anyone who knows Texas politics.  Rick Perry and the Bush/Rove people strongly dislike one another.  Perry has basically cast himself in rhetorical opposition to the Bush legacy both in Texas and nationally, and Bush's behind-the-scenes guys are more than happy to talk about their disdain for him. 

This is just assuming based on the superficial fact that both are Texas governors.

Posted by: Jeff B. at June 29, 2011 07:55 AM (hIWe1)

58

Credentialism is about preserving the status quo of the power club. Skull and Bones and all that. A decent parallel is our educational system. Teachers used to exist for the good of students, politicians used to exist to serve the citizens.

Now, it's the other way around in both arenas. Credentialism upholds that newer status quo.

Posted by: Meremortal at June 29, 2011 07:55 AM (7FgWm)

59 Thanks to the Bushes and Karl Rove, Texas has become an extension of Washington, DC.  Rick Perry would not have ever been Governor of Texas without the blessing of the Bushes.



Which why they endorsed KBH in the last governor's race?

Posted by: mpurinTexas supports Rick Perry, bitch at June 29, 2011 07:55 AM (5d6vv)

60

This is a pretty astute post on your part. The difference between two guys that have the same credentials, but one functions and the other does not, is the dilemma of education. About fifteen years ago, a fellow that had sat beside me in all the post graduate classes came down and visited me. While here, he spouted all the theories and so on, but I could tell they were absolutely meaningless to him. He had no idea if they were valid concepts or not. I wound up asking him, Do you even think about any of this stuff? He looked at me like I was some kind of heretic. (He is probably a high ranking Democrat now).

Obama probably impressed all his professors because he could tell them what they wanted to hear. That is where he learned to tell the American people what they wanted to hear. But did he ever stop to think if anything he was saying was accurate? You know he did not.

Posted by: Harry at June 29, 2011 07:56 AM (EVJKf)

61 From where I sit, it's that folks don't agree on what those credentials mean anymore.  Or rather, that just the credentials aren't good enough.  It's like having a degree without experience, or not so much education but a proven history.  There's this disconnect between 'I have this degree, I have held this office' and what that person's actually done.

And I may as well put it out there, but the 'RINO' thing is really the ultimate expression of this.  An idiot with a degree is still an idiot, a coward with medals is still a coward, and if you hire a fool who's been CEO in seven top companies, you've still hired a fool.  It's just not good enough anymore.

Posted by: AoSHQ's *second* worst commenter, DarkLord© at June 29, 2011 07:56 AM (GBXon)

62 ace, I would say you missed the point by a mile.  Credentials has nothing to do with it.

Posted by: Cherry π at June 29, 2011 07:56 AM (OhYCU)

63 There are those who "can and do" and those who "should be able to yet cannot". How ever you can get to "can and do" is what matters. Credentialism for the sake of it is pragmatically useless; i.e. the theory is never tested in the lab. Sure, the titles and letters sound impressive until everyone discovers that you just regurgitated someone else's work and really earned nothing on your own. When it's apparent that your accomplishment is purely - if not actually - just academic, then would-be followers recoil, and possibly attack, depending upon the arrogance held by the "superior."

Proof is in the pudding. If all you ever did was read the instructions, then I'm not inclined to dip my balls in it.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at June 29, 2011 07:56 AM (1yViP)

64 >>>Credentialism is about preserving the status quo of the power club. It does do that. Is that all it does?

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 07:56 AM (nj1bB)

65 >>My Temperament leads me to follow the weak form, but my Experience suggests to me that the Strong Form most closely models reality. Sounds like "credentialism" to me, and so must be wrong.

Posted by: Charles Foster Kane III at June 29, 2011 07:58 AM (RxKkR)

66 If I'm pissed at my doctor, I don't start auditioning plumbers, chimney sweeps or the sex offender that runs the Tilt-a-Whirl at the county fair to be my next general practitioner.

I think a doctor is a false comparison and the go-to example.

The human body is a ridiculously complex system not to mention the environment that impacts it.  If our system of laws is so complex, then that is the problem.

If we are expected to follow the law, then it cannot be the exclusive province of experts.

Posted by: AmishDude at June 29, 2011 07:58 AM (T0NGe)

67

Oh, and aren't we just saying.....

Credentialism = Elitism?

Posted by: Meremortal at June 29, 2011 07:58 AM (7FgWm)

68 Strong Formers exist and are very vocal but I'm not convinced that there are a lot of them. Of course, an active/agitaged minority can do more than a passive/compliant majority but I don't think there are enough of the Strong Formers to pull that off. To put it another way, Strong Formers similar-to PaulBots.

Posted by: Comrade Arthur at June 29, 2011 07:58 AM (KOAYS)

69 Whoa OT: but my commie governor just did a move that makes Christie look like Jimmy Carter! Sending the info to ace after this airport run

Posted by: Navy COP joe aka supercabbie!!! at June 29, 2011 07:58 AM (2WXnZ)

70 I like boobies.

Posted by: real joe at June 29, 2011 07:58 AM (SlSoO)

71 that is, as affirmative evidence of the taint of corruption and Establishmentitis and the rest of it.

One of the fundamental problems, I think is that the operating meme of politics is a perverted form of compromise. So the expectation is that when a liberal political faction is in power it will enact as much liberalism as possible, but that when a conservative faction is in power it will compromise so that instead of rolling back broad swathes of liberal initiatives the conservative politician is expected to horse trade - lower taxes for more spending, less regulation in one area for more then another, etc.

This has led us to our current state where we've had a government that has relentlessly gone further to the left.

And almost all of the credentialed Republican candidates have agreed to this "rule" of politics. Well, we've reached the point were more of the same is suicide. We've gone so far left now that it doesn't matter if a Romney moves us left at half the speed of Obama.

There is room for a "credentialed" Republican to fight this agreement, but the ones who seem to be aren't ready for the big time yet - Scott Walker, Rand Paul, etc.

Posted by: 18-1 at June 29, 2011 07:58 AM (7BU4a)

72 For social science, education, Islam / Near East, environment*, journalism, and human resources: the Enemy gives out those certifications. I assume anyone with such a credential is a propagandist unless I have studied his work and verified it beforehand. *Others would add climatology. I really can't, personally. This much is beyond me. I can say that Mann and Jones have betrayed science.

Posted by: zimriel at June 29, 2011 07:59 AM (Od8l0)

73 Credentials are generally way overrated bullshit, especially when politics are involved.

With that said, Obama still has none, of any sort.

Posted by: Dick at June 29, 2011 07:59 AM (Tj88Z)

74 My bottom line is that the question of credentials in relation to performance depends on the field in question.

In some areas (eg politics) credentials are neither necessary nor sufficient, for success, though I think in *general* they are helpful.   Someone who really does have good experience/credentials as a political executive is more likely to outperform someone who doesn't. . .though this isn't always true.

In highly technical/advanced areas, credentials are necessary, though not sufficient.  EG UNLESS you've done your 5 years training as a neurosurgeon, you're not going to be any good at it, though just because you have, doesn't ensure that you will either.   Going through flight school doesn't ensure that you'll be a great fighter pilot, but you definitely can't be unless you go through it, etc.

And then there are a few areas where credentials are effectively meaningless.  Having a PhD in education bears ZERO relationship to your ability to teach anything or design any sort of effective educational curriculum.   Not only is it neither necessary nor sufficient, the credential effectively means nothign.

I can't think of any particular examples where I truly believe that a particular credential is NEGATIVELY correlated with a persons ability in that area, though I concede there might be some.

Posted by: looking closely at June 29, 2011 07:59 AM (PwGfd)

75
So you're more in the Strong Form camp, as I've termed it, yes?

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 12:43 PM (nj1bB)

Ace,  I don't necessarily believe that, and let me explain; It isn't the credentials themselves, it is the idea that has been sown and nurtured that the credentials are a necessity.  That idea has allowed the political class to come into existence contrary to what the founding fathers envisioned, imo.  The idea of strong credentials allowed walls to be built around a subset of America that the credential gate keepers control.  Look at the dynasties that form within this subset where family name is more important than qualifications. 

It makes sense to me.

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at June 29, 2011 07:59 AM (jx2j9)

76 Depends on the credential.  There is strong-form for the mushy -studies, journalism and humanities credentials because there is a strong indication that those majors are the Denny's of college(no one plans on going to Denny's, you just end up there at 3 AM horribly confused on how your night went so wrong).  These clowns are only an expert in something by accident.

There is weak-form for the more difficult courses because they often think they are experts in everything, rather than confining themselves to their area of expertise.  If they are willing to be 85% BS in the non-expert area, what percentage of BS is acceptable in their area of expertise?

Posted by: Joe at June 29, 2011 08:00 AM (6M1XE)

77

In the technical field credentials (certifications) are a huge asset to have.  Potential employers gawk over the alphabet soup affixed to your signature.  But, in my experience, the more alphabet soup you have the more you are looking for status and the less you bring to the table.  Just because you can take a test and pass doesnÂ’t necessarily make you the right person for the job.  The same goes for ALL politicians regardless of affiliation.  The more experience they credit themselves with the less likely they are to apply this "credentialed" experience into practical application when it comes to job performance or dealing with issues in the way that “normal people” do.  I have credentials in many fields but does that mean I know more than Joe Blow with 15 more years experience than me with no certifiable credentials other than his performance.  The bottom line: Credentials mean shizzle.  Application of knowledge is far more telling than talk and banter and an Ivy League Education.  Getting a degree is easy.  Stepping outside the book and applying common sense to a problem.  Not easy for a politician worried about his re-election.

 

Posted by: Dirk Diggler at June 29, 2011 08:00 AM (S+el1)

78 If this is politics only. The schism is between the Progressives and the Anti- progressives. The vitriol lies in the fact that there are pols from both parties that truly believe their Ivy League Socialist education is superior to a High school educated small business owner. The smug bloviating from the Kruathammers, Roves, Cristals has formed a fat thick line between them and us. We are the Palins, Bachmanns and Cains, They are the Romneys, Huntsmans and Pawlentys. All media recognizes Ivy League educations and multi million/billionaires as the lone source of wisdom and truth. We prove that to be false every day. Still many of us are afraid to leave the reservation thus we here "Palin can't win, Bachmann is a unelectable flake. Keep god out of everything or we will alienate the center, don't talk about abortion, don't say muzzies are bad. Yep, That's the difference, Those that tell the truth and support the things that make America great and those that want to play the let's win by not offending anyone and tell sneaky lies and half truths like the Dems.

Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at June 29, 2011 08:01 AM (NtTkA)

79 C vs CINO is the issue

Posted by: Cherry π at June 29, 2011 08:01 AM (OhYCU)

80 I think a bigger problem is "specialization", which in a nutshell is the idea that society has advanced so far philosophically and technologically that being a general 'philosopher' or 'scientist' is now impossible, since there is too much to know. So you specialize. You're an economist, or a constitutional lawyer, or an evolutionary biologist, or a theoretical physicist. This becomes a problem when someone sees a theoretical physicist and goes "hey, this guy is smart! He knows theoretical physics! I'll bet he's smart in everything, so let's get his opinion on economic theory." I don't think credentials are the problem, but people taking credentials to mean something other than they were intended to mean are. Like, "this guy has a bachelor's degree in sociology. He must be a basically competent accountant."

Posted by: Paul at June 29, 2011 08:01 AM (DsHk0)

81 Credentials certainly say something about a person. Dedication to achieve said certification. Drive, determination. But, at the end of the day, results are how we judge a person. Credentialed or not, a person's actions (or inactions) will bring about a certain set of circumstances. Were they positive or negative. My husband is a credentialed airline pilot. That's his job. If he makes a safe landing at the correct destination, he is said to be a good pilot. Believe me, the 150+ people on the flight don't care about the certification in his wallet, only that they got to where they wanted to go safely. Results matter.

Posted by: twiceblessedmom at June 29, 2011 08:01 AM (HjxoE)

82 I think the current tension in the GOP is the same as the old tension in the GOP- the tension between the Rockefellers (Romney / Huntsman etc) and the Goldwaters (Palin / Bachmann etc)

The undercurrent of strong anti-credentialism is being supplied by the MSM who are using it to attack GOP candidates of all persuasions, who all have credentials of some sort, in defense of their beloved Obama, who has no credentials of any kind.

Posted by: Nighthawk at June 29, 2011 08:01 AM (OtQXp)

83 If I'm pissed at my doctor, I don't start auditioning plumbers, chimney sweeps or the sex offender that runs the Tilt-a-Whirl at the county fair to be my next general practitioner.

How then do you respond when you've talked with several doctors, nominally from different philosophies of medicine, and they all recommend leaching to cure your case of pneumonia?

Posted by: 18-1 at June 29, 2011 08:02 AM (7BU4a)

84 12
Nah, you are overthinking this.  The tension is between the Washington, DC Republicans and the non-Washington, DC Republicans. 
This conflict has been going on within the Republican Party since the 1950s.  It isn't anything new.
There is a subset of this conflict between the old Reagan people and the old Bush people.
Posted by: rockmom at June 29, 2011 12:42 PM (u8gFC)

You're spot on here.

I'd take it one step further and add that the tension is between Republicans in bed with and entrenched at the loci of power (i.e. Washington, DC or any of the state capitols) and those outside those spheres who have to earn their living every day.

Posted by: No Whining at June 29, 2011 08:02 AM (7GfKM)

85 What if those credentials have been overstated? Such as Obama's credentials as a constitutional lawyer. Played up in the media as a big whoop de do but don't appear to be more that something pulled from a cracker jack box.

Posted by: Bosk at June 29, 2011 08:03 AM (n2K+4)

86 It does do that. Is that all it does?

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 12:56 PM (nj1bB)

Let's look at Obama.  Law school graduate.  Well, I contend that if you put me in Harvard Law School, I'd graduate as well. (Actually, I'd be kicked out for making the rest of them look dumb, but still... (And, let's not talk about no-grades Yale.)) So what does it mean?

Credentialism in France means something because their educational system has standards.  Ours doesn't.  It's all touchy-feely and social promotion.

The question really is, how did they do on the test?  It's like I point out about Biden, he's an "expert" in foreign policy, but that consists of just being on the Foreign Affairs Committee.  He's never been tested.  His ideas were often proven stupid.  But there he is with Foreign Affairs credentials.

Posted by: AmishDude at June 29, 2011 08:03 AM (T0NGe)

87

I don't like the reflexive anti credentialism I sometimes see on the right. It frankly doesn't make much sense to sideline one of your most experienced performers based on such abject criteria. (I believe that your definition of "credentials" includes experience) Indeed, such persons could be counted on to do better based on thier proven track record, and accumulated experience.

Contrast that with Barry. One of our knocks on him was his lack of experience, that he never had run a hot dog stand much less a nation.

Perhaps there is some aversion that should be natural to credentialism in the form of "expertness." What I mean by that is more of an ivory tower credentialism based on theory and diplomas amassed on a wall. I went to law school with a person who went undergrad at Yale. He was a dumbass. This is the kind of expert we see with the climate scientists, Tom Freidmans, and Christina Romers in the world. Liberals tend to view the diploma set with more reverence than necessary.

Not all of the credentialed are bad, not all good. I think in the end any hard and fast rule either way is frought with danger. Instead, the ammount and type of credential must be taken into account when evaluating.

Posted by: Jollyroger at June 29, 2011 08:03 AM (NCw5u)

88 Bad Form!

Posted by: Capt. Hook at June 29, 2011 08:04 AM (bwV72)

89 "Credentials" is obviously the wrong word, since so many seem to get hung up on it meaning a J.D., M.D., PhD., EoJ, etc. How about curriculum vitae? Or track record, if you prefer. I want as much information about what type of decision making my candidate has done in the past. Fuck what they SAY, I want to know what they've DONE. That's why new Senators and Representatives or total newbies are such a shitty idea. They have no record to defend, so they're free to let you believe whatever you want. See: Obama, Barack Hussein

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 29, 2011 08:04 AM (lGFXF)

90 >>>The vitriol lies in the fact that there are pols from both parties that truly believe their Ivy League Socialist education is superior to a High school educated small business owner. Vitriol is not logical. Just to note. Be wary of vitriol. >>>The smug bloviating from the Kruathammers, Roves, Cristals has formed a fat thick line between them and us. We are the Palins, Bachmanns and Cains, They are the Romneys, Huntsmans and Pawlentys. Ah, Pawlenty again, the guy who's such an establishment sell-out, primarily, I guess, because he managed a state well for 8 years, which I guess counts against him. Are you telling me Krauthammer's job rests only upon his credentials? That he hasn't earned his job on merit/ability too? Or Kristol or Rove, for that matter? Are you really saying "we" as a general matter know as much about politics and the particular art of politicking as they do?

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 08:05 AM (nj1bB)

91 "Credentialism" is how our Elites (on both sides of the aisle, of course) keep their game a relatively closed circle.With the MSM's full assistance they de-legitimize anyone who didn't go to the proper Ivy or have connections to already-approved folks.

It doesn't matter if you are competent; in fact it's probably detrimental.

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at June 29, 2011 08:05 AM (OXWdU)

92 If your dentist performs a colonoscopy on you, check his credentials.

Posted by: Dr Spank at June 29, 2011 08:05 AM (1fB+3)

93 Governors 1 and 2  fight against corruption and keeps budget in balance

Governor 3 likes AGW, creates ObamaCare prequel, and blows the budget

All 3 have the same credentials.

Posted by: Cherry π at June 29, 2011 08:05 AM (OhYCU)

94 >>>(I believe that your definition of "credentials" includes experience) Yes that is how I am defining it for this question, as previous experience is always a relevant credential. Or, at least, it has been traditionally so counted.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 08:06 AM (nj1bB)

95 TL;DR

Posted by: Andrew.Breitbart at June 29, 2011 08:06 AM (hyP1j)

96

I like to say that I can't wait until amatuer hour in the White House is over, but then at the same time I'd like to see Herman Cain get the job.

'Cause I'm hypocritical like that.

Posted by: Lewis at June 29, 2011 08:06 AM (Y3uPw)

97 This becomes a problem when someone sees a theoretical physicist and goes "hey, this guy is smart! He knows theoretical physics! I'll bet he's smart in everything, so let's get his opinion on economic theory."

Posted by: Paul at June 29, 2011 01:01 PM (DsHk0)

That is true for many hard scientists.  They are smart enough to be better at most jobs than others.  It is that this idea has been transferred to joke fields, like law (which runs everything, now) that has made this a real problem.

The theoretical physicists and mathematicians of the early 20th century went far afield and revolutionized much of the modern world.  It was Von Neumann who changed economics, not economists (though Morgenstern was certainly a big part of the beginning of Game Theory).  It was Von Neumann and Szilard who came to the idea of the existence and function of DNA before the trained biologists.  Etc.

But lawyers ... they tend to suck at everything and run everything (everything in the public domain).

Posted by: progresoverpeace at June 29, 2011 08:06 AM (G/MYk)

98 I'd say there's at least one more "form".

And it revolves around the reputation of the -institutions- involved.

Twenty years of solid employment in the House, Senate, and Governorship of Illinois is a completely different thing from the same term of service in Texas.

And this is encroaching on the Ivy League as well. I'd personally rather have MIT, RPI, and CalTech grads running things than anyone from Harvard or Yale.

Perhaps it was the persistent bashing of Bush "His daddy got him in", etc. that was the tipping point. But we've had a long stream of these people - and it's obvious that you can get an excellent education there - but you can also just spend the time steeping in leftism.

I wouldn't mind a 20-years-in-political life guy, if the 20-years demonstrate that their philosophy is palatable. And a piece of that is 'a fighter'. Not a 'go along to get along' type. This does -not- mean "Yo mama!" spitting for spitting sake. It means someone that's not going to buckle when, say, the air traffic controllers go on strike.

Romney and Perry have both been in the trenches for awhile - but I'd much, much rather have Perry. Even if he does have his own pile of warts.

Another slice is: what other experiences do their extensive credentials -exclude- just by sheer virtue of the time involved.

I don't think Cain has a shot, but running a major pizza chain trumps fifteen years or so of legislative experience IMNSHO. Military experience is also "non-legislative".

I know Bush had a business degree and can't be considered a 'conservative victory' other than managing to avoid Gore and getting two excellent justices out of him.

But I'd be delighted if we never fielded another lawyer. It appears to lead to a focus on "process" and on nailing everything down - even when you're working on shifting sand and letting the opponents define your words. Along with the 'I need to spell this out in detail because people are so stupid' and 'oversight boards are better than juries'.

Posted by: Al at June 29, 2011 08:06 AM (MzQOZ)

99

Seriously though, I don't think "creditials" has that much to do with the "anti-establishment" feelings.  At least not my own.

Now I will tell you this anecdotal as it is; I've been actively involved in the political process at the local and state level for the last 6 years.  What I see is that there is a feelig of "vote the bums out" amongst those who have, like myself, come late to the party.  This is sort of a "credentials be damned, you've been in there long enough" mentality - one that I don't share btw.

Credentials being equivalent to experience, I think we need to look at what a candidate has done in office and whether they are "deserving" of a promotion.  By done, I don't mean how many bills they have introduced or vetos that have been signed, but where have they stood on the positions.

As for the anti-establishment sentiment, that is a backlash against an establishment that has become so disconnected from "We the People" that yeah, vote all the bums out and let's start over.

But whatever you're thinking Ace about credentials, it gets all blown to hell and back if you look at the 2008 election and realize that the Zero carried the majority of the 57 states.

Posted by: 57 states at June 29, 2011 08:07 AM (sMgrb)

100 >>>"Credentialism" is how our Elites (on both sides of the aisle, of course) keep their game a relatively closed circle.With the MSM's full assistance they de-legitimize anyone who didn't go to the proper Ivy or have connections to already-approved folks. So previous experience and such is just a ruse to keep citizens out of the game?

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 08:07 AM (nj1bB)

101

This is the third time I have tried to post this. So clearly, its not too deep a thought process.

Ace, I think you and rockmom are probably on to something. However, Ace, I think you have omitted a third group, the Credentialist. These actors favor a candidate with credential. In otherwords, they want elected officials to move up a pre-set ladder. As you earn a credential, you also earn the right, after an amount of time, to move up the ladder.

Now, combine these 3 groups with rockmom's thesis of establishment vs. non-establishment and I think the landscape gets a little clearer.

You have group one, the credentialist. These are clearly the "establishment" types (I use establishment loosely. Not everyone in D.C. is clearly an "establishment" type. See, e.g., Jim DeMint. Also, since "establishment" tends to get thrown around as a prejorative term, what is and is not establishment tends to fluctuate depending on your own personal weighing of the issues). They view credentials as a necessary pre-requisite to advance, in the normal order of things. Your message is validated by past success. Thus, to a credentialist, a Mike Castle is more valuable than a novice candidate because his message has been validated by past election success.

You have your Weak Anti-Credentialist. These were probably your grass root movement conservatives of the 80s and 90s. Message was a higher value than past success. Weak Anti-Credentialist would reject past successful candidates (see, e.g. Chuck Percy). because their message and actions did not comport to the conservative ideals the Weak Anti-Credentialist had. On the other hand, some measure of election success, and success in implementing a conservative agenda, curried favor to this group. So, while a Pete DuPont, who was an elected governor, got rejected by this group because in 1988 he openly stated he would raise taxes, a George W. Bush was elevated because he had some openly successful conservative actions and language.

You have your Strong Anti-Credentialist. This is probably more prevelant today and is typified by some elements of the Tea Party. Prior electoral success means very little, if anything. In fact, it is almost a negative.....because if you were involved in the past government, you were responsible, to some degree, of the problem. The Strong Anti-Credentialist looks not at past success, but at message and message only. The Strong Anti-Credentialist believes that a conservative message, and only a conservative message, is what the candidate needs to succeed. Espousing the strong conservative message will mask any deficiencies the candidate may have due to his/her lack of prior experience.

Now, clearly, in trying to summarize where we are, broad strokes are needed or this will turn into a 12,000 word post. So don't take a offense at the generalization. Because the better question is what approach is better....not whether your offended by some generalization.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at June 29, 2011 08:07 AM (OWjjx)

102 My "Flaming Skull Sense" is tingling. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has just ruled the health care mandate is valid.

Posted by: Joffen at June 29, 2011 08:08 AM (EPcuy)

103 I think credentials are overrated and the base is looking for a person's past actions. It's easy to talk a good game and say what the voters want to hear due to polling data but what you did before shows what you'll do in the future. Mccains strongest point was his pow status and he was running during wartime....his biggest point and why I think he carried alot in the primary....my example

Posted by: Navy COP joe aka supercabbie!!! at June 29, 2011 08:08 AM (2WXnZ)

104 If your dentist performs a colonoscopy on you, check his credentials.

Posted by: Dr Spank at June 29, 2011 01:05 PM (1fB+3)

Or worse yet, your proctologist tries to stick his hands in your mouth...

Posted by: Nighthawk at June 29, 2011 08:08 AM (OtQXp)

105 Well stated dichotomy, of sorts. But, as always with dichotomies, there's a third way: Goldilocks Credentialism. Actually, that's the wrong name ... it diminishes what I'm about to say to a lukewarm middle. Instead, there is "Do some background checking" credentialism. IOW, the credentials themselves mean little but are an invitation to look around inside the house. Take Pawlenty. He's got state governing credentials but then, so did Rob Blagoevich. We need to do a little looking around to see if Pawlenty's added up to anything. One helpful tipoff in credential research: anyone who overly trumps their credentials is basically waving a flag that says, "I'm a fraud."

Posted by: MaxMBJ at June 29, 2011 08:08 AM (qBKEb)

106 I don't think credentials are the problem, but people taking credentials to mean something other than they were intended to mean are. Like, "this guy has a bachelor's degree in sociology. He must be a basically competent accountant."

Posted by: Paul at June 29, 2011 01:01 PM (DsHk0)

The worst case of this is, of course, the law degree.  In particular, lawyers think they are conversant in all possible fields, particularly economics.  And, of course, I have contended that any degree without a sufficient amount of mathematics is a negative indicator of cross-credentialism.

That is, somebody who has done a lot of math can readily understand, say, economics, but it doesn't go the other way.  But it doesn't mean the mathematician is an expert, it's just that the underlying principles don't vary much when you understand the basics.

Posted by: AmishDude at June 29, 2011 08:09 AM (T0NGe)

107

Politics is a strange beast. Once entering the portal, logic is thrown away increasingly in favor of emotion.

In this world, we've seen that career lawyers are good at writing laws, but have very little understanding of our free market system that they're writing those laws for. Hence, we have a tsunami of new regulations and laws that are currently performing as intended, namely serving as a drag parachute on our economy.

We also have two candidates who, IMO, have an excellent chance of doing great things for our country as president: Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann. These two are at opposite ends of the spectrum, MB having Hill experience, and HC proven his skills in the business world.

Their common denominator is that they both have a healthy understanding of how our country should work and be governed: with as little interference from Washington as possible.

Again, IMO, we have a system that works well and has proven itself to be the best form of government yet devised. It takes a certain type of person to make that system work as it was intended to work, someone with the intellect and emotional maturity that will prevent them from becoming power-mad, as we see Obama becoming, among other things. Career politicians were not what our founders had in mind when they created our system, which is why Franklin said what he did when asked what type of goevernment he had given America: "A republic, if you can keep it."

A great politician who can clearly see the original intent of the founders has become the exception rather than the norm. In my lifetime, we've had far more bad presidents than we've had good ones. The best one I can remember, and that history has proven to produce the best economic track record, came from the entertainment world. Go figure.

Increasingly, picking a president is becoming a crap-shoot. Perhaps a better analogy would be a box of chocolates.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at June 29, 2011 08:09 AM (d0Tfm)

108 Credentials are becoming less and less predictive of "knowledge".  The liberalization of education has systemically undermined the bedrock of learning as it is classically thought of.  (Excuse the poor English, I know.) A Liberal Arts degree means virtually nothing now, as do many degrees in the soft sciences.  Even the hard sciences are less worthy today, as evidenced by Michael Mann and the "Climatologists" stealing taxpayer funds utilizing faulty and fudged science.

Posted by: dfbaskwill at June 29, 2011 08:09 AM (ndlFj)

109 There is, presently, a problem with credentials. If you're thinking of hiring someone, and you see that the candidate graduated with a degree in English from, oh, say, Columbia, what do you expect?

The credential should mean competence in the language, the ability to read, comprehend, and write a coherent, grammatical and relevant summary, correct?

It doesn't. You may find the candidate gazing at you with the terrorized look of the proverbial deer in the headlights, or (worse for the candidate) scornfully informing you that this is not important.

This is why we're becoming anti-credential.

Posted by: Dianna at June 29, 2011 08:09 AM (j9THd)

110 I dunno ace, I think credentials are one thing, as you say, but elitism is something else entirely. Elitism, imo, is the idea that your credentials entitle you to rule/ regulate those without the superior knowledge that you have (or that you believe you have). Because that's only right. But one can also hold that they have the right credentials for a position, and that they know what they are talking about, without invoking a divine claim to leadership.

Posted by: thirtyAndSeven at June 29, 2011 08:09 AM (UMbvu)

111

Credentialism can be a gate-keeping tactic that sets minimum acceptable standards.  Examining track records together with credentials is a better method of evaluating sources.  When searching for a physician, it could be prudent to filter out those who are unlicensed or illiterate.   

Posted by: lin sim at June 29, 2011 08:10 AM (KiU1/)

112 I tend to believe that most people with an Ivy League education aren't exactly in the "oh ah" he went Harvard, Yale, etc., category.  I would be more impressed by someone who was working while trying to obtain a degree from a community college or a mid tier college  It shows they put forth the effort and really wanted to succeed.  Credentials, schmendtials.  I'll take the other guy any day over the alphabet soup after the last name.

The only exception to this rule: Physicians.  I check every credential they have.  If they aren't board certified in their specialty, no dice.

Posted by: mpfs at June 29, 2011 08:10 AM (iYbLN)

113 The Strong Form of the anti-credentialist impulse says that typical credentials are not only not necessarily evidence of competency, but in fact positive evidence against competency. That is, where the Weak Form would say a credential is at most weak evidence you're the right sort of person for a task, the Strong Form would call it evidence, but in the opposite direction, that your credential makes it less likely that you are qualified for the task.
==========
I don't buy this at all.

In the realm of national or even state-level politics, if you look at the most successful politicians, most if not all of them have quite a bit of either prior political or private-sector experience (or both) first. 

So I'd say the most relevant "credential" in politics (unfortunately) is probably prior political experience. 

If you want to call "credentials" as pure academic degrees, and talk specifically about the field of politics, I would say that there is basically NO correlation with ACADEMIC credentials and outcome.  Not a positive one, and not a negative one.

In other words, having a PhD in political theory from Harvard does not make a lick of difference one way or the other whether or not you'll actually be a good politician.  You might be, you might not be.

Posted by: looking closely at June 29, 2011 08:10 AM (PwGfd)

114 Let's talk about the real credentials.  Are you a CFR member?  Been to Davos or Bilderburg? Degree from the right Ivy league school? If so, you pass the sniff test, if not the big money will never get behind you.

In order to save the republic, the answer to all those questions must be NO!

Gus Hall would be a RINO today.  Think about it. Compare and contrast Mitt Romney views with Gus Hall's platform of the 60's and 70's.

Posted by: MrTea at June 29, 2011 08:10 AM (XjFpT)

115 As it stands right now credentialism within the context of Washington DC amounts to photocopying the politicians criminal rap sheet. Their experiances on the wrong side of the laws they are responsible for editing is the main source of credibility they can provide when asserting their interpretation of said laws.  This is how we get Presidents with no prior legislative experience, cabinet nominees with a documented history of tax evasion, finance committe members with a history of personal bankruptcy, and ethics commitee members with prior history of censure.

Posted by: MrObvious at June 29, 2011 08:10 AM (H87Hu)

116 >>>But whatever you're thinking Ace about credentials, it gets all blown to hell and back if you look at the 2008 election and realize that the Zero carried the majority of the 57 states. I disagree, pretty strongly. Obama had no actual credentials -- on this much we are fully agreed. I have howled, as many have, at the absurdity of his thin never-did-nothin'-but-get-promoted resume. But what matters for this question is *appearance* and *public belief*, not reality. Via MSM hocus-pocus, Obama's two years as a poorly-regarded guest lecturer on Con Law was transformed into constitutional expertise and deep intellectual power, and his six years (or whatever) as a "community activist" was transmogrified into executive experience, and his two years as Senator transmutated into serious federal & foreign policy experience. The media never admitted he was unqualified -- quite the opposite. They claimed he was the most qualified and credentialed candidate since... who knows. It was Unprecedented.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 08:10 AM (nj1bB)

117 18
Not at all.  The dispute in the GOP as it the country at large is between folks who want to be left alone to screw up or succeed on their own, and folks who want the power to do it all for us.  To the former group, credentials are utterly irrelevant. To the latter, credentials are the stuff on which the build their alleged right to run the rest of us.
Posted by: glowing blue meat at June 29, 2011 12:44 PM (K/USr)

I would buy this except that when the subject of entitlement reform comes up, the results from most surveys show people think that it is just fine and dandy in the abstract, but if reform means raiding what they perceive as being their gubmint goody-bag, then it's "not just no, but hell no". Is there evidence in surveys that conservative respondents generally (or by a majority) go against this tide?

Posted by: No Whining at June 29, 2011 08:10 AM (7GfKM)

118 I was told there wouldn't be any physics on this blog.
Schrödinger's credentials?

Posted by: andycanuck at June 29, 2011 08:10 AM (vtqbC)

119 Affirmative Action has so badly damaged the whole concept and meaning of competency that it's difficult to maintain reasonable standards.

Instapundit had an interesting link on this today.  The emphasis on educational credentials came about because aptitude and IQ tests are verboten now, or at least an invitation to a lawsuit, because of "disparate impact".  Thus, business uses college degrees to screen for basic computational power.  After that, work ethic and other desirable traits must be evaluated on the job. 

Posted by: pep at June 29, 2011 08:11 AM (GMG6W)

120 How then do you respond when you've talked with several doctors, nominally from different philosophies of medicine, and they all recommend leaching to cure your case of pneumonia? I'd ask what a "leach" is.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 29, 2011 08:11 AM (lbo6/)

121 >>>Ah, Pawlenty again, the guy who's such an establishment sell-out, primarily, I guess, because he managed a state well for 8 years, which I guess counts against him.

Ace, it seems pretty clear to me that Pawlenty is an 'establishment sell-out' to a number of these folks for the sole reason that he's not out there tossing out shrieky-shouty pieces of red meat rhetoric to the base.  His "nice" demeanor (which I acknowledge could be a real functional problem in an election) is instinctively assumed by these people to be evidence that he's not really a conservative, because a real conservative would presumably be picking every fight possible, and posturing as pugnaciously as possible. 

I don't get that attitude.  I just don't.  You cannot govern like that, not in a nation or a state where there are two parties (as opposed to a state or Congressional district where there is only one dominant one).

Posted by: Jeff B. at June 29, 2011 08:11 AM (hIWe1)

122 Credentialism is a unique problem for conservatives trying to find voice for their views in the Republican party. Typically, RINO's come with better "credentials" than do upstart tea party types. Long tenure in government and Harvard law degrees tend to be squishes on the issues that matter most to conservatives. I'll leave it to others to figure out why that is. But that doesn't necessarily mean that a Harvard lawyer that's served as a governor or senator for 10 years can't be a solid conservative voice and it's crazy to reject someone out of hand just because of that. Put me in the "Weak Form" camp.

Posted by: Fred at June 29, 2011 08:12 AM (xWGQr)

123

The problem isn't their credentials -- it's that the majority of them are, you know, arrogant douchebags that think they know better.  I'd also like to point out that SP, Cain and others have impeccable credentials -- just not the political variety.  But yeah, people don't give a flying fuck about political credentials.

Posted by: Legacy at June 29, 2011 08:12 AM (LKTtg)

124 Put me down in the "you're overthinking this" column.

I don't think it's any more complex than there are two kinds of Republicans:

Those with their snouts already in the trough of government money, and

Those whose snouts aren't.

The "In" group is the "Establishment," the "RINOs," the "Beltway Republicans," "Rockefeller Republicans," etc., etc. and their big-business friends and allies.  This is the group that appears to use "credentialing" as a kind of secret-handshake sort of hazing ritual that greatly assists someone who is interested in joining the In Club.  These people live in a world where networking matters--where it's Who you know as much as What you know that is the key to success, and where the having the right patron (or mentor) is as important as actual ability in determining who rises above the lowest levels of the group.  These people live in a world where networking will override competence.

The "Out" group comprises the Tea Party, small-business, and Joe Sixpack types.  These people operate in a world where results are most important.  If you're not successful, you get fired, go bankrupt, and/or you lose your house.  In this world, competence overrides networking much more often than otherwise.

Traditionally, the military has been an institution where somebody from the Out group can gain entry into the In group.  I'm not sure that's so much the case in the past few decades, as the "elites" have gradually separated themselves from the military.  So today, I would align most of the military with the Out group.

I guess you can think of these two groups as the two poles holding up the Republican Big Tent.  The problem--and fundamental tension within the Republican Party--is that as the amount of government money gets larger, the influence of the In group gets larger, but the weight of supporting the tent falls more and more on the Out group.

There's a similar dynamic in the Democratic Party, except that their In group has worked a lot harder at convincing their Out group that the Democrat In group is the only thing keeping the evil Republicans from feasting upon the children of the Democrat Out group.  When or if the Democrat Out group realizes that this is not true (I'm assuming for purposes of argument here that Republicans really don't want to eat Democrat babies) it could get really, really ugly for the Democrat In group.

OK, now I've gone and massively over-thought it.

Posted by: filbert at June 29, 2011 08:12 AM (smvTK)

125 I think the conflict in the GOP is between weak anti-credentialists and strong credentialists. As the terms have been defined I'm not sure I can think of anyone who can even be accurately categorized as a strong anti-credentialist.

Posted by: Misha at June 29, 2011 08:12 AM (15s+i)

126 Sort of on topic item for all you great great great Americans---
I found another example of American decline, I just printed out my tickets for The Coke Zero 400, and the Daytona International Speedway is using military DD/MM/YY on the TICKETS FOR A FUCKING NASCAR RACE AT FUCKING DAYTONA!11!!!

What is the next outrage???????

Posted by: the Charlie Daniels of the torque wrench at June 29, 2011 08:12 AM (le5qc)

127
Nah, you are overthinking this.  The tension is between the Washington, DC Republicans and the non-Washington, DC Republicans.

Yes. It can be summed up as Tea Party vs. Cocktail Party. T Cocktailers want to be liked and invited to the best parties, the Tea Partiers want to kick ass and then celebrate by downing a beer.

Or perhaps Val-U-Rite.

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at June 29, 2011 08:12 AM (1hM1d)

128 Wouldn't Strong Form eventually lead to the conclusion that no one can ever be qualified for something because evidence of that qualification means they are unqualified???

Posted by: SFGoth at June 29, 2011 08:13 AM (dZ756)

129 I think that a strong resume is important. So what constitutes a strong resume?

- Degrees: Color me unimpressed. Degrees, in far too many cases aren't worth the fake sheepskin that they are printed on. I don't want to get into a rocket that was no designed by someone with a lot of initials after their name, but in that case, we're talking about a large amount of specialized & theoretical knowledge. Degrees are good for that. On the contrary, I've inadvertently hired people with MBAs that can't read a P&L and are absolutely worthless. Yet the same idiots demand compensation that is far in excess of their value or what their role could potentially produce. Their concept of personal entitlement is through the roof and they have no concept of earning anything. Why should they? Mom and Dad paid for them to party and have sex for 4 years and were proud of the fact that they managed to not sleep through enough Womyn's Studies classes (and the tuition checks cleared) to get something that 98% of the population has. Oh, they are still unemployable? Okay, let's double our debt in half the time and get an advanced degree on Womyn's Studies.

- Accomplishments: Hell yes. Show me what you've produced. I don't care how you came by the knowledge of doing it, I care that you have done it and I can reasonably expect similar results in the future from you. It's very nice, ma'am, that you know all the words to the nice songs, had a house full of kids, and seem to be a motivated, enthusiastic employee, however, how come I don't see any completed, well, anything with your name on it? That guy that thinks that there are 57 states that are worried about their Profits and Earnings ratios? Yeah, he's got an advanced degree from a top tier school.

- Relevant Experience: Hell yes. It's very nice, that you managed that pizza place and took it from being a complete failure to an 'also-ran' that manages to keep most of the bills paid. That's good, but it is clear the on other critical topics that you're just making shit up. No, I don't expect you to be an expert at everything, but you need to know enough to hire and manage all these experts you are talking about and to make good decisions that don't require a committee vote and ten- year studies. If I am hiring someone to make cookware, no amount of degrees nor experience in making pizzas is going to give me any confidence in their ability to successfully produce a usable wok with a hammer, a piece of steel and a wood block.

I have no idea which camp this puts me by Ace's definitions, so I will leave that to the Womyn's Studies majors.

Posted by: Damiano at June 29, 2011 08:13 AM (3nrx7)

130 I'll shoot your credentials in the goddamn face.  When they apologize to ME, you'll see how important credentials are.

Posted by: Dick Cheney at June 29, 2011 08:13 AM (sVk8z)

131 >>>The worst case of this is, of course, the law degree. In particular, lawyers think they are conversant in all possible fields, particularly economics. And, of course, I have contended that any degree without a sufficient amount of mathematics is a negative indicator of cross-credentialism. It is true the Law Degree is being taken as a general proxy degree in electoral politics. It's not. It has some limited relevance, as legislators write laws, but is not directly relevant. But this is an odd thing, in this context, because I'm asking why Bachmann should be favored over Perry, and Bachmann has a law degree, whereas Perry (I think) has a degree in Animal Science, as he studied to be a farmer.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 08:13 AM (nj1bB)

132 I forgot to say why it's unique to conservatives. Conservatives want to roll back the size and scope of government. Those with the strongest views on that subject don't tend to want to become career politicians or seek degrees that position someone for such a career. For liberals? Well, since they want ever more government, someone who is well credentialed on that front is a natural fit for them. Not so much for us.

Posted by: Fred at June 29, 2011 08:14 AM (xWGQr)

133 Long Form vs Short Form?

Posted by: Cherry π at June 29, 2011 08:14 AM (OhYCU)

134
...it seems pretty clear to me that Pawlenty is an 'establishment sell-out' to a number of these folks for the sole reason that he's not out there tossing out shrieky-shouty pieces of red meat rhetoric to the base. 

Yes, clearly you do not get it, Jeff. So I'll explain it to you in one short sentence.

Pawlenty sucks because he gives off the impression that he does not want to win, that is, defeat Obama.


Posted by: soothie at June 29, 2011 08:15 AM (G/zuv)

135 So previous experience and such is just a ruse to keep citizens out of the game?

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 01:07 PM (nj1bB)

When the actual facts of that experience, and the results, are ignored.  Yes.

Romney sucked as Governor.  He did stupid things.  His experience should be held against him in this.

There is, of course, no better way to judge someone than from their actions.  They can speak out of both sides of their mouths and entertain conflicting ideas all day long, but their actions, and the consequences of such, are facts.  And, when push comes to shove, talk dissolves and action must be taken.  For a position that requires action, such experience (which I do not call a credential, as the experience can be good or bad) is the best indicator of the person and what s/he might do in a future position.

Then, there are people like Barky, who are just stupid.  Listening to him for two minutes is enough for anyone to understand that.  And that stupidity (and America-hate) has been borne out in all of his experiences, which we tried to get people to look at ... past the joke Columbia/Hah-vahd credentials.

Posted by: progresoverpeace at June 29, 2011 08:16 AM (G/MYk)

136 Anti-credentialism (that can't possibly be a word) is really no different than Pro-credentialism. In either case you are prioritizing the presence or absence of a third-party credential over the only thing that really matters, the decision making process. The only thing that informs the voter on the decision making process are actual decisions. Speeches and TV ads are a lot of bullshit when compared to an actual body of choices being made and votes cast.

Posted by: Ted Kennedy's Gristle Encased Head at June 29, 2011 08:16 AM (+lsX1)

137 I want to make sure my doctor slows down for yellow lights.

Posted by: Cherry π at June 29, 2011 08:16 AM (OhYCU)

138 -So previous experience and such is just a ruse to keep citizens out of the game?

To some extent, yes. I wouldn't make it a blanket statement obviously but those who are already there naturally want to make sure that any new comers play by the "rules" because they've got this great gig going.

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at June 29, 2011 08:17 AM (OXWdU)

139

Credentialism with respect to degrees has also become an Oxymoron: Its has been standard practice for S&P500 companies to avoid wasting time on interviewing Harvard grads for some time now. Either they're connected and therefor offered compensation for their connections, OR the Harvard degree awarded demonstrates disfunctional liberalism rendering them useless in the corporate world. To the extent that Harvard grads get actually HIRED in the corporate world, it frequently amounts to demonstration of BOTH situations.

The bottom line on demonstrable credentialism is obviously the eternally unanswered question: "Who's c*ck did Bahrnee Fwank have to suck to get where *HE* is???"

Posted by: MrObvious at June 29, 2011 08:17 AM (H87Hu)

140 @ 78

The smug bloviating from the Kruathammers, Roves, Cristals has formed a fat thick line between them and us. We are the Palins, Bachmanns and Cains, They are the Romneys, Huntsmans and Pawlentys.

This is basically what I was trying and failing to say.

Posted by: Legacy at June 29, 2011 08:17 AM (LKTtg)

141

Crap!  Just got up and this is the first post I read???  Couldn't we start out the day with the Ewok saying weird things to Mark Rubio?  Damn!  Blast!

Oh very well.

Here's my take.  Majored in communication in college but ended up in IT.  Completed successful specialized IT projects for over 20 years.  Employers/clients don't care about the college at all. They just see a proven track record and experience.  I will beat out someone with a computer science degree any day of the week.

Question: Why do I know where Obama went to college but I don't know where Reagan attended?

 

Posted by: PugBoo at June 29, 2011 08:17 AM (20jXV)

142 I like Perry,I like Bachmann,I like anybody but Obama.That's my song.We'll be seeing more of Palin and Bachmann and the rest and my opinion will chrystalize.The credentials I'm looking for are"I'm not Obama".

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 08:17 AM (QslGJ)

143 O/T: Quentin Tarantino sucked feet while beating meat, says blabby size queen

Highlights of the email (below) included her referring to her vagina as “my Britney”, saying Quentin had a “the most unnatractive” “nub-like” “chode” penis, as well as calling him a sweaty weirdo who looks like Frankenstein.

Posted by: ol_dirty_/b/tard at June 29, 2011 08:17 AM (IoUF1)

144

Ace,

what you are talking about is EXPERIENCE not credentials ... Big difference ...

Posted by: Jeff at June 29, 2011 08:18 AM (A3tpD)

145 People are tired of being told what to do and what's best for them by their "betters", so there's a backlash.

Posted by: Dr Spank at June 29, 2011 08:18 AM (1fB+3)

146
Here's the thing.

Mild-mannered and polite will not defeat Obama.

Why? Because when your opponent is out there smearing you and distorting your ideology, you must fight back. John McCain let it slide. John McCain was above the fray. John McCain wanted to work with Democrats and be big enough to say Obama would make a swell president.

John McCain is a fucking loser. He's a bigger loser than John Kerry. He made several red states turn blue. Tim Pawlenty seems like John McCain.

Posted by: soothie at June 29, 2011 08:19 AM (G/zuv)

147

Question: Why do I know where Obama went to college but I don't know where Reagan attended?

Because you are either A) 14 years old or B) An IT guy who can't use google.

To answer your inquiry: Eureka College in Illinois.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at June 29, 2011 08:19 AM (OWjjx)

148 Eureka!

Posted by: Cherry π at June 29, 2011 08:19 AM (OhYCU)

149 This is a great well-formed question.  I've thought about this myself, given the current crop of candidates and their relative popularity; and given my own leanings toward Herman Cain, despite his lack of qualification.  But I don't think it boils down to negativity toward credentials.

As Anthony Weiner might say, focus more on the taint.

The taint of corruption that follows anyone who's been part of the political machine, from either party.  That's what's driving people away from people like Romney and Pawlenty.  (Well, that and the fact that they're both basically conservative Democrats.)

Posted by: Pastafarian at June 29, 2011 08:19 AM (p7jpu)

150 Credentialism in its truest form is a positive. Someone with experience in government will usually look like a better candidate than someone without. (See also: Barack Obama.) However, most of the credentialism espoused by longtime GOP politicians simply shows how out of touch they are.

Any politician who has lived inside the Beltway for a decade or so has no idea what goes on in the real world. Sure, they have experience in matters of government, but that experience goes hand-in-hand with a cluelessness that makes them less than capable to handle the challenges our country faces.

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at June 29, 2011 12:45 PM (igASc)

 There is an old expression:

Practice doesn't make perfect: PERFECT practice makes perfect.

Thus, someone who has long experience in high executive office doesn't necessarily show "affirmative evidence of the taint of corruption and Establishmentitis and the rest of it," but it also doesn't necessarily provide affirmative evidence of competence and honesty.  Look at Arnold Schwarzenegger and his nearly two full terms as Governor of California, the most populous state in the Union: would anyone regard his tenure in office as good credentials for what a Chief Executive should be?

Posted by: stuiec at June 29, 2011 08:19 AM (1beh4)

151 What credentials?  I'm real.

Posted by: Sarah Palin (TM) at June 29, 2011 08:20 AM (QNENL)

152 Reagan had a degree in economics, I think.

Posted by: Cherry π at June 29, 2011 08:20 AM (OhYCU)

153 You guys say I'm overthinking this, but I have a bunch of commenters telling me they are in the Strong Form camp, so they don't seem to think I'm overthinking this.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 08:20 AM (nj1bB)

154 It has some limited relevance, as legislators write laws, but is not directly relevant.

I'm picturing monkeys at typewriters and I like it.  I've said before, I could write an essay entitled, "You learn all the wrong lessons in law school."

But this is an odd thing, in this context, because I'm asking why Bachmann should be favored over Perry, and Bachmann has a law degree, whereas Perry (I think) has a degree in Animal Science, as he studied to be a farmer.

Well, Perry has been a governor longer than Bachmann has gone to school. So here, I don't think his credentials are related to schooling when it comes to a highly conceptual executive job. If he were to be a minion working on law-writing, I'd agree wholeheartedly, but he will have typing monkeys for that job.

Posted by: AmishDude at June 29, 2011 08:21 AM (T0NGe)

155 143 TMI.Seriously.

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 08:21 AM (QslGJ)

156 >>The only exception to this rule: Physicians.  I check every credential they have.  If they aren't board certified in their specialty, no dice.
====

I think that's a functional minimum. . .that a physician at least be certified in their OWN area, but again, its probably necessary but not sufficient.

In other words, just because someone *IS* a board-certified neurosurgeon doesn't necessarily mean they're good at brain surgery, but you can pretty much rest assured that if they aren't so-qualified, that they DEFINITELY aren't.

In terms of other qualifications, there is a question of experience, and what kind of practice/procedures you're talking about.

I know a family medicine trained doctor who came out of his training and fellowship having performed over 200 colonoscopies, which is probably more than some gastroenterology fellows.   Why? He loved doing them, sought out doing them, and was at a training place that gave him the chance to do them.

So someone like that, even though on paper they don't have the credentials, is just as "qualified" as someone with the certificate.

This guy had a bit of a struggle with his hospital employer to be permitted to do colonoscopies, since hospital policy was that only board-certified gastroenterologists could do them.  So there was a "credential" barrier, set up by those with a financial interest in excluding competition.

I know a surgeon who is actually a board-certified head and neck surgeon (which is actually quite a competitive area to get into).   Despite that training, she acts as a facial cosmetic surgeon.  How?  She was married to an real plastic surgeon, used to practice with him for over ten years, and now has 20+ years experience.  So again, even though she's not "credentialled" she has a lot more actual experience than many who are, and she's certainly "qualified".

 

Posted by: looking closely at June 29, 2011 08:21 AM (6Q9g2)

157 Ace,
Good discussion. 

The quote by Groucho Marx, "I wouldn't join any club that would have me as a member." 

IMO, too many politicians on our side see government as a first resort to solving any problem (you listening Mitsy?), rather than as an agent for insuring individual liberty and opportunity.  

Bloomberg has been wildly successful outside of government, but is convinced he knows how everyone else should live.





Posted by: The Hammer at June 29, 2011 08:21 AM (Jq7da)

158 You're not overthinking this, Ace.

Posted by: Jeff B. at June 29, 2011 08:21 AM (hIWe1)

159

You guys say I'm overthinking this

Your not. Actually, I think its one of your better posts as of late.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at June 29, 2011 08:21 AM (OWjjx)

160 This depends largely on the "agencies" issuing credentials. For instance, i think very few Republicans (except apparently for Ron Paul) would argue that having long military/DOD experience doesn't provides a leg up on national security issues. However by the same token, if someone has spent a long period of time with say.... the Department of State, I'd almost immediately disqualify them from doing ANYTHING having to do with Foreign policy, because they've spent a lifetime in a system that is (in my conservative opinion) bass-ackward. If you've spent a life time in say... Appropriations, and we look and see how ridiculously broke we are, than a strong portion of the people are going to reject those credentials. 

The other issue I think, is media reaction. Part of the great attraction to Palin, and Bachmann for many people  IS that the media HATES them. They spent all this time telling us how STUPID and UNCREDENTIALED, they are. They fail to explain of course, how Palin is an idiot despite being a governor, but John Huntsman was a governor, and so is an unparalleled statesman. When you have the MSM, a group of entities, that you KNOW hates you, then it starts to seem sensible to do the OPPOSITE of whatever they tell you to do.   

Posted by: DKS at June 29, 2011 08:21 AM (3vrnt)

161 >>>what you are talking about is EXPERIENCE not credentials ... Big difference ... Experience is the most important credential, which is now being dismissed airily as doesn't-make-no-mind.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 08:22 AM (nj1bB)

162 Want to check out my big tent?

Posted by: anthony weiner at June 29, 2011 08:22 AM (vtqbC)

163 What credentials?  I'm real.

Posted by: Sarah Palin (TM) at June 29, 2011 01:20 PM (QNENL)

I'm not a witch. I'm you.

Posted by: Christine O'Donnell at June 29, 2011 08:22 AM (3nrx7)

164

You're mixing up too very different things.

Credentialism is some OUTSIDE entity declaring you are knowledgable, or able, in some realm...

Experience in said realm... does not give you credentials....

Case in Point, I taught Microsoft Network Engineering (MCSE) track for years, and these were College Accredited Classes.  Yet, I could not get the College Credits for the very class I was already teaching, unless I sat through someone elses class... or took someone elses test (which cost huge money).

Knowledge and Experience were not important, it was the Paper work drill from an outside entity, which was important to them.

Now, if I read this correctly, you are trying to bring this outside entity credential into some type of Inside/Outside the beltway discussion... when really it has nothing (IMO) to do with Credentials themselves... its the fact that many of us outside of the 'system' trust those who created the mess, to clean up the mess.

 

Posted by: Romeo13 at June 29, 2011 08:22 AM (NtXW4)

165 134

Agreed. Pawlenty looks weak.  I don't think he has the balls of the stamina to continue to the end.  Bachman on the other hand shows she does and she isn't afraid to show it.  If Perry formally jumps in I expect him to show the same if he wants the nomination.

I want fire and passion in my candidate.  Not limp handshakes, soft words and extending your hand across the aisle.  I'm done with the McCain, Graham, Snowe, Collins type.

Romney - in 6 months check to see if the body is warm.
Huntsman - DOA
Pawlenty - Appears to have been run through a washing machine he is so limp.
Paul - I'm not touching that one.

Posted by: mpfs at June 29, 2011 08:22 AM (iYbLN)

166 Credentials are worthwhile if you have confidence in the issuer of the credentials.

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 08:22 AM (QslGJ)

167 I am not even sure it is a "credentialist" argument if the context is the Republican Party and its candidates.

I believe it has largely become an argument about core principles and disciplines, factual, logical adherence. "Credentials" whether exhibited or measured by serving in office are more a matter of positions and outcomes.

So I don't necessarily count someone who served in office as an elitist or part of the establishment. It is more about the sum total (both publicly and what can be discerned privately) of their accomplishments with relation to that core set of principles over the years. There has to also be a factor included for attempted effort, where that effort has failed as well as consistency (e.g. sudden revelations in the face of changing political situations get immediate negative weighting).

Just my two cents.

Posted by: Marcus at June 29, 2011 08:23 AM (CHrmZ)

168 The media never admitted he was unqualified -- quite the opposite. They claimed he was the most qualified and credentialed candidate since... who knows. It was Unprecedented.

And here's the catch to the whole structure--who issues the credentials.  Right now, that step of the process is owned by the media, regardless of the facts.

I really, really don't think I need to go any further than that.

Posted by: AoSHQ's *second* worst commenter, DarkLord© at June 29, 2011 08:24 AM (GBXon)

169

Having been a governor isn't a credential.  It's an accomplishment, its experience, and its also a track record.

That said, our political class these days makes me flirt with the notion that anyone capable of getting along in a leadership position must be rotten.  There's an apocalyptic, revolutionary strain in conservatism these days that lures me.

But what I keep coming back to is this:  I am a conservative.  I don't believe in revolutions.  If our domestic elites are rotten, it is because our domestic people are also rotten.  If we burn down our current structure, the replacements will be just as bad, if we're lucky.  That's they way revolutions work.

Posted by: Emperor PJ O'Rourke at June 29, 2011 08:24 AM (epBek)

170 >>>The other issue I think, is media reaction. Part of the great attraction to Palin, and Bachmann for many people IS that the media HATES them. They spent all this time telling us how STUPID and UNCREDENTIALED, they are. Yes I know. Which is why I keep asking the same question: Are you trying to win the White House or are you trying to win an argument? Some seem to only want to support the people who the media has the biggest hard-on against, or that the "Establishment" of the party finds unacceptable. If T-Paw is determined "acceptable" to the Establishment, he's written off, in knee-jerk, unthinking fashion -- gee, if the Establishment says he's acceptable, he must not be. Those agitating for a candidate that only half the party finds acceptable are going to be in a for a horrible shock in November 2012.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 08:24 AM (nj1bB)

171 C vs CINO = cancer
Credentials = pimples

Posted by: Cherry π at June 29, 2011 08:24 AM (OhYCU)

172 90, I hesitated putting Pawlenty on that list but his brainless dive into supporting AGW still haunts me. There were others that with the same info refused to bite. He is the best of what I consider to be the worst. Are you telling me Krauthammer's job rests only upon his credentials? That he hasn't earned his job on merit/ability too? Yes, he has earned his job. His job is to keep the elite GOP in a position of power. He is damn good at it. He has no intrest in supporting the eradication of the DOE for example. He has no intrest in shrinking Gov to the extent that it must be shrunk. I have yet to hear him praise the complete return of states rights. He is a brilliant writer, a witty commentator and a ex libtard canadian. Kristol loves Kristol and Rove loves Rove and I don't think either of their priorities are this country. They have cocktails with Noonan and Will, laugh at the working class. Maybe you know them better than I. Maybe thats me being ridiculous but I know what I see and read. I trust none of them.

Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at June 29, 2011 08:24 AM (NtTkA)

173 141 Crap!  Just got up and this is the first post I read???  Couldn't we start out the day with the Ewok saying weird things to Mark Rubio?  Damn!  Blast!

Posted by: PugBoo at June 29, 2011 01:17 PM (20jXV)

 

I miss those pervy ewok posts too. 

Posted by: Ms Choksondik at June 29, 2011 08:24 AM (sVk8z)

174 I'm your "weak form", credentials are a good thing but don't mean a lot by themselves, and can sometimes indicate a lot of time spent in places that corrupt.  Elitism is a good thing in that you want people with expertise in things, but you don't want them joining in a circle jerk that alienates them from everyone else.

Further, I think the problem is that the government has too much power, too much reach.  So someone might be highly credentialed but his office puts him (or her)  in control of a whole bunch of stuff he knows little about and frankly doesn't have the time for.  This not only makes for stupid decisions but forces a bureaucracy under him to manage all of that.  This is why a politico who is strong in "character" and general "ways to do things" and for a limited role of government is so appealing, and rightly so.

I find reactionary anti-credentialism/anti-elitism to be not too much different than some of the stuff on the left.

Posted by: Where're my ping pong balls? at June 29, 2011 08:24 AM (XIXhw)

175 its the fact that many of us outside of the 'system' trust those who created the mess, to clean up the mess.

Posted by: Romeo13 at June 29, 2011 01:22 PM (NtXW4)

Gahhh... not enough coffee yet...

meant 'DO NOT TRUST those who made the mess, to clean up the mess'...

Posted by: Romeo13 at June 29, 2011 08:24 AM (NtXW4)

176 #153  Ace,
I don't think you're overthinking anything.

You're asking a question to get responses.

My personal response is above:  Depending on the field in question, there may or may not be a positive correlation between credentials and actual ability.   But I don't know of any where there actually is a NEGATIVE correlation.

With respect to "in the beltway, out of the beltway", unless you think that EVERY "in the beltway" politician is bad, the "strong form" argument doesn't hold.   If you do think so, what's the alternative, no Federal gov't?

The only plausible alternative is term limits to reduce the corrupting influence of office. 

Posted by: looking closely at June 29, 2011 08:25 AM (6Q9g2)

177 We have a president whos only "credentials" are that he can fun for dog catcher. 

Your post, Ace, is about 3 years too late.  Every thinking conservative already weighs credentials before they vote. 

Never mind that we all pointed out that Obama wasn't qualified to work at a Stop-N-Go 3 years ago.

Rhetorical, in the extreme. 

Posted by: tangonine at June 29, 2011 08:25 AM (x3YFz)

178 147

Question: Why do I know where Obama went to college but I don't know where Reagan attended?

Because you are either A) 14 years old or B) An IT guy who can't use google.

To answer your inquiry: Eureka College in Illinois.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at June 29, 2011 01:19 PM (OWjjx)

My point with the question was that Obama/MSM told us where he went constantly as if that was enough to be the President.  Was trying to point out the experience vs. college thing.

I watched the Reagan documentery where that was covered and still couldn't remember.

What's Google?

Posted by: PugBoo at June 29, 2011 08:25 AM (20jXV)

179

Ace, I think we have to go back to Peggy Noonan's yardstick analogy.  The Democratic Left is always at the 32 inch mark, trying to pull the Republican Right to their side.  What the "Weak Form" Republicans want is to elect politicians who can coax the Left away from 32 inches, closer to 28 inches, then maybe a little further to 25 inches, but they'll compromise at 26 inches, etc.  "Strong Form" Republicans start at the 4 inch mark and want to drag the Left over the midway point  and  into the single digits.  Add to that the mounting debt crisis and fears about Obamacare, unions, etc, and a lot of people are going to start panicking and demanding stronger measures than the "Weak Form" politicians currently in office are willing to take. 

Yes, there's a healthy dose of a Throw the bums out! mentality, but I think a good chunk of this uptick in "Strong Form" attitude is the rumbling of a previously silent portion of the electorate who have finally started to feel the tangible effects of government interference and "good ole boy" politics, and they don't like what they feel.  Then they become aware of just how far the government has reached into their lives and they REALLY react.  Personally I don't think that's a bad thing.

Posted by: MWR at June 29, 2011 08:25 AM (4df7R)

180

I miss those pervy ewok posts too. 

Posted by: Ms Choksondik at June 29, 2011 01:24 PM (sVk8z)

I don't.

Posted by: Marco Rubio's trash at June 29, 2011 08:25 AM (XIXhw)

181 fun = run.  i dunt tipe gud.

Posted by: tangonine at June 29, 2011 08:25 AM (x3YFz)

182 Comes down to experience and trust combined. I tend to trust someone that has experience until I can't trust them. However in politics experience doesn't equate to trustworthy.

Posted by: Talibill at June 29, 2011 08:26 AM (WEWGu)

183 Are you telling me Krauthammer's job rests only upon his credentials? That he hasn't earned his job on merit/ability too?

His degree is in psychiatry, by the way.

Posted by: AmishDude at June 29, 2011 08:26 AM (T0NGe)

184 >>>I want fire and passion in my candidate.  Not limp handshakes, soft words and extending your hand across the aisle.

What if "fire and passion" (or whatever you deem it to be) is provably a net negative in an election?  Do you just want to see your own personal desires fulfilled, even if it means losing, again and again, forever?  Four more years of Obama? 

You do understand that Reagan (who constantly held up as the hero of many folks making these arguments) never, ever, ever ran on "fire and passion," right?  He ran on "I'm a non-scary conservative, I'm like you folks."  No anger.  None.  Lots of working across the aisle, lots of reaching out to Democrats.  

Posted by: Jeff B. at June 29, 2011 08:26 AM (hIWe1)

185

I see Establishment Republicans as not much different than Establishment Democrats.  Both have a vested interest in Big Government and increased debt.  Credentials don't have much to do with it.

Their differences are in things that don't matter or won't change, ie, Roe v Wade. 

I don't trust any of them to do the right thing.  They've been increasing the size of the Government and the size of the debt since Carter was in.

There might be a hope with Non-Establishment Republicans, at least the ones that can be proved to be actual conservatives.

 

 

Posted by: trainer at June 29, 2011 08:26 AM (Rojyk)

186

As someone said earlier, "Credentials" - at least in the academic sense - should only matter in your first job.  The fact that they are touted as "important" in politics just shows how shallow some in the political class are.

As I told my sister, who believed that her doctor HAD to be smart, because, "She graduated from Harvard!", well half of her graduating class graduated in the bottom half of the class, and somebody graduated dead last - but they still graduated from Harvard......(and that same Harvard doctor probably ended up contributing to my sister's death, because "I've never heard of anyone who had THOSE side effects from that class of medication", but that's another story.....)

What we need more of in D.C. are people who know how to ANALYZE problems and who recognize when it is better to leave solutions to those who are working in the trenches.

We have too many in D.C. who feel the need to "DO SOMETHING", when it would be better to let things take their natural course.

Unfortunately, folks in D.C. are "graded" by how many pieces of legislation their name is attached to and how much money they are able to raise for the party (and send back home).

To me, that isn't much of a "credential" at all..... 

Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at June 29, 2011 08:26 AM (wtQcz)

187 Maybe this will hit home.

Credentials - Having a BS degree in blogging from Harvard

Experience - blogging and herding cats for many years on AoS

Posted by: Cherry π at June 29, 2011 08:26 AM (OhYCU)

188 >>>Agreed. Pawlenty looks weak. I don't think he has the balls of the stamina to continue to the end. Bachman on the other hand shows she does and she isn't afraid to show it Anger is not strength, nor is obvious partisanship. Happy, sunny candidates win. Angry, dark-clouds candidates don't. Candidates who sing a song about working together for practical results for the country win. Candidates who announce they are in whole-hog for one wing of one party's agenda do not. You are attempting to pick the candidates least likely to actually win anything. Why you would do this, I don't know.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 08:26 AM (nj1bB)

189 But this is an odd thing, in this context, because I'm asking why Bachmann should be favored over Perry, and Bachmann has a law degree, whereas Perry (I think) has a degree in Animal Science, as he studied to be a farmer.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 01:13 PM (nj1bB)

But the preference for Bachmann over Perry has nothing to do with experience or credentials, and shouldn't in this case.  They are both competent, by my assessment, let's say, so it is just an issue of their positions on particularly important topics and what we think they would do.

What we want out of a President is someone who understands America, the idea of sovereignty (the real idea of it) and our Constitution, and has the courage to stick to it.  If that is absent, then all the OTHER experience in the world doesn't matter. 

Posted by: progresoverpeace at June 29, 2011 08:27 AM (G/MYk)

190 166 Credentials are worthwhile if you have confidence in the issuer of the credentials.   This.    The most I have to contribute to this thread of thought is that all the letters and abbreviations behind your name mean nothing if you cannot back up what you are saying/doing. 

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at June 29, 2011 08:27 AM (9hSKh)

191 Something... something seems different around here suddenly.

Posted by: EM August at June 29, 2011 08:27 AM (zeBNm)

192 Random thoughts after reading Mallamutt's post:

Credentials used to mean something. If you had a degree from a prestigious university it meant you were smart. Now it may just mean you are in the right minority group.

People's ideas of what is a "credential" and what isn't can differ. I strongly prefer *NOT* to vote for someone without real business experience, preferably in small business, not some financially house (see Clinton, Chelsea for the kind of psuedo-credential I am talking about.)

There is a difference between fluff and stuff -- being able to make a good speech and doing the hard work of governing. My general slapdash observation is a lot of Tea Partiers think someone who can give a good speech will stick to their guns when they get elected. I consider having held prior elective office, particularly for President, as a make or break "credential." I want a voting record so I can see if you stick to your guns most of the time under real world pressure, although that will mean I will vote for real, flawed candidates who will have had to have voted against some of my positions as opposed to a conservative blank slate.   Pawlenty has pretty much held the line in a really tough state. Hell, Guiliani actually did well on fiscal issues and crime in NY, one of the worst possible cities/areas for those issues. As much as I like Cain, I question whether he can "take the heat" -- not that he's the next Arlen Specter or anything like that. The Strong Anti-Credentialist would assume that makes me a big squishy rino.

Obama should have cured those of us on the right from looking for rock stars who tell us everything we want to hear. I'm looking for for a quiet, stubborn workhorse of a candidate. I don't want a right wing version of Obama. That means somebody with a proven history, which the Strong Anti Credentialists won't like.

Posted by: MaureenTheTemp at June 29, 2011 08:27 AM (8kq7+)

193 >>>His degree is in psychiatry, by the way. And his experience is in being a cogent writer. Is Krauthammer ill-qualified to be a public intellectual/writer/pundit?

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 08:27 AM (nj1bB)

194 >>>If T-Paw is determined "acceptable" to the Establishment, he's written off, in knee-jerk, unthinking fashion -- gee, if the Establishment says he's acceptable, he must not be.

>>>Those agitating for a candidate that only half the party finds acceptable are going to be in a for a horrible shock in November 2012.

I wish I could put this in 20-pt font, in red.  And keep repeating it over and over and over until some of the folks I'm arguing with here were forced to reckon with it.  I basically made the same point in my previous post.

Posted by: Jeff B. at June 29, 2011 08:28 AM (hIWe1)

195 I think things are starting to hit the fan and the career politicians on all sides are seeing the gravy train coming to a halt.

So, they're making any excuse they can and are trashing newbies because they fear they'll need to get a real job.

Posted by: © Sponge at June 29, 2011 08:28 AM (UK9cE)

196 Joe Biden was in Congress from the time I was seven.

He's considered a statesman.

Can anyone tell me what he accomplished in all that time?

He's known for plagiarism and being the real-life version of Bob Ueker's character in Major League.  Obviously, warming a prestigious seat isn't a mark of greatness.

Posted by: nickless at June 29, 2011 08:28 AM (MMC8r)

197 first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

- Shakespear

Posted by: tangonine at June 29, 2011 08:28 AM (x3YFz)

198 @141 - Reagan did an undergrad in Economics & Sociology in Eureka College (small liberal arts college in Illinois).

Posted by: RightWingProf at June 29, 2011 08:29 AM (UOcNk)

199 "Cogent" is a secret code word of the elite

Posted by: Cherry π at June 29, 2011 08:29 AM (OhYCU)

200 >>>But the preference for Bachmann over Perry has nothing to do with experience or credentials, and shouldn't in this case. They are both competent, by my assessment, let's say... Do you know if more than 30% of the public agrees that they are both competent and trained for high executive office? Do you care if more than 30% agrees or not? See, I don't believe that 51% agrees. I'm not sure if you think 51% so agrees. I think you're dismissing this as the worry-wort Eeorism of a RINO faggit. And I think this is an emotion-based response on your part. And I don't think important decisions are made well on emotional responses.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 08:29 AM (nj1bB)

201
What anger?





Posted by: soothie at June 29, 2011 08:30 AM (G/zuv)

202 So now Bachmann is unelectable ace?

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 08:30 AM (QslGJ)

203 How far are we taking this?  Yes, Perot (as an example) was supported by people who liked that he wasn't a politician.  But even they touted his business experience as the right tools for the job of getting us out of a bad economy.  Nobody ever really likes the guy with the LEAST credentials, or at least occasionally, we'd elect the Hobo of the Week.

Posted by: The Black Republican at June 29, 2011 08:30 AM (SBjt9)

204 25, ace, no I tried to say I don't see the split falling on the hard-soft terms you postulate. Credentials are neither suspect nor strong negative indicators. The fault line is elsewhere.

Posted by: glowing blue meat at June 29, 2011 08:30 AM (K/USr)

205 197 Please don't. Some of us are okay.

The 6th Circuit however...

Posted by: laceyunderalls assuming you all know & I have yet to read the comments at June 29, 2011 08:31 AM (pLTLS)

206

I still haven't gotten a satisfactory answer on what makes one "establishment".

As far as I can tell, those who use the term take it to mean "A well qualified politician or candidate that I don't like".

On what planet is a multiple term Congresswoman or PAC holding former VP candidate not "establishment", where a former governor with little history of party or Beltway activism prior to his campaign is a member of "the establishment"?

 

Posted by: Hollowpoint at June 29, 2011 08:31 AM (WRW1S)

207
Joe Biden always liked to travel. And Joe Biden was always eager to express his opinion.

Over time, he became a foreign-policy expert.

1+1 =2

get it?

Posted by: soothie at June 29, 2011 08:32 AM (G/zuv)

208
If T-Paw is determined "acceptable" to the Establishment, he's written off, in knee-jerk, unthinking fashion -- gee, if the Establishment says he's acceptable, he must not be.

I think the big problem with Pawlenty is that his past statements and record don't indicate that he will fight for conservative principles.

He is saying the right things now...but does anyone have faith that he would go to the mat to push them through if elected?

And in this case the fact that the people in the Republican party who do NOT want real, conservative change seem ok with Pawlenty is disturbing.

To be honest, I'm not writing him off yet, like say Romney, but this has to be a serious concern, and one that you don't get with a Cain, Palin, or Bachmann.

Posted by: 18-1 at June 29, 2011 08:32 AM (7BU4a)

209 Jeff B.

We are in a different time and in a different place.  The country is in the worst shape morally, financially, emotionally then I have ever experienced in my soon to be 50 years.  I never thought I would see anything worse than Carter but I was wrong.  Right now a lot of people feel beaten down, bereft and are watching their beloved country and way of life circle the drain.  I'm sick of compromise, all we do is compromise and what do we get? F**ked in the ass. I want someone who stands up and is unafraid to call it as they see it.  Those days are over. 

Posted by: mpfs at June 29, 2011 08:32 AM (iYbLN)

210  But I don't know of any where there actually is a NEGATIVE correlation.


Posted by: looking closely at June 29, 2011 01:25 PM (6Q9g2)

 

Hmmm....

Exhibit 1: Doctorates in Economics.  They seem to have mainly been taught false theorys...

Exhibit 2: Modern Teaching degrees...

Posted by: Romeo13 at June 29, 2011 08:32 AM (NtXW4)

211 I think another problem with credentialism and the Republican party is that Republicans always move to the left after they are elected.  In most cases, this makes no political sense.  Can you think of any Republican who was elected as a proto-lib and then turned right?

So I think the view is that government taints Republicans and the only way to keep them on track is new blood.

Posted by: AmishDude at June 29, 2011 08:33 AM (T0NGe)

212 Okay, real answer. It isn't about strong v weak anti-credentialism, it is about credentials and "credentials." It is like you write a biography that someone thinks is really deep, and that makes you the guy to run the country. Or you got a Nobel Prize in economics, so suddenly you are an expert on sunspots. I guess if you were to assume that there is an anti-credentialism, you have to also assume a pro-credentialism. And too many of the pro-credentialists just look like boobs. Hey, you know what works really well on paper? Communism! Okay, dude, every time you do it you get gulags. That's the real world. Pro-credentialists approach to government is to assume the philosopher king - they want efficient government, good government. So a really smart, credentialed, proficient person is the right person for government. Really? I have an IQ of 210 (no shit), and you don't want me in charge, I promise you. "Good government" - powerful enough to give you everything you need is powerful enough to take it all away. Not much diffference between good and bad government. The pro-credentialists just think if you get the right person in there, they can bend the mechanism to their will, and it will all be good. I will tiptoe up to Godwin's limit and suggest that efficiency in government is not in and of itself a good. Government simply doesn't work that way. It is its own beast. As Milton Friedman said it isn't about getting the right people, it is about incenting the wrong people to do the right thing. The attractions (temptations) of a Leviathan government are very powerful. Doesn't matter whether it does good or bad. So *that* is the argument in the Republican Party - are you willing to reduce the power of government or not? I always said that Pawlenty's schtick was that he was competent and not scary. But what was he competent at? Did he rein in Minnesota's government, or did he simply make it work better? Was Romney's record in Massachusetts that he made Bay Staters more free, or did he just get some stuff done? What was it about Bob Dole? Tax collector for the welfare state? Efficient. Competent. Additionally, politics is aspirational - it appeals to the way people feel and what they want to be and how they identify. These are not necessarily demonstrable by credentials. Was Bobby Kennedy's campaign driven by his college degree and record as Attorney General? A very competent person who can not appeal to aspirations is not going to win. That's why the rap on Pawlenty - that he is not exciting - matters. Instapundit linked to a Susanna Breslin column about interviews - she said the dirty little secret is that you have to make the interviewer *like* you. No credential is going to do that by itself. If I need a doctor, do I want a well-credentialed asshole, or one that is credentialed enough and is a decent person? (depends, I guess, I am unconscious on the table it doesn't matter, but if it is someone I have to see over and over...) So, long answer. I don't want someone to come and make the big ass government we have work well. I want them to make it less of a big ass government.

Posted by: blaster at June 29, 2011 08:33 AM (Fw2Gg)

213 I think Al Gore's Internet has a lot to do with this question.

Now we know what the people huddled up in DC are actually doing.  You don't have to be in DC and go to dinner parties to gain experience and knowledge about politics.  You just need to read some blog.

Posted by: Cherry π at June 29, 2011 08:33 AM (OhYCU)

214 Can somebody tell me what the article was about? I only read the comments.

Posted by: Andrew B at June 29, 2011 08:33 AM (FweJ7)

215

To really get at the heart of this issue, I think one needs to go back to the mid-70s.  That is when three things happened.  First, the K Street lobby took hold.  Second, a professional political consultant "vocation" came into being.  Third, nascent cable television began to change the news cycle.

The effects on the American system were profound.  Congress became a donation-dependent form of constituent interaction.  Ordinary people found themselves unable to communicate in a meaningful way with their elected officials.  The policy process changed into "message" over "outcome".  Inside the Beltway became a philosophy of governing and of life itself. 

Now that the information revolution has again changed the paradigm, the old guard of the existing system and its reliance on Ivy League + Stanford elitists is in panic mode over what they see as peasants with torches ringing the wall.  Within the party, you can see it, too.  "Extremist" is a code word for "democrat" (very small "d").  "Moderate" is code for "status quo."  Don't even get me started on "nuance."You don't have to look any further than the various reactions to the Tea Party to see what I am describing.  Did you ever think that we'd be in an environment where an anointed few would actually be troubled over their fellow citizens READING the Constitution?

I'm in the camp that believes last November was the beginning of something huge.  The old guard is desperately trying to stem that tide by whatever means necessary.  Their assault on objective reality began when it became obvious that the economic policies of this administration and its incrementalist collaborators were a failure.  But lies don't work in this new world.

We're winning.  And we're doing it without using their power structure. 

 

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at June 29, 2011 08:33 AM (B+qrE)

216 Experience is the most important credential, which is now being dismissed airily as doesn't-make-no-mind. Because fuck discernment, that's why. How am I supposed to shit on every one who holds a J.D. from the Ivy League if I actually have to examine their actual work product or actual voting record on issues that concern me and are likely to arise while they're in office? Fuck. That. Engine Room, take us to full Retard Speed!

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 29, 2011 08:33 AM (lbo6/)

217 Credentials are worthwhile if you have confidence in the issuer of the credentials.

Not really. Possession of the credential simply means that the holder accomplished the tasks required to receive the credential. It doesn't shed much, if any, light on motives, philosophy, beliefs, etc. The credential, as a standalone entity, is a poor predictor of future decisions.

Posted by: Ted Kennedy's Gristle Encased Head at June 29, 2011 08:33 AM (+lsX1)

218 >>>So now Bachmann is unelectable ace?

>>>Bachmann is more unelectable than Palin.  Seriously.

Consider that for a moment.  Because it's true.

Palin is merely unqualified for the job and unsuited for it in terms of temperament and intellect.

Bachmann, on the other hand, is not only unqualified and inexperienced, she's also Greg Stillson.

I wouldn't vote for Obama if she got the GOP nomination, but I sure as shit could never in good conscience vote to put her in the Oval Office either.  I'd write in Ace of Spades or something.

I keep telling you people, SHE IS A BAD CUSTOMER.

Posted by: Jeff B. at June 29, 2011 08:33 AM (hIWe1)

219 I haven't written off Pawlenty either,though he isn't a favorite.I don't know why everyone has to be so confrontational.Things will shake out over the campaign process.I think we have better choices this time around and therefore a better chance to get a good nominee.

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 08:33 AM (QslGJ)

220 "You do understand that Reagan (who constantly held up as the hero of many folks making these arguments) never, ever, ever ran on "fire and passion," right?  He ran on "I'm a non-scary conservative, I'm like you folks."  No anger.  None.  Lots of working across the aisle, lots of reaching out to Democrats.  "

"Fire and passion" does not mean screaming "Yo Mama!"

"Never before in our history have Americans been called upon to face three grave threats to our very existence, any one of which could destroy us. We face a disintegrating economy, a weakened defense and an energy policy based on the sharing of scarcity.

The major issue of this campaign is the direct political, personal and moral responsibility of Democratic Party leadership--in the White House and in Congress--for this unprecedented calamity which has befallen us. They tell us they have done the most that humanly could be done. They say that the United States has had its day in the sun; that our nation has passed its zenith. They expect you to tell your children that the American people no longer have the will to cope with their problems; that the future will be one of sacrifice and few opportunities."

Posted by: Al at June 29, 2011 08:34 AM (MzQOZ)

221 That exact quote can be used today.

Posted by: Al at June 29, 2011 08:34 AM (MzQOZ)

222 "Establishment" in my mind is someone who not only takes a position against the popular will, but also does so in a manner that appears to be self-serving and somewhat whimsical. And by whimsical, I mean not necessarily an intellectually plausible conclusion that a majority would reach.

Posted by: Marcus at June 29, 2011 08:34 AM (CHrmZ)

223 Screw credentials.  I have a driver's license, but it doesn't make me Dale Earnhardt.

Posted by: kathysaysso at June 29, 2011 12:49 PM (ZtwUX)


The guy that's DEAD from driving a race car, ignoring safety features because he was bigger than life itself?

Bad analogy, IMO.....

Posted by: © Sponge at June 29, 2011 08:35 AM (UK9cE)

224

So now Bachmann is unelectable ace?\

As a Minnesotan, I've been saying that she's unelectable from the start.

She'd lose MN badly despite being pretty well known even before flirting with a presidential run.  There's a reason she didn't first try to run for governor or Senator in her own state, and that reason is that she'd lose by a large margin.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again- hers is a vanity run, nothing more.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at June 29, 2011 08:35 AM (WRW1S)

225 #186

I have a tremendous amount of experience with Harvard MDs and med students and this is what I'll say about them.

-As individuals they're extremely bright, as good a group as you'll find anywhere else.

-Despite that, they're coddled, their medical curriculum is embarassingly weak (and politically correct), they generally aren't given enough "hands on" experience as medical students, and for those reasons they don't come out of Harvard Medical School nearly as strong as physicians as they should be.

Within Boston, the BU medical students are actually more highly regarded as prospective interns, because coming in on day one they know how to draw blood, put in lines, write orders, and generally keep the service moving.

Posted by: looking closely at June 29, 2011 08:35 AM (6Q9g2)

226 Alright Ace, you answered me pretty clearly at 170 while I was typing.

Posted by: The Black Republican at June 29, 2011 08:35 AM (SBjt9)

227 217 Oh,I agree absolutely.

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 08:35 AM (QslGJ)

228

Frederick the Great's mule was said to have gone on forty campaigns.  Frederick said the mule didn't know much more afterwards than beforehand.

Experience as a concept is one thing. Experience in the right and relevant areas is another.  Results are yet another.

One of the arguments against term limits is that the newbies won't know how to get things done. Presumption is that the voters want the same things done.  Wrong.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at June 29, 2011 08:35 AM (wxHHM)

229   I dont think its anti competency or experience, rather its that people are now looking for to send to DC who got their competency and experience someplace besides yale, harvard or DC. Its anti the same sort of experience. There's an incredibly small bubble of people at the top who all went to the same schools and think the same things fundamentally, regardless of party. thats not good.
 
  The more actual time you have spent in washington, the less respect and benefit of the doubt you should get, imho.

 And I think competency and credentials are still important to most, my main issue with bachmann is her lack of exec experience. Thats Romneys main thing, you know he can make the trains run on time, the guy is a competent executive. His only thing, maybe. 

Posted by: johnnydrama at June 29, 2011 08:35 AM (K/7KJ)

230 224 I didn't ask you but thanks.

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 08:36 AM (QslGJ)

231 211 I think another problem with credentialism and the Republican party is that Republicans always move to the left after they are elected.  In most cases, this makes no political sense.  Can you think of any Republican who was elected as a proto-lib and then turned right?

So I think the view is that government taints Republicans and the only way to keep them on track is new blood.
Posted by: AmishDude

Exactly, my soon to be husband

Posted by: mpfs at June 29, 2011 08:36 AM (iYbLN)

232 Those agitating for a candidate that only half the party finds acceptable are going to be in a for a horrible shock in November 2012.

Well, let's finish this thought.

Nominating someone with a low chance of winning the election greatly increases the chances of Obama winning re-election.

But nominating someone with a low chance of actual changing the scope and size of government greatly increases the chance of a societal collapse.

In short, nominating another McCain is not the answer. We need someone who is "electable*", yes,  AND will actually show backbone and measurable success in office.

*What electable really means with Obama's depression continuing is an interesting question in its own right.

Posted by: 18-1 at June 29, 2011 08:37 AM (7BU4a)

233
Here's one of the reasons why people think so lowly of the establishment.  Obama just stood there today and lied for a half hour.

Where's the response? Who's running this goddammed party anyway?


Posted by: soothie at June 29, 2011 08:37 AM (G/zuv)

234 215, circa

I am granting you the credential of "The One Who Made Sense of The Question".  I shall vote for you for something, and drink a can (can't afford a bottle nowadays) of Valu-Rite in your honor. 

Posted by: Cherry π at June 29, 2011 08:38 AM (OhYCU)

235 FDR was reelected despite not fixing a Goddamn thing,in fact making things worse.That fact haunts me.

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 08:38 AM (QslGJ)

236 "Candidates who sing a song about working together for practical results for the country win." To an extent. But this is EXACTLY what my long post above is about. I think a lot of people have been sold that line too many times. We tire of the David Brooks types who say this - who say to bring the country together, we need to undertake tax reform. Really? That's what we need, these assholes getting together to figure out how best to pick our pockets? No. Hell no.

Posted by: blaster at June 29, 2011 08:38 AM (Fw2Gg)

237 Credentials, per se, are not the problem, I don't think.

It's how they're used which is at issue.

Using somebody's Ivy League degree as a proxy and marker identifying someone as a blithering pinky-in-the-air cardigan-wearing RINO buffoon is as mistaken as using that same degree as evidence that somebody's uniquely qualified to go to work on Wall Street.

We could start talking about bell curves and normal distributions, but I was told there would be no math.

The problem is that credentials ARE used as proxies for actual ability, and they ARE used as tickets into the elites of this country.  Really brilliant people, and a lot of them, get Ivy League degrees, but some blithering idiots do, too.

John Kerry, Reporting For Duty!

And those Ivy League blithering idiots (and their ilk, who repeatedly show an uncanny ability to find their way into positions of significant governmental power) are the reasons why Strong-Form Anti-Credentialism happens.

Can't do much about it.  Tastes like chicken.

Posted by: filbert at June 29, 2011 08:38 AM (smvTK)

238 >>>I'm in the camp that believes last November was the beginning of something huge. The old guard is desperately trying to stem that tide by whatever means necessary. Their assault on objective reality began when it became obvious that the economic policies of this administration and its incrementalist collaborators were a failure. But lies don't work in this new world. >>>We're winning. And we're doing it without using their power structure. Um, no. You won when the Establishment and Tea Party both found a candidate to be acceptable. Usually it was a case of the Tea Party liking the message and conviction and ideology, and the Establishment liking the bio, experience, and general candidate charisma. When there was a schism, bad things happened: http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7140347/true-conservative

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 08:39 AM (nj1bB)

239
instead we have Pawlenty attending a hot dog festival in Bugfuck, Iowa.


Yeah, I want a little fight in my nominee. Sue me.

Posted by: soothie at June 29, 2011 08:39 AM (G/zuv)

240 Credentials in the political sphere are a way of sorting Our Guys from Their Guys. If you went to certain schools, joined certain clubs, and associated with certain people, you're one of our guys. Credentials can get you put in positions of power but they can't make you competent. Exhibit A of this point is Jamie Gorelick. If the credentials put you in a position of power and then you demonstrate competence, then you're worthy of consideration. That's why I insist that presidential candidates should at least have had some executive experience, preferably a term as governor: their actions are verifiable and don't (necessarily) depend on the credentials that put them there.

Posted by: AF1, young and sleek at June 29, 2011 08:39 AM (RD7QR)

241 Ugh. Sock fail of the day.

Posted by: joncelli at June 29, 2011 08:39 AM (RD7QR)

242 224

So now Bachmann is unelectable ace?\

As a Minnesotan, I've been saying that she's unelectable from the start.

She'd lose MN badly despite being pretty well known even before flirting with a presidential run.  There's a reason she didn't first try to run for governor or Senator in her own state, and that reason is that she'd lose by a large margin.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again- hers is a vanity run, nothing more.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at June 29, 2011 01:35 PM (WRW1S)

MN is loaded with douchebags and flakes from the get go.  Who gives a shit about minnesoooota?  The only thing MN offers the nation is the occasional episode of man vs. food.

Posted by: tangonine at June 29, 2011 08:39 AM (x3YFz)

243 If rather than trying to expose the irrational heart of the mad teacrackaz—or, really, just summoning the usual gang to bitch out the mad-cracka horde down here and make you feel all runnin' shit—you simply deduce how anti-credentialists' favorite in-government dude can be Clarence Thomas, Yale Law, you'll have this.

He's clearly and uniquely different from almost all his fellow Credential U alums—and different in a fundamental and obvious way that's not complicated or confusing or even two-Formed.

But you have to want it. Again.

(You've had it and chucked it several times.)

Posted by: oblig. at June 29, 2011 08:40 AM (xvZW9)

244 >>The Strong Form of the anti-credentialist impulse says that typical credentials are not only not necessarily evidence of competency, but in fact positive evidence against competency.

I go with this one usually.

Posted by: Mr. Peter Principle at June 29, 2011 08:40 AM (26uEg)

245 whereas Perry (I think) has a degree in Animal Science, as he studied to be a farmer.



And he started his political career as the Texas Ag Commissioner.

See how the dots connect?

Posted by: mpurinTexas supports Rick Perry, bitch at June 29, 2011 08:40 AM (5d6vv)

246

If I get an email from someone who lists his alphabet behind his name, my BS alarm goes off.  I know PE's that I wouldn't trust to change the oil in my truck.  Competence tops everything.

Posted by: Mr. Dave at June 29, 2011 08:40 AM (z/gB1)

247 My bias is against anyone from the Ivy League, as this group is the most responsible for the shit we are in now. After that, lawyers in general. Then people involved in real estate.

Posted by: Prof. Heinz Doofensmirtz at June 29, 2011 08:40 AM (mk7Rs)

248

Um. Both?

Weak form has a logic that says credentials in the form of degrees or punditry or gadfly don't mean much while experience matters slightly more, but neither are determinative in selecting a candidate.

Strong form resists any credential as determinative and in fact credentials count as a negative.

In the case of congress critters, I believe we have strayed too far from citizen representation and into a specialized club of lawyers as our representatives - I believe we need to move to more common citizenry representing us - and getting out making room for more citizenry (strong form).

Senators perhaps should have more credentials, but still come in with articulated and demonstrated beliefs and be willing to forcefully advocate for them.

Presidents - well, executive experience is a must have for me, in addition to a set of articulated beliefs and a track record of making them happen.

Posted by: John Lynch at June 29, 2011 08:40 AM (QAiBB)

249

Um, no. You won when the Establishment and Tea Party both found a candidate to be acceptable. Usually it was a case of the Tea Party liking the message and conviction and ideology, and the Establishment liking the bio, experience, and general candidate charisma.

Your wrong!

Posted by: Sharon Angle, Meg Whitman and Christine O'Donnell at June 29, 2011 08:41 AM (OWjjx)

250 Raving Levin and followers dont care. They are like the obama lovers. They prefer a blank slate that says a few right things.

Posted by: MB at June 29, 2011 08:41 AM (NhP76)

251 I keep telling you people, SHE IS A BAD CUSTOMER.
Posted by: Jeff B.

What is your problem with Bachmann?  Is it because she is a woman?  Do you prefer someone in the Huntsman/Romney mode?

It as if you trying to say she is unelectable because I say so.

Posted by: mpfs at June 29, 2011 08:41 AM (iYbLN)

252

Both weak and strong credentials are very important in technical fields, where dealing with human beings as emotional entities is not the primary thrust of the activity at hand. Examples of fields where credentials matter and where gaining those standardized credentials has required rigorous effort would obviously include medicine, IT, engineering, and so on. In those fields in particular, but not exclusively, the maintenance of ones credentials is at least as arduous as the initial acquisition. On the other hand, the motivation and leadership of meat-bag containers of emotions, needs, wants, hopes, desires, fears, etc., is a field of study that has continued since before the advent of language.

The only required credentials for a politician, historically speaking, is the ability to demonstration that they have a mastery of meat-bag manipulation. They don't really have to take a standardized test to determine depth and breadth of knowledge, they simply need to be pretty, both mentally and actually, to sway equally untested meat-bags at the ballot box. The core competency of our politicians can best be judged by observing the trail, or the lack of prosecutable trace, that they have left behind them as they have climbed the meat pile, as well as a scrutiny of how well they have surrounded and allied themselves with others along the way. Until Guardian/Colossus arrives we shall continue to suffer under the whims, or yokes, of people that we would not trust, in the real world, to mow our lawns without burning down our houses.

Posted by: Errol at June 29, 2011 08:41 AM (d2AYO)

253

whereas Perry (I think) has a degree in Animal Science, as he studied to be a farmer.

Stop for a minute and think about HOW MANY "SYSTEMS" have to "interact" for a farmer to be successful.

And if he's NOT successful, his family/business/community may very well fail.  There's a lot at stake for farmers/ranchers.

If a lawyer fails, what happens?  Someone loses a case, which can usually be appealed up through the system. They move on to the next case.

If a farmer fails, an awful lot of "someones" go hungry.  There is no appeal.  They HAVE to get it right every single time.

Give me a successful farmer over a successful lawyer any day.....

(And I am a Texas Aggie - you won't find many Animal Science programs better than the one at Texas A&M)

 

Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at June 29, 2011 08:42 AM (wtQcz)

254

I'm curious about this because things I've generally considered good credentials for high executive office -- such as experience in high executive office on the state level -- seem to not only be largely diminshed in terms of relevancy, but almost taken as relevant in the wrong sort of way

Some thought needs to go to the inverse of:

The Weak Form of the anti-credentialist impulse says that just because you have relevant training or experience, or some degree, doesn't necessarily mean anything. Perhaps you know what you're talking about. Perhaps you don't.

Just because you don't have relevant training or experience, or some degree, doesn't necessarily mean anything either. Perhaps you know you're talking about. Perhaps you don't.

It's a reaction against the same crew of credentialed idiots that half caused all manner of problems. People want new blood and new faces.

Talking up the credentials of someone who they see as representative of the same lot, especially against someone who they view as a necessary and favorable new face who doesn't have the credential, will see a response where people attack the credentials and minimalize them in favor of what they view as more important indicators of the qualities they think are needed now.

Look, it's not very satisfying but it's the simple reality of it...

If you bring up Jon Huntsman, nobody likes Huntsman. Someone may mock his credentials (which may be spiffy, I don't know, I don't care), others will ignore that but there won't be an argument about it. No one likes Huntsman. No one cares why he sucks... toss out whatever you want. Everyone will just nod and mmhmm about it because no one likes the douchebag.

If you bring up Mitt Romney, some people like Romney. Someone may mock his credentials (he has spiffy credentials, I don't care), other people are going to get mad and assert that those credentials are important and he should be getting positive marks about it. These will be mostly people who like Romney. Because they like the guy. Lots of reasons why, say good things and they will nod because they like him and credentials may be one reason. At the end of the day it's the whole figure though, the full character of Romney that they like.

Others will argue back that they are meaningless, maybe even go to the extent of saying his spiffy credentials are in fact evidence of incompitence. Why? Because they think he's incompitent (I certainly do, at least, at doing what we need done in Washington).  All the evidence is evidence of incompitence because the man is incompitent. They don't like Romney. They don't much like his credentials and you know what, his credentials don't matter if they don't like him. Suddenly because he has a Harvard degree or whatever (I have no idea), anyone's going to think he's a swell guy? The credentials, however spiffy some may find them, are quite worthless - he still doesn't like Romney. If he has the spiffyest degree, then you may declare that the spiffyest degree is a worthless indicator or even a negative one - the test erroneously produced Mitt Romney.

All of this just is what it is - talk about any candidate and you get what you get. But especially, if a person is supporting a candidate who doesn't have the indicator in discussion (say, a super spiffy ivy degree, like Palin) the reaction is even more magnified - the degree is a worthless indicator and people will reject the degree as a metric since it disputes their measurements.

Posted by: Entropy at June 29, 2011 08:42 AM (IsLT6)

255 >>>I think the big problem with Pawlenty is that his past statements and record don't indicate that he will fight for conservative principles.

You have literally just pulled this conclusion out of your brain, not out of his record.  This is what is frustrating. 

Pawlenty's record -- his actual record, in the real world -- has him vetoing 150+ bills from the Dem-controlled MN legislature rather than let them steamroll him.  His record shows that he actually shut down the entire state government, not once but TWICE, rather than allow the Dems to force him to raise taxes.  His record shows him using every single legislative trick in the book (some of them amazingly devious!) in order to prevent tax increases and cut spending.  His record shows an A-grade from the Cato Institute.

THAT is his record.  On the other hand, in your mind you have conceived the notion that he's somehow 'soft' because...what?  Because he talks like a nice fella.  And because once upon a time he said he though global warming was an issue (although he never did anything about it).  That's it.  That's all.  That's your evidence.  And in order to cling to this fantasized evidence you have to cast out all the actual REAL evidence of his record. 

And yet you have the gall to claim that his "record shows" that he won't fight for conservative fiscal principles!  It's amazing what people can convince themselves of when they want to.

Posted by: Jeff B. at June 29, 2011 08:43 AM (hIWe1)

256

I watched them tearing a building down,
A gang of men in a busy town;
With a heave-ho and a lusty yell
They swung a beam, and the building fell.

I asked the foreman, “Are these men skilled,
And the men you’d hire if you had to build?”
He gave a laugh and said, “No, indeed,
Just common labor is all I need;
I can easily wreck in a day or two
What builders have taken a year to do.”

And I thought to myself as I went my way,
Which of these roles have I tried to play?
Am I a builder who works with care,
Measuring life by the rule and square?

Am I shaping my deeds to a well-made plan,
Patiently doing the best I can?
Or am I a wrecker who walks the town,
Content with the labor of tearing down?

- Fulkerson

Posted by: Panther at June 29, 2011 08:43 AM (Lz4EE)

257

And since some have brought it up:

1.  No, I don't think Bachman can win.

2.  Ditto Cain.

3.  I have never believed than Palin can win.

In the case of 2012, it's about making the campaign for President completely and totally a referendum on Barack Obama.  None of those three can do that.

I am metaphysically certain that Rick Perry, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan or even (gulp) Mittenoid can do that.  I'm not so sure the credential issue is even a factor.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at June 29, 2011 08:44 AM (B+qrE)

258

I think the big problem with Pawlenty is that his past statements and record don't indicate that he will fight for conservative principles.

He allowed a partial state government shutdown that lasted over a week rather than cave to MN Dem demands for higher taxes and spending, and set the state record for vetoes in one year.  What more do you want, cutting down Democrats with a broadsword?

Posted by: Hollowpoint at June 29, 2011 08:44 AM (WRW1S)

259 Not really. Possession of the credential simply means that the holder accomplished the tasks required to receive the credential. It doesn't shed much, if any, light on motives, philosophy, beliefs, etc. The credential, as a standalone entity, is a poor predictor of future decisions.

Actually, that agrees with me to great extent--it's the difference between MIT and a diploma mill.  To get an engineering degree from MIT, you have to be a learned and clever fellow, highly capable in said field, with a good streak of doggedness to boot.  The diploma mill simply asks that the check is good.

You can guess which I'd rather have building my bridges.

Now, think of the media as the mother of all diploma mills...

Posted by: AoSHQ's *second* worst commenter, DarkLord© at June 29, 2011 08:44 AM (GBXon)

260 "IÂ’d rather be governed by the first 2000 names in the Boston phone book than by the dons of Harvard." ~William F. Buckley, Jr.

Put WFB down for 'strong anti-.'

Posted by: nickless at June 29, 2011 08:45 AM (MMC8r)

261

What more do you want, cutting down Democrats with a broadsword?

Crossbow!

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life, Weak Anti-Credentialist at June 29, 2011 08:45 AM (OWjjx)

262 What frustrates me is "gives a good speech" is elevated above "achieves good outcomes." All that matters is red meat. And red meat, historically, has failed to win general elections.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 08:45 AM (nj1bB)

263

I was being sarcastic Ace and agree with your response.

And my sarcasm was directed at that very thing, the media overlooking his lack of credible experience.

Being in the state legislature how many times did he vote "present"?  Well isn't that just peachy when you never have to reveal who you really are.

Having seen some of these candidates up close and personal campaigning to the point of exhaustion sometimes, they can get a little punch drunk.  So I just laugh at some of their gaffes and let it go.  Obama thinking he was in St. Louis when he was somewhere else - that was funny but I never held it against him.

But 57 states?  I don't care how tired you are, you will always remember your name and how many states there are in the Union - unless you're really not sure in the first place.  Just like seeing all those fallen heros in the audience on Memorial Day.  You don't make that kind of a gaffe unless you don't really understand what Memorial Day is there to honor.

Posted by: 57 states at June 29, 2011 08:46 AM (sMgrb)

264 nickless-- um, no. Put William F. Buckley down as "metaphorical." Also put WFB for the proposition: "Support the most conservative candidate who is *electable.*"

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 08:46 AM (nj1bB)

265 let me break it down sesame street (hippie liberal shitbags that control sesame street notwithstanding):

1)  Is your candidate competent?
2) Does your candidate carry your values?

Done.  See? it's not hard.

No one is prepared to be the president of the united states.  No one.  Worst job on earth, unless you just choose to golf it away and be a giant pussy and go down in history as the lamest shitbag president ever.... but that's another story.

It's a 24-7 job.  You don't take a break.  You don't fucking golf.  You don't take vacations.  It's not about running for dog catcher, as our current shitbag thinks it is, but it's about leading. 

Pick the leader.

Posted by: tangonine at June 29, 2011 08:46 AM (x3YFz)

266 You are attempting to pick the candidates least likely to actually win anything. Why you would do this, I don't know.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 01:26 PM (nj1bB)

But isn't this what all of Hillary's people were saying about Barack Obama in 2007?  None of them thought Obama could actually win a general electon, he was way too inexperienced and left wing.  Obama's election gave "true believers" in both parties hope that they could get a "real" liberal/conservative not only the party nomination but also the White House. 

Of course, Obama was helped immensely by a sycophantic media that swooned over him and covered up his extreme deficiencies and lack of qualifications for the job.  No Republican will get this treatment.   The "narrative" is going to be either the Republican nominee is dumb (Palin/Bachmann), elitist (Romney), or some other as-yet-to-be-named negative value that will turn off less-attentive independent voters.

Posted by: rockmom at June 29, 2011 08:46 AM (u8gFC)

267 So, if you need brain surgery, you want the guy fresh out of med school or the guy who has performed the surgery hundreds of times?

Does the brain surgeon have a reputation for leaving his patients crippled?

Because that's the closer analogy.

I'm not anti-credentialism, per se. It depends on what the credentials are.

It seems to me, though, that all these super-qualified, credentialed politicians have brought us to the brink of economic ruin.

So just what is it I'm supposed to respect about their credentials?

Could we do any worse?

I look around at the people running this country and don't see them as particularly smart or capable. They look to me like a bunch of incompetent fuck-ups who are only good at one thing--achieving and maintaining power.

Does that mean I'm going to run out and support Sarah Palin?

No.

My guy right now is Rick Perry--a credentialed politician.

I think he's perfectly positioned to run on his record in Texas and win. I also hear he isn't afraid to get down in the mud and start gouging eyes.

Sounds like a winner to me.


Posted by: Warden at June 29, 2011 08:46 AM (KulgD)

268 Nothing says unelectable like someone wearing panties and a bra.

Just ask Eric Massa or Anthony Weiner.

AKA - at what point do we say there is a misogynist bent, intended or unintended when a woman enters the race. Immediately some like Ms. Bachmann is unqualified and a "flake"? Sure. Right. Because she is so light on academic accomplishments and real-life experience.

Posted by: Marcus at June 29, 2011 08:47 AM (CHrmZ)

269

193--Is Krauthammer ill-qualified to be a public intellectual/writer/pundit?

Of course not. That is arguably his only qualification, as I think his license to shrink has lapsed. But public intellectuals as a group are very poorly qualified to make judgments about what will be best for the rest of us. They tend to f*ck things up royally for the rest of us when given the power to do so directly or thru their contacts with policy makers who defer to them.

Ace, if you haven't done so already, read Intellectuals and Society by Thomas Sowell. Its right up your ally on this subject.

Posted by: glowing blue meat at June 29, 2011 08:47 AM (K/USr)

270 MN is loaded with douchebags and flakes from the get go.  Who gives a shit about minnesoooota?

If you can't win your home state then you don't win the presidency.  It simply doesn't happen.  There've been two exceptions to this in the whole history of the country, neither of them recent.  Bachmann wouldn't even make her home state close, and this is a state that has been closer in recent presidential elections.

Romney has the same problem.

Perry is looking so good right now because, among other things, he could actually win his own state, which is a sad comment on the GOP field.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at June 29, 2011 08:47 AM (QNENL)

271 262 - because the electorate prefers to be bottle-fed and babied. Red meat requires cutting and chewing.

Posted by: twiceblessedmom at June 29, 2011 08:48 AM (HjxoE)

272 I think that a lot of this is campaigning against the Republican Establishment rather than campaigning against Barack Obama. I do understand this. But I vow to you if you elevate beating the Republican Establishment over beating Barack Obama you will beat neither.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 08:48 AM (nj1bB)

273 Jeff B.

I take it you're a T-Paw supporter?

That's fine, just don't expect the rest of us to ride along quietly.  This is why we have a primary system.

Posted by: mpfs at June 29, 2011 08:48 AM (iYbLN)

274 Also put WFB for the proposition: "Support the most conservative candidate who is *electable.*"

Ehh, Buckley didn't know squat.  Christine O'Donnell all the way!

Posted by: Rush Limbaugh at June 29, 2011 08:48 AM (QNENL)

275 I think that you are ignoring the most basic issue, and that is the corruption inherent in any powerful political organization. As one rises through these organizations -- local to county to state to federal, one's contact with, and corruption by, power increases.

Some resist it well. Ronald Reagan comes to mind. But he was not immune. Some embrace it, as our current president has clearly done.

And to answer your question: I am in the strong-form camp. It is obvious that those credentials are inextricably linked to the corruption inherent in the process, and more and better credentials equates to more corruption.

I am using corruption both in its narrow definition (essentially stealing) and the broader description of accepting outcomes based not on firm beliefs and commitment but on the continuation of the political process.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at June 29, 2011 08:48 AM (LH6ir)

276 You have literally just pulled this conclusion out of your brain, not out of his record.  This is what is frustrating.

See below;

http://tinyurl.com/ybkh744

--
To track Pawlenty's evolution from treehugger to cap-and-trade skeptic, we need to turn the clock back to 2007. At the time, the Minnesota Legislature was debating the Next Generation Energy Act of 2007, which outlined the state's goals for greenhouse gas reductions. The bill required the state to reduce its emissions 15 percent by 2015 and 80 percent in 2050. It also endorsed the Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group, a panel charged with drafting a comprehensive greenhouse gas emission reduction plan to meet those goals.

On May 25, 2007, the day Pawlenty signed the bill, he said the state should have taken action 30 years ago.
 
"The nation has been asleep at the switch, but here in Minnesota we are kick-starting the future by increasing our nation-leading per capita renewable fuel use, boosting cost-saving measures and tackling greenhouse gas emissions," he said.
--

Did he have a real change of heart? Maybe. Will he do the right thing in office? Maybe. Should this be considered in assessing him as presidential material? Yes.

Posted by: 18-1 at June 29, 2011 08:49 AM (7BU4a)

277 And red meat, historically, has failed to win general elections.

You may want to visit YouTube, lookup Ronald Reagan.

Posted by: Cherry π at June 29, 2011 08:49 AM (OhYCU)

278

All that matters is red meat.

And red meat, historically, has failed to win general elections.

Now, Ace, go ahead and give yourself a real headache. Ask those who want red meat who their favorite President was.

Overwhelming response - Reagan.

Yet Reagan was not a true red meat campaigner. He used humor to drive home the point without alientating people. He used rhetoric to drive the point home. He did it with a smile, not a scowl.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life, Weak Anti-Credentialist at June 29, 2011 08:49 AM (OWjjx)

279 Back from lunch and a new thread with over 250 comments, damn.  Undoubtedly someone has already said that the conflict within the party is between Strong Form anti-credentialists and dirty smelly clueless socialists.

Posted by: Bob Saget at June 29, 2011 08:49 AM (F/4zf)

280 64 >>>Credentialism is about preserving the status quo of the power club.

It does do that. Is that all it does?

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 12:56 PM (nj1bB)

No, it also has a stultifying effect in political innovation, but I've been interrupted and am now out of time, sorry. 

Posted by: Meremortal at June 29, 2011 08:50 AM (7FgWm)

281 Good post and discussion. Every serious candiate is going to be an established politician, and thus "inside the beltway" or whatever. Otherwise, we risk running someone even more inexperienced than the current guy, which seems to me a terrible idea. We shouldn't fall into the trap of building someone up just bc they have les political experience. It may soothe anger but I don't think it will sell to the majority of voters.

Posted by: brak at June 29, 2011 08:50 AM (jErAU)

282 Actually, here's what I think is going on. There isn't a conflict between weak anti-credentialists and strong anti-credentialists or between weak anti-credentialists and strong credentialists (as I originally framed it). The conflict is between people who want a sustained and (if possible) fairly rapid rollback of the modern, leftist, state; and people who support many aspects of that state but may not want to go any further in that direction, i.e., people who are conservative in the old sense, i.e., status quo maintainers (These are the people who are against ObamaCare, but are flat earthers when it comes to the necessity for entitlement reform). Since there are so few people in the former category, most of them who are politicians haven't been in office for that long and have little experience. A lot of people who are Bachmann supporters would probably love it if she had the political experience of, say, Mitt Romney. Why wouldn't they? But they're not going to support Romney because he doesn't share their goals. So, it only looks like there's a credentialist/anti-credentialist split. I think the split is between people who are genuine anti-statists and people who just don't want to go any further into statism.

Posted by: Misha at June 29, 2011 08:51 AM (15s+i)

283 My point was, when the Zero started making such blatant misstatements, red flags should have been going up in everyone's mind.  Of course we know it didn't because the cult of personality was too great to overcome, and the MFM didn't want to overcome it.

Posted by: 57 states at June 29, 2011 08:51 AM (sMgrb)

284

MN is loaded with douchebags and flakes from the get go. Who gives a shit about minnesoooota? The only thing MN offers the nation is the occasional episode of man vs. food.

Those from her home state and are most familiar with her don't approve of her. That doesn't say something?

She's not presidential material.  She'd lose to Obama, but wouldn't make a very good President if she could somehow win... which she can't.

Chris Wallace asking her if she was a "flake" may have been in poor form, but not completely unjustified, either.

Eventually people will get tired of her chronic foot-in-mouth disorder.  Trust me, the recent gaffes are the norm, not the exception for her, and there will be more to come.

 

Posted by: Hollowpoint at June 29, 2011 08:51 AM (WRW1S)

285

You may want to visit YouTube, lookup Ronald Reagan.

As I noted, Reagan could do it with a smile. Look at his most devastating attacks on Carter.

"Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?"

"There you go again."

Not the "your a failing cocksucker, asshole, misreable waste of sperm " slash and burn of today.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life, Weak Anti-Credentialist at June 29, 2011 08:51 AM (OWjjx)

286

IMO and experience this is an extension of anti-credentialism (soft turning hard)in the business manufacturing comunity.

An example; until the early 90's most production/manufacturing "engineers" in the auto industry were almost exclusively skilled trades employees who had shown over years high problem solving skills, management capability and work ethic. Starting in the mid 80's all new positions were filled by degreed engineers with little to no practical work experience.

The same trend in other business "office" positions, bookeepers didn't require account bachelors degree, an associates deg. with x yrs. experience was preferrable. Also Business Associates with experience better than a Bachelors in management with little to no experience for management esp. in smaller businesses.

I believe voters 40 and over are moving towards less political experience and more "real world" achievements.

Posted by: kehoe at June 29, 2011 08:51 AM (yntWd)

287 Zombie Reagan likes red meat the best

Posted by: Cherry π at June 29, 2011 08:51 AM (OhYCU)

288 Unlike Breitbart, I skipped the comments, so someone may have mentioned this. One of the worst forms of credentialism is the supposition that folks without specific credentials are incapable of doing some given thing. This may even be the most egregious form of credentialism. Yes, "some given thing," depending on the thing, might cover many degrees of sophistication required to do the thing, as well as other "things" otherwise unrelated but still necessary or helpful to do the thing. That might limit exactly what the uncredentialed can do, somewhat, but maybe not. The uncredentialed can do many things, and we as a society are losers by preventing them from doing so, or by presuming they are incapable.

Posted by: Tonawanda at June 29, 2011 08:52 AM (bN5ZU)

289 If a farmer fails, an awful lot of "someones" go hungry.  There is no appeal.  They HAVE to get it right every single time.

See, now here we have a perfect example of water-headed credentialism. If you actually believe this bullshit, it's clear that you didn't grow up on a farm, know many farmers or have been involved in agriculture in any way. Farmers are no more competent than anyone else. A lot of them are dumbasses. No crop cycle goes right "every single time". The fact that you may have inherited a farm or decided to lease 400 acres to grow hay does not make you a fucking genius.

Posted by: Ted Kennedy's Gristle Encased Head at June 29, 2011 08:52 AM (+lsX1)

290 I have always believed that we have over-credentialized many jobs as a direct result of EqualOpportunity.  When I was starting out, if you had no experience at something, but seemed to be a go-getter, people would give you a chance to learn on the job, and if it didn't work out, they would let you go.  Now they are afraid to take the chance that you will sue them.

Credentials are used as a clue that you will stick to something.


Posted by: toby928™ at June 29, 2011 08:52 AM (GTbGH)

291

In other words, there is an election on.

Like when they challenge votes on a recount.

You got people challenging and arguing which beans to put on the scale, in terms of 'pros' and 'cons'. Toss the harvard degree in the positive column? That slants the scales against all the people I actually like! Fuck that, put the harvard degree in the negative column if anything!

And I tell you, anywhere you go and anywhere you talk, there are now large contigents of partisans on the nominee question. Just the facts of life. The ones that like Huntsman will argue the unimportance of anything that paints him bad and the importance of anything that paints him good. Course, no one likes Huntsman, so you won't see much of that.

Posted by: Entropy at June 29, 2011 08:52 AM (IsLT6)

292 When there was a schism, bad things happened:

The thing about schisms, it takes two to tango.  I'd be surprised if all cases where that happened were the sole responsibility of the Tea Party folks, barring defining such as 'they wouldn't cave completely'.

Granted, Tea Party ain't about compromise, but it's still young.  And face it, given what we've seen of 'proven politicians', you have to admit they come by it honestly...

Posted by: AoSHQ's *second* worst commenter, DarkLord© at June 29, 2011 08:52 AM (GBXon)

293
Reagan, Clinton, Bush, and Obama each won with the same message: "We can do better."

Kerry's message in 2004 was:  "Ignore all the good things Bush has done and vote for me."

McCain's message in 2008 was: "You can trust me, but that guy Obama is okay, too."

The difference is obvious. The winners had confidence in themselves, whereas the losers expressed ambivalence.

Posted by: soothsayer at June 29, 2011 08:53 AM (G/zuv)

294 I'm pretty fucking fed up with the stupid "elitist" charge, myself.  (See also:  "establishment.")  It is complete fallacy most of the time when the terms "elite" or "establishment" are taken for what they actually mean, and when these terms are used I usually discount everything else said as reactionary populist pablum.

"Anti-credentialists."  Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Count me as "weak anti-credentialist."  IOW, some of the occupants of the 2012 GOP Clown Car are not cut out for the Presidency.  (Ditto Circa at #257.) 

I will withhold my usual rant about how much I despise this idiotic populist bullshit for now, because I'm feeling charitable today. 

Can't we please have someone serious for a change?  (Paul Ryan, your country needs you!)

Posted by: Beth at June 29, 2011 08:53 AM (5NfIh)

295 The only thing that really matters is ... Are you a Good American?

Posted by: Cherry π at June 29, 2011 08:53 AM (OhYCU)

296 272 I think that a lot of this is campaigning against the Republican Establishment rather than campaigning against Barack Obama.

I do understand this.

But I vow to you if you elevate beating the Republican Establishment over beating Barack Obama you will beat neither.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 01:48 PM (nj1bB)

This cuts both ways, of course--this is a variation of the "third party" argument that some of the more radical tea party types offer up from time to time.  From what I can tell, they're still in the minority even within the tea party.

Despite the more strident voices, I think lots of people understand that job #1 is to defeat Obama.  And those that don't understand that are probably not going to be terribly effective anyway, except as annoyances to those who are getting on with things.

(He said, hopefully . . .)

Posted by: filbert at June 29, 2011 08:53 AM (smvTK)

297 Truth be told, I believe some of the recent automatic conflating of establishment with "bad" has to do with the Tea Party. Associating credentials or even lack of specific principles solely with a bad connotation and elevating one-trick-ponies as a response has been a near fatal learning experience.

Posted by: Marcus at June 29, 2011 08:53 AM (CHrmZ)

298 This conversation ius irrelevant anyway. Everyone knows...Alan Keyes will prevail!

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life, Weak Anti-Credentialist at June 29, 2011 08:53 AM (OWjjx)

299

Um, no. You won when the Establishment and Tea Party both found a candidate to be acceptable.

Ace, it's bigger than just candidate selection.  The Establishment is fundamentally misjudging the electorate.  The old way of tacking left and right depending on zip code location just doesn't work.  That's why Newt was so surprised by the reaction to his statements on the Ryan plan.  I think Romney better figure it out pretty quickly, too, or he is also going to fall away quickly.

My favorite examples to cite are Ohio and Wisconsin last November.  NO ONE saw both places turning into the absolute bloodbaths for Democrats that they became.  Why?  Old rules.  Vapid and/or tired policy prescriptions, faulty poll weighting, and backward looking analysis will be just as faulty in 2012.

 

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at June 29, 2011 08:54 AM (B+qrE)

300 The problem is that in many respects the premises of what proper credentials are are not valid.  Does it matter what a politician's credentials are when versus anyone else when their goal is to destroy liberty? Is a man with a degree in womyn's studies a better fashion designer than a housewife with a GED?   

Posted by: Minuteman at June 29, 2011 08:54 AM (hbAPu)

301 And btw, John Huntsman isn't even qualified to ride in the Clown Car.  That guy is a fucking joke, riding "credentials" and nothing else.  He makes Mittens look intense and raw.  Blech.

Posted by: Beth at June 29, 2011 08:55 AM (5NfIh)

302

As I noted, Reagan could do it with a smile. Look at his most devastating attacks on Carter.

"Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?"

"There you go again."

Not the "your a failing cocksucker, asshole, misreable waste of sperm " slash and burn of today.

Posted by: Mallamutt

Mallamutt,
We may never have the privilege of witnessing another Reagan type in our lifetime.  He was one in a million. Politics has changed and not for the better.

Posted by: mpfs at June 29, 2011 08:55 AM (iYbLN)

303 270 MN is loaded with douchebags and flakes from the get go.  Who gives a shit about minnesoooota?

If you can't win your home state then you don't win the presidency.  It simply doesn't happen.  There've been two exceptions to this in the whole history of the country, neither of them recent.  Bachmann wouldn't even make her home state close, and this is a state that has been closer in recent presidential elections.

Romney has the same problem.

Perry is looking so good right now because, among other things, he could actually win his own state, which is a sad comment on the GOP field.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at June 29, 2011 01:47 PM (QNENL)

Valid point.  But Bachmann's appeal is national, not local.  It's going to be a good primary run, and I look forward to it.

At least we don't have to deal with losers like McCain.  Much better field this run, indeed.


Posted by: tangonine at June 29, 2011 08:55 AM (x3YFz)

304 Are you mixing two separate issues?  Being reflexive in judgement of a candidate because the candidate has credentials is moronic.  And not in a good way.

In the gaining of the experience, or what you refer to as credentials, the candidate is going to take a few positions that aren't universally popular with Republicans.  I would say this is what people bitch about when they mean a candidate is part of the establishment. 

The alternative, or course, gets you Obama:  the blank screen that means everything or anything to everyone.

Posted by: MJ at June 29, 2011 08:55 AM (BKOsZ)

305 Before theis thread ends it will devolve into monkeys throwing shit at each other.

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 08:56 AM (QslGJ)

306 My guy right now is Rick Perry--a credentialed politician.

I think he's perfectly positioned to run on his record in Texas and win. I also hear he isn't afraid to get down in the mud and start gouging eyes.

Sounds like a winner to me.


Posted by: Warden at June 29, 2011 01:46 PM (KulgD)




I guess I should've said "the guy who has performed the surgery successfully hundreds of times, cause that was really what I was trying to convey.


As for Perry, I think he's a good example. Ace pointed out that he has an Animal Science degree from Texas A&M. That gave him the credential for his first political job, Texas Ag Commissioner. From there, he served as a State Rep, Lt Gov and then Governor.

So building on his original credentials, he built a successful political career and now has a track record to point to as an existing credentials and the original credential has since become moot.

Posted by: mpurinTexas supports Rick Perry, bitch at June 29, 2011 08:56 AM (5d6vv)

307 184
You do understand that Reagan (who constantly held up as the hero of many folks making these arguments) never, ever, ever ran on "fire and passion," right?  He ran on "I'm a non-scary conservative, I'm like you folks."  No anger.  None.  Lots of working across the aisle, lots of reaching out to Democrats.  

Posted by: Jeff B. at June 29, 2011 01:26 PM (hIWe1)

In nearly every circumstance you knew two things about Reagan: (1) he loved and appreciated this country and (2) what he said were his core beliefs in public were real and represented a "stop loss" position against Democrats' attempts to get him to betray those beliefs.

Posted by: No Whining at June 29, 2011 08:56 AM (7GfKM)

308

My favorite examples to cite are Ohio and Wisconsin last November.  NO ONE saw both places turning into the absolute bloodbaths for Democrats that they became.  Why?  Old rules.  Vapid and/or tired policy prescriptions, faulty poll weighting, and backward looking analysis will be just as faulty in 2012.

Just remember the biggest mistake of politics.......running the last campaign this time does not guarantee success.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life, Weak Anti-Credentialist at June 29, 2011 08:56 AM (OWjjx)

309 Posted by: Beth at June 29, 2011 01:53 PM (5NfIh) Umm, Paul Ryan IS anti-establishment. If he would have listened to the Elites he would have never put out his budget.

Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at June 29, 2011 08:56 AM (NtTkA)

310 I'm hoarding my poop for the coming war.

Posted by: Cherry π at June 29, 2011 08:57 AM (OhYCU)

311 I've agreed with everything Jeff B. has said in this thread. I cannot express how much that disappoints and unnerves me.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 29, 2011 08:58 AM (lbo6/)

312 301 And btw, John Huntsman isn't even qualified to ride in the Clown Car.  That guy is a fucking joke, riding "credentials" and nothing else.  He makes Mittens look intense and raw.  Blech.

Posted by: Beth at June 29, 2011 01:55 PM (5NfIh)

yeah, I think Huntsman is done before he got started.  Loser. 

Who told that idiot he was electable?  I mean hell, even my dumb ass could run for president, but at the end of the day (1 day) I'd realize:  nope.  Ain't gonna happen.

Posted by: tangonine at June 29, 2011 08:58 AM (x3YFz)

313 But I vow to you if you elevate beating the Republican Establishment over beating Barack Obama you will beat neither.

Posted by: ace

There are two races to win; the primary and the general election.  There is nothing wrong with beating the RINO establishment in the primary.  Then the Zero.

And down here in the grassroots, the TEA Party Patriots are really sick and tired of our betters telling us who our candidate should be.

Posted by: 57 states at June 29, 2011 08:58 AM (sMgrb)

314 >>>Jeff B.

>>>I take it you're a T-Paw supporter?

>>>That's fine, just don't expect the rest of us to ride along quietly.  This is why we have a primary system.

Yes, I definitely prefer T-Paw over any of the other candidates in the field.  Not merely because he's the 'least-worst' (although he certainly is) but because he's actually done a number of things in office that are positively admirable from a fiscal conservative's perspective.  And because after looking at his record it's obvious to me that he's far, far tougher than many commenters here seem to understand.  He merely veils his iron fist in a soft, velvety Minnesota-nice glove.

Which is exactly -- EXACTLY -- what I want in a President.  Pleasant, friendly, cross-over appeal, but won't be played for a punk by anyone.  And the way he handled the aggressively partisan Dem-controlled MN legislature over terms is excellent evidence of that.  It tells me that he would have a good idea of how to handle a less-than-cooperative congress, which he is guaranteed to have regardless of which party controls power.

P.S.  Yes, this is indeed what we have primaries for.  But as I'm willing to listen to intelligent (as opposed to emotional) arguments for any other candidate -- Palin and Bachmann included, although their supporters don't seem willing to make any, they just fall back on "I love what she says, it makes me FEEL SO GOOD" -- I think it's fair that you and others do the same.

Posted by: Jeff B. at June 29, 2011 08:58 AM (hIWe1)

315 My take is if the "credential" is simply long-term politician I would vote for the "has not served in public office" person.  I just don't see being in political office necessarily as a credential.  For instance, you can learn negotiation skills and politicking just as good and probably better in any business office in the country.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at June 29, 2011 08:58 AM (26uEg)

316

Just remember the biggest mistake of politics.......running the last campaign this time does not guarantee success.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life, Weak Anti-Credentialist at June 29, 2011 01:56 PM (OWjjx)

It occurred to me the other day that this is exactly what the Republicans did in 2008.  They ran a guy that could beat John Kerry.  Too bad Kerry wasn't running int 2008.

Posted by: filbert at June 29, 2011 08:59 AM (smvTK)

317 >>>The only thing that really matters is ... Are you a Good American? Do you really believe this or is this just something it sounds nice to say?

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 08:59 AM (nj1bB)

318 311 I've agreed with everything Jeff B. has said in this thread.

I cannot express how much that disappoints and unnerves me.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 29, 2011 01:58 PM (lbo6/)

well.  you two do have the "jeff" thing in common.

internet romance? 

Posted by: tangonine at June 29, 2011 08:59 AM (x3YFz)

319 But I vow to you if you elevate beating the Republican Establishment over beating Barack Obama you will beat neither.

See, that's the thing--we know we want Obama gone.  But we're effectively being told that the only way is to ally ourselves to something that's betrayed us repeatedly in the past.  That's not exactly a recipe for success.

My hope is that the inevitable can be held off until the common threat is dealt with, but it's a showdown that's going to come eventually.

Posted by: AoSHQ's *second* worst commenter, DarkLord© at June 29, 2011 08:59 AM (GBXon)

320 The ultimate "good government" guy was Al Gore. He used to be a "conservative Democrat." Can you imagine? But he was. And he got "ReGo" - Reinventing Government. He was supposed to be super smart because he wrote a book that was "deep." (It really wasn't.) Anyways, he turned out to be a run of the mill statist who made half a billion dollars by monetizing the practical result of his governmental policies. By many measures that's pretty damn competent. He got stuff done - laws passed! He reoganized government departments! And he took a multi-million dollar inheritance, and his credentials from Harvard, and got filthy, filthy rich. And fuck him anyway.

Posted by: blaster at June 29, 2011 08:59 AM (Fw2Gg)

321  I've agreed with everything Jeff B. has said in this thread.

I cannot express how much that disappoints and unnerves me.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 29, 2011 01:58 PM (lbo6/)

Thread Winner! If you had EOJ at 311, go to the pay window and collect your money.

Posted by: AOSHQ Para-Mutual Manager at June 29, 2011 09:00 AM (OWjjx)

322 Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 29, 2011 12:53 PM (lGFXF)

In general you have a good point (although I do not agree completely), but the example of Obama, Barack H. is not germane. There is no equivalent -- but less strenuous or complicated -- position anywhere in the country that could prepare one for the presidency. So we have to accept some level of wishful thinking and platitudes as we make our choice.

Which governor conducts a foreign policy? Which senator routinely makes decisions on his own? Which representative has a firm grasp of the country as a whole?

So we fall back on the platitudes of each candidate's description of his own overarching political philosophy, and whether he seems like a good guy to have a beer with. And then we hope and pray and get oh-so-boned with a total incompetent like the soon to be ex-president Obama.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at June 29, 2011 09:00 AM (LH6ir)

323 >>>The only thing that really matters is ... Are you a Good American?

Do you really believe this or is this just something it sounds nice to say?


I think that was a bit of snark and probably should have had a Sean Hannity sock.

Posted by: mpurinTexas supports Rick Perry, bitch at June 29, 2011 09:00 AM (5d6vv)

324

Credentials can be purchased or given freely, just look at the college admittance process (you get extra points for your 'diversity' for example).  College is supposed to be the great credential, you have spent 4-10 years of your life getting a BA, BS, MA, PhD..............and therefore you are now learned.

The Wizard of Oz exposed that little fraud back in the 1930's, when he awarded a diploma to the Scarecrow...........

Credentials are all but worthless, what they do is keep the uncredentialed from competing in the job market.  The various endorsements and credentials and certificates and degrees needed to work in the education field are amazing.  As the credentialing has increased, the quality of the output has decreased dramatically. 

Posted by: Boots at June 29, 2011 09:01 AM (neKzn)

325

Just remember the biggest mistake of politics.......running the last campaign this time does not guarantee success.

Granted, I violated my own rules there marginally, but the change in the way the system is behaving is real.  One example:  Polls that rely on landlines are now fundamentally flawed.  The easy movement of cellphones from one location to another is changing the game.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at June 29, 2011 09:02 AM (B+qrE)

326

>>>If you actually believe this bullshit, it's clear that you didn't grow up on a farm, know many farmers or have been involved in agriculture in any way. Farmers are no more competent than anyone else. A lot of them are dumbasses. No crop cycle goes right "every single time". The fact that you may have inherited a farm or decided to lease 400 acres to grow hay does not make you a fucking genius.<<<

I guess I didn't make the point I was trying to make.

I realize that many competent farmers will fail, and many incompetent ones will succeed.  But by and large, in order to manage a farm/ranch competently, a person GENERALLY has to be able to anticipate problems, solve things on the fly, work with lots of different people, and be willing to work long hours in less than ideal conditions.

They also have to be able to learn from their failures, in order to make sure they don't happen again.

And inheriting a farm and/or leasing acreage is not the same thing as "working the land" yourself.  THOSE are the folks I was talking about.

Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at June 29, 2011 09:02 AM (wtQcz)

327 317 >>>The only thing that really matters is ... Are you a Good American?

Do you really believe this or is this just something it sounds nice to say?

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 01:59 PM (nj1bB)

actually, Ace, it's the reason I fly the Stars and Stripes outside my home every day, with the exception of POW/MIA day, then that flag flies alone.

I'm simple.  I'm easy.  I've taken an oath.  It's really not that hard to stand by your beliefs, as long as you believe something.

Posted by: tangonine at June 29, 2011 09:03 AM (x3YFz)

328 325 Yes,cellphones and Twitter.Just be careful how you Tweet.

Posted by: Weiner at June 29, 2011 09:03 AM (QslGJ)

329 I think long term politicians actually develop worse thinking as their political experience grows, which is generally the complete opposite of any other job.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at June 29, 2011 09:03 AM (26uEg)

330 In nearly every circumstance you knew two things about Reagan: (1) he loved and appreciated this country and (2) what he said were his core beliefs in public were real and represented a "stop loss" position against Democrats' attempts to get him to betray those beliefs.
Posted by: No Whining

BINGO

Posted by: mpfs at June 29, 2011 09:03 AM (iYbLN)

331 "I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience."

Again, the "Red Meat" folk don't need people that will viciously slam the Democrats with angry slurs.

At least, I, for one, would be delighted if the same slams can be carried off with a whole lot of levity. These people need to be mocked.

"Laid back and unfunny" isn't the same thing as rejecting premises and verbal judo with a smile and humor either.

Posted by: Al at June 29, 2011 09:03 AM (MzQOZ)

332 Of course, Perry has been a politician his whole life, so that already makes him "establishment" and not to be trusted, at least to some of the strong form, shoot yourself in the foot criticisms I've heard

Posted by: brak at June 29, 2011 09:03 AM (jErAU)

333 >>>The thing about schisms, it takes two to tango. I'd be surprised if all cases where that happened were the sole responsibility of the Tea Party folks, barring defining such as 'they wouldn't cave completely'. They completely blew off questions of what I call "Neutral Qualifications." Neutral qualifications are non-ideological, stuff that everyone agrees are generally "good" (except now, in the Tea Party, some say they're affirmatively bad). Every election is partly on ideology but mostly about charisma and experience and other Neutral Qualifications. The O'Donnell non-thinkers just decided that suddenly these things didn't matter any more. Fine. They claimed it was more important to boot a RINO. Whatever. But the Castle-O'Donnell controversy was a FORCED problem, forced on us, because Castle was a RINO, and the ONLY alternative was O'Donnell. So I can see how this happened. We didn't COURT the danger; the danger erupted upon us, as danger often does, by happenstance and bad luck. HOWEVER: Now people are deliberately COURTING the same danger again, when they could avoid it. Now people are deliberately shopping for a candidate without "Neutral Qualifications" or that the establishment finds unacceptable. This is an own-goal, and it will result in tears.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 09:04 AM (nj1bB)

334 Palin and Bachmann included, although their supporters don't seem willing to make any, they just fall back on "I love what she says, it makes me FEEL SO GOOD" -- I think it's fair that you and others do the same.

Actually, if you think about it, that's basically the argument that everybody makes for every candidate.  From what I can tell, none of the Republicans--currently running or potential--has demonstrated the ability to walk on water.  All have strengths.  All have weaknesses.  I'm content to let the process play out.  As you say, that's what primaries are for.  Mainly, I get frustrated with people making pronouncements from on high that Candidate X has it wrapped up, or Candidate Y has no chance.  (OK, I admit that mainly I get frustrated when people say the Candidate Y has no chance.)

Posted by: filbert at June 29, 2011 09:04 AM (smvTK)

335 Huntsmann/ Maine Twins 2012!!

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 09:04 AM (QslGJ)

336 A similar thing happened in American fundamentalist Christianity.  In the 19th century, a lot of seminaries in a lot of different denominations became liberal and started espousing doctrines that the traditionalists viewed as unacceptable- things like doubting miracles, doubting the virgin birth, doubting creation.  The theology of guys like Schleiermacher and Bultmann was very popular in the seminaries.  This trend caused a shift that many traditionalists were very uncomfortable with, so much so that having a seminary degree not only wasn't proof of anything, it was seen as a negative, a strong indication that one was probably infected with liberal ideas.  This thinking persists in a lot of old-school circles of the church, though it's not nearly as strong as it used to be.

I think that's the feeling that a lot of people have about politicians.  If you've been in it for a while, the odds are good that you've been corrupted by the system, so that experience in politics is actually a negative (to some).  It's not so much about skills as it is about the perception of what it does to a person morally to be in that environment, and succeed in that environment, for a long period of time.  Personally I think that's too strong a position to take, but I understand it.  What percentage of the party or the voting population as a whole might hold such a view, I don't know.  But I think it's significant on both sides of the aisle.  I think this was a big part of Obama's appeal- he was from the outside, wasn't part of the corrupt establishment.

So I think there are massive trust issues between the establishment and the voters, on both sides really.  I think this is why a candidate like Pawlenty, despite all of his virtues, gets disqualified in the mind of many because of relatively minor lapses.  It gives him the stink of establishment- one of "those guys".  Any sign of compromise or conservative doctrinal failure is seen as very strong evidence that he is just another big-government squish just waiting to come out of hiding.  We've been burned that way so many times before, it's an understandable sentiment.  But we have to live in the world we're in, and it's not a perfect world.

Posted by: Matt from CO at June 29, 2011 09:04 AM (I771D)

337 >>>What is your problem with Bachmann?  Is it because she is a woman?  Do you prefer someone in the Huntsman/Romney mode?

Why is it that Bachmann supporters (and Palin ones too) always fall back on the "Y U HATE WOMEN DOOD?" accusation?  This literally happened in the last thread (still on the front page).  I addressed the charge there, in fact.  Summary: I have no problem with women politicians whatsoever.  I just have a problem with these two candidates, who happen to be women.

And no, I prefer neither Huntsman nor Romney.  I could TOLERATE Romney if he won the nomination (and admittedly a large part of this is me making peace with the facts on the ground -- he's the frontrunner and he's more likely than not to win anyway), but Huntsman reeks of a "Republican for people who don't like Republicans"...don't like him at all.  Talk about a media-created phenomenon. 

The only candidate I actually LIKE is Pawlenty.  I could tolerate Romney, and I guess I could support Perry too (the reason I write "guess" is because I really don't know jack-shit about him right now...for all I know he has some awful skeletons in his closet, and I'm not talking about BS 'gay' rumors, I'm talking about his record).  Bachmann and Palin are right out (though I'd vote for Palin if she won the nomination, even as she went down in flames...I would NOT vote for Bachmann, she must be stopped), and Huntsman isn't far behind. 

Posted by: Jeff B. at June 29, 2011 09:05 AM (hIWe1)

338 Posted by: 57 states at June 29, 2011 01:51 PM (sMgrb)

With 2 to go.

Why does everyone forget the "with 2 to go" part of his asinine statement?  Also, remember he said he wasn't allowed to go to Alaska and Hawaii.  That makes 61 STATES!!!!!

You're giving him too much credit with just focusing on the 57 part.

Posted by: © Sponge at June 29, 2011 09:05 AM (UK9cE)

339 If we are at the point where we expect others who are expert to govern us without any regard for us governing ourselves, we have devolved into a rougher society that cannot sustain freedom.

Posted by: Minuteman at June 29, 2011 09:05 AM (hbAPu)

340

What frustrates me is "gives a good speech" is elevated above "achieves good outcomes."

All that matters is red meat.

And red meat, historically, has failed to win general elections.

 

What you are calling the strong credentialism position too easily bleeds over into a conservative version of identity politics, imho.

 

I mean, I'd vote for Bachmann or Palin, if they were the candidate.  Its just that them being women, and cutish, and authentically real American downhomers does nothing for me.

Politics is too much like an affinity scam already.

Posted by: Emperor PJ O'Rourke at June 29, 2011 09:05 AM (epBek)

341 Ace if you are still here take a look at comment 86 on the Palin thread.

Posted by: Vic at June 29, 2011 09:05 AM (M9Ie6)

342 George Washington did not govern by his credentials, but against them.  

Posted by: Minuteman at June 29, 2011 09:06 AM (hbAPu)

343 I think that a lot of this is campaigning against the Republican Establishment rather than campaigning against Barack Obama.

I do understand this.

But I vow to you if you elevate beating the Republican Establishment over beating Barack Obama you will beat neither.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 01:48 PM (nj1bB)

But you have it backwards.  It was the GOP stablishment that declared war on its own base.  They started it in 2005, when the shamnesty first started coming through, and kept up with the idiocy until the GOP was as dead as possible.  That dead GOP corpseman was only revived by the Tea Partiers, against the meddling of the GOP establishment all the way through.

It takes two to tango, but it only takes one to assault another.  The GOP establishment declared war on the base, and has been carrying it on for years.  No wonder people are rightfully suspicious of anyone associated with them. Wait until you see the shit that comes out of these debt-limit negotiations.

Posted by: progresoverpeace at June 29, 2011 09:07 AM (G/MYk)

344 185
I see Establishment Republicans as not much different than Establishment Democrats.  Both have a vested interest in Big Government and increased debt.  Credentials don't have much to do with it.
Posted by: trainer at June 29, 2011 01:26 PM (Rojyk)

An Establishment politician jumps right to "What can government do to alleviate this problem?" rather than first asking, "Is this problem something in which government needs to be involved at all?" Government is their hammer and every problem is a nail.

Posted by: No Whining at June 29, 2011 09:07 AM (7GfKM)

345 P.S.  Yes, this is indeed what we have primaries for.  But as I'm willing to listen to intelligent (as opposed to emotional) arguments for any other candidate -- Palin and Bachmann included, although their supporters don't seem willing to make any, they just fall back on "I love what she says, it makes me FEEL SO GOOD" -- I think it's fair that you and others do the same.
Posted by: Jeff B.

Jesus, you really think you know what people think don't you?  How does your ego fit into a normal size room?  How can you stand being around us "little people"?

Like a commenter stated above And down here in the grassroots, the TEA Party Patriots are really sick and tired of our betters telling us who our candidate should be.

Posted by: mpfs at June 29, 2011 09:07 AM (iYbLN)

346 Not the "your a failing cocksucker, asshole, misreable waste of sperm " slash and burn of today. Posted by: Mallamutt Wow, strawman much? Who exactly is doing that?

Posted by: blaster at June 29, 2011 09:07 AM (Fw2Gg)

347 What I remember about Reagan was he did have a lot of fire and passion when he was talking about the communists.  The difference between then and now is that the communists were located overseas, not across the aisle.

Posted by: 57 states at June 29, 2011 09:07 AM (sMgrb)

348 P.S.  Yes, this is indeed what we have primaries for.  But as I'm willing to listen to intelligent (as opposed to emotional) arguments for any other candidate -- Palin and Bachmann included, although their supporters don't seem willing to make any, they just fall back on "I love what she says, it makes me FEEL SO GOOD" -- I think it's fair that you and others do the same.
Posted by: Jeff B.


And when the fuck did you become my father?

Posted by: mpfs at June 29, 2011 09:08 AM (iYbLN)

349 337 >>>What is your problem with Bachmann?  Is it because she is a woman?  Do you prefer someone in the Huntsman/Romney mode?

Why is it that Bachmann supporters (and Palin ones too) always fall back on the "Y U HATE WOMEN DOOD?" accusation? 

Posted by: Jeff B. at June 29, 2011 02:05 PM (hIWe1)

Probably it's due to no one ever offering a dissenting opinion to theirs.  I've yet to read a single sentence where someone offered a cogent disagreement with either Palin or Bachmann's policy or style. 

Not

Once.

Ever.

Posted by: tangonine at June 29, 2011 09:08 AM (x3YFz)

350 I will not throw shit.I will leave it to others.(putting on shit tarp)

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 09:08 AM (QslGJ)

351

Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at June 29, 2011 01:56 PM (NtTkA)

And?  I'm not saying at all that he's "establishment."  In fact I'm saying that those who make the "establishment/elite" vs "anti-establishment" charge are usually full of shit and don't know what they're talking about. 

What people who make this charge are USUALLY (not always) saying is, they want someone who talks like Rush Limbaugh (or pick your bomb-thrower) but doesn't delve too deeply into the issues.  They want someone who can "fight the libs" but those fights mean twitter wars or radio attacks or incendiary YouTube videos.  They want all or nothing, and do not understand at all that politics is about addition, not subtraction - that we have to make conservatism (not watered down conservatism, either) appealing.  We have to sell it.  Most of the 2012 field isn't doing a damn thing to "sell" conservatism - they're just ranting like bloggers or talk radio hosts.  

And btw, Paul Ryan's "credentials" aren't that great historically speaking for the Presidency.  I've been reminded of this repeatedly, but I reject that argument in his case (and pretty much no other case).


Posted by: Beth at June 29, 2011 09:08 AM (5NfIh)

352 And btw, John Huntsman isn't even qualified to ride in the Clown Car.  That guy is a fucking joke, riding "credentials" and nothing else.  He makes Mittens look intense and raw.  Blech.

Posted by: Beth at June 29, 2011 01:55 PM (5NfIh)


"But he speaks Mandarin!!!" -- The MFM and GOP dickwads

Posted by: progresoverpeace at June 29, 2011 09:08 AM (G/MYk)

353 352 I like Szechuan.

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 09:10 AM (QslGJ)

354 You do understand that Reagan (who constantly held up as the hero of many folks making these arguments) never, ever, ever ran on "fire and passion," right?  He ran on "I'm a non-scary conservative, I'm like you folks."  No anger.  None.  Lots of working across the aisle, lots of reaching out to Democrats.  

Posted by: Jeff B. at June 29, 2011 01:26 PM (hIWe1)

Demonstrably false.

Reagan supplied plenty of anger over the years at what he regarded as a fundamental assault on the American Way of Life by domestic socialism and international Communism.

Reagan ran an angry primary campaign in 1976 against Ford.

And even his big breakthrough in the 1980 primary campaign came from his flash of anger when a New Hampshire debate moderator tried to cut off his microphone: Reagan snapped, "I'm PAYING for this microphone!"  And the crowd went wild.

And as President, a whole lot of Americans ignored his sunny side and worried that he was ready to start World War III.

Posted by: stuiec at June 29, 2011 09:10 AM (1beh4)

355

Posted by: Emperor PJ O'Rourke at June 29, 2011 02:05 PM (epBek)


THIS!!!!! ^^^^^^^^^^

Posted by: Beth at June 29, 2011 09:10 AM (5NfIh)

356 I would NOT vote for Bachmann, she must be stopped

Is she the head of Spectre or something? You make her sound like a Bond villian.  What is it about this woman that rattles you so much?

Posted by: mpfs at June 29, 2011 09:10 AM (iYbLN)

357 I realize that many competent farmers will fail, and many incompetent ones will succeed.  But by and large, in order to manage a farm/ranch competently, a person GENERALLY has to be able to anticipate problems, solve things on the fly, work with lots of different people, and be willing to work long hours in less than ideal conditions.

You could say this exact same thing about literally any business, from a law office to your neighborhood rub-n-tug. Farming is a tough way to make a living and many make it tougher be being so bad at it. Again, like any other business.

Posted by: Ted Kennedy's Gristle Encased Head at June 29, 2011 09:10 AM (+lsX1)

358 356 Doesn't she sit in a big armchair stroking a white cat,hmmm?

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 09:11 AM (QslGJ)

359
oh yeah, the "Evil Empire"

Reagan would make some of you shit bricks today from the way he spoke about the Soviets.

Posted by: soothsayer at June 29, 2011 09:11 AM (G/zuv)

360 >>>But you have it backwards. It was the GOP stablishment that declared war on its own base. They started it in 2005, when the shamnesty first started coming through, and kept up with the idiocy until the GOP was as dead as possible. That dead GOP corpseman was only revived by the Tea Partiers, against the meddling of the GOP establishment all the way through. I'm tired of the perpetual RINO hunting, the only thing you seem to think politics is about. If you lose the RINOs, trust me, you have NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER at the independents/swingers. None. But you're determined to push out yet another candidate unacceptable to the RINOs, and who therefore will lose the independents, and your answer, as in that xtranormal video, is just repeating "I don't care" over and over again. If I'm a squish, that puts me in a rather better position than you of understanding how an independent will vote, being that I'm only two or three steps away from him whereas your are eight or ten. But continue to reject the counsel of the "RINOs" and continue agitating for candidates for the purpose of only beating "RINOs" and etc. Continue being strategically dumb, in the grand, solipsistic, narcissistic fallacy that strategic dumbness is moral virtue. Continue insisting, all evidence to the contrary, that all that matters is ideology, and the nation is eager to embrace that which it has generally rejected before. http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7140347/true-conservative "I don't care."

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 09:12 AM (nj1bB)

361 @352:  Pair that Mandarin with Charlie Crist's orange and you'd have the perfect MFM sweet RINO candidate.

Posted by: Beth at June 29, 2011 09:13 AM (5NfIh)

362 Being in a credentialed profession, myself, I suspect that it's a matter of going through "The Cycle". I forget where I heard about it first, but every profession goes through it.

First, you're poor and you think you're poor. The profession is a "calling" because you sacrifice all sorts of things for it but it doesn't pay.

Second, you're rich and you still think you're poor. This is the "George Bailey in It's a Wonderful Life" stage where you're still struggling to get by, but have gained the respect of your community.

Third, you're rich and you think you're rich. You're wearing custom suits, driving fancy cars, drinking expensive booze. Masters of the Universe stuff.

Fourth, you're poor but still think you're rich. You've sold out on every bit of what made you valuable and respected in the first place, but your credit cards still work. You're probably hiding the inner emptiness behind some sort of credential.

And, of course, after the inevitable collapse, you find out why it's called "The Cycle".

A credential that entails sacrifice without privilege is, ironically, the only kind that really is worth much. Once it starts to be monetized -- where the credential is "keeping out the riffraff", restraining trade, and a ticket to the good life -- it starts rapidly losing its value.

Posted by: cthulhu at June 29, 2011 09:13 AM (kaalw)

363 +1000000 for the True Conservative video!  "I don't care."  (best xtranormal video ever)

Posted by: Beth at June 29, 2011 09:14 AM (5NfIh)

364 He ran on "I'm a non-scary conservative, I'm like you folks."  No anger.  None.  Lots of working across the aisle, lots of reaching out to Democrats.  

Posted by: Jeff B. at June 29, 2011 01:26 PM (hIWe1)


Uh huh ... 

"My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you I just signed legislation which outlaws Russia forever. The bombing begins in five minutes."

It was a good joke, but it sent the MFM (the pre-MFM, really) into a conniption fit.

Posted by: progresoverpeace at June 29, 2011 09:14 AM (G/MYk)

365

"But he speaks Mandarin!!!" -- The MFM and GOP dickwads

Posted by: progresoverpeace at June 29, 2011 02:08 PM (G/MYk)



That will come in handy when China comes to collect, I must admit.

But I don't think he'll represent America....he's already sucking the China cock.....

Posted by: © Sponge at June 29, 2011 09:14 AM (UK9cE)

366 358 356 Doesn't she sit in a big armchair stroking a white cat,hmmm? Posted by: steevy

That's the word around town....but then I'm just an ignorant hick from PA who needs someone to tell me what to think.

Posted by: mpfs at June 29, 2011 09:14 AM (iYbLN)

367

What about a "credentialed" conservative?

Better than a non-credentialed conservative or a credentialed RINO, no?

Posted by: Jollyroger at June 29, 2011 09:15 AM (NCw5u)

368 Posted by: Ted Kennedy's Gristle Encased Head at June 29, 2011 02:10 PM (+lsX1)

I don't butt in when you drown your girlfriends, so stay out of my business when I drown the back forty.

Posted by: Farmer on a Dell at June 29, 2011 09:15 AM (LH6ir)

369 osted by: cthulhu at June 29, 2011 02:13 PM (kaalw) A credential that entails sacrifice without privilege is, ironically, the only kind that really is worth much. Good Stuff, So, Which candidate matches that Statement?

Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at June 29, 2011 09:17 AM (NtTkA)

370 368 Did Mary Jo drown or suffocate.Didn't matter anyway,Teddy could have brained her with a tire iron and Mass would have reelected him anyway.

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 09:17 AM (QslGJ)

371 360 >>>But you have it backwards. It was the GOP stablishment that declared war on its own base. They started it in 2005, when the shamnesty first started coming through, and kept up with the idiocy until the GOP was as dead as possible. That dead GOP corpseman was only revived by the Tea Partiers, against the meddling of the GOP establishment all the way through.

I'm tired of the perpetual RINO hunting, the only thing you seem to think politics is about.

If you lose the RINOs, trust me, you have NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER at the independents/swingers.

None.

But you're determined to push out yet another candidate unacceptable to the RINOs, and who therefore will lose the independents, and your answer, as in that xtranormal video, is just repeating "I don't care" over and over again.

If I'm a squish, that puts me in a rather better position than you of understanding how an independent will vote, being that I'm only two or three steps away from him whereas your are eight or ten.

But continue to reject the counsel of the "RINOs" and continue agitating for candidates for the purpose of only beating "RINOs" and etc.

Continue being strategically dumb, in the grand, solipsistic, narcissistic fallacy that strategic dumbness is moral virtue.

Continue insisting, all evidence to the contrary, that all that matters is ideology, and the nation is eager to embrace that which it has generally rejected before.

http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7140347/true-conservative

"I don't care."

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 02:12 PM (nj1bB)

I was actually shocked to scroll down to the bottom of this post and see "ace."

I'd have thought better of you, ace.  I would like to think that you would vote based on what you think is right, on what you personally believe that we, as a nation, stand for.

But it appears you would vote for anyone as long as they can win, and you're willing to compromise.

This, exactly, is why, for the last 90 years, our nation has been fucked:  no one mans the fuck up. 

Take a stand.  Plant your sword in the ground and say "ENOUGH!"  I'll be there. And I'll fight for your right to be a solid stone in the bedrock of our nation.

Not ace, though, he'll be with the sheeple.

Posted by: tangonine at June 29, 2011 09:18 AM (x3YFz)

372


"But he speaks Mandarin!!!" -- The MFM and GOP dickwads

Posted by: progresoverpeace at June 29, 2011 02:08 PM (G/MYk)

I see that ad on RedEye all the time . . .

Posted by: filbert at June 29, 2011 09:18 AM (smvTK)

373 Republicans get captured by the Establishment after being in office awhile. They value the cocktail party invitations. You go to Washington and all the payoffs come from moving to the left. The Reagan Revolution and the Tea Party are simply represent purges of these guys. I don't think it's the same thing as credentialism.

Posted by: Spike at June 29, 2011 09:18 AM (WLxeI)

374 Time to go.  The self aware SPAM has arrive.  Maybe they will tell me all of T-Paw's wonderful qualities then I could spooge all over him.

Posted by: mpfs at June 29, 2011 09:18 AM (iYbLN)

375 And when the fuck did you become my father? Then I guess I'd have to answer you with another question: Who's your daddy?

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 29, 2011 09:18 AM (lbo6/)

376 Out of the people that vote primarily on ideology, no Republican candidate is going to get a significant number of liberals. A conservative will turn off RINOs, true, but conversely a RINO will turn off conservatives, and there are a lot of more of the latter.

The moderates though don't care much about ideology, or they wouldn't be moderates. Their votes will be decided mostly on charisma.

So it has always seemed to me that we should be fighting for a strong conservative with charisma. The RINO vote cost is low, and if we win, we actually win for once.


Posted by: 18-1 at June 29, 2011 09:19 AM (7BU4a)

377

It depends. Truck drivers and brain surgeons (to cite extreme examples) need credentials. Their licenses are very meaningful and important, but these relate to objective qualifications.

The Strong Form you mention is just anti-elitism, which means it's elitism. It's stupid in that it relies on blind prejudice for guidance. Besides that, it's impractical. I can only think of one business (Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream, pre–Unilever takeover) that resorted to absence of credentials as credentials. They tried it twice in hiring a CEO. It flopped both times.

The only times this would make sense is if you're trying to to keep a field of amatuers pure by disallowing professionals or if you have misgivings about particular credentials.

Posted by: FireHorse at June 29, 2011 09:19 AM (jAKfY)

378 >>>But it appears you would vote for anyone as long as they can win, and you're willing to compromise. "I don't care. I want the True Conservative."

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 09:19 AM (nj1bB)

379 I guess if a candidate happens to be more conservative we should advocate they lie about it to get elected.  Because one sure way to get a conservative message out is to not espouse it.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at June 29, 2011 09:19 AM (26uEg)

380 Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 02:12 PM (nj1bB)

You are being unfair. There are plenty of people, probably most around here, who appreciate that a win is better than a loss, and RINOs are unfortunately going to be a part of most wins. But that doesn't mean that we have to embrace their ideology, or lack thereof, or cheer for them or get all wet and squishy when they control the process.

Much of the philosophical purity around here is an intellectual exercise.

Really, we aren't as stupid as you seem to think.

Posted by: Farmer on a Dell at June 29, 2011 09:19 AM (LH6ir)

381 Posted by: tangonine at June 29, 2011 02:18 PM (x3YFz) Yes, I must say I am disappointed too.

Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at June 29, 2011 09:20 AM (NtTkA)

382 Out, damned sock!

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at June 29, 2011 09:20 AM (LH6ir)

383 Without a clear definition of what you mean by 'credentials' your argument is -at best- a shell game.

Credentials for a medical license are very specific and strongly enforced.  Credentials for a nurse's aide may be much less difficult or onerous to obtain, but they are none the less easily identifiable and reasonably enforced.  Sommelier's certification may not be governmentally licensed, but again, there is a degree of specific knowledge and experience that must  be displayed in order to get over the bar. 

Meanwhile credentials for high office are as nebulous as they are notional.  If you get the votes, you serve in the office.  Beyond that, everything is written in sand.

Does anyone really attempt to apply your as-formulated 'strong form' to medical practitioners, CNA's, sommeliers, or any other type of real credentialed function?  Or is strong form really only deployed when 'credentials' do not exist in any meaningful manner?

As such your argument is more a proof against the idea that there can ever be any serious or significant set of 'credentials for high office' than anything else.

Posted by: ThomasD at June 29, 2011 09:20 AM (q8tL7)

384 >>>Not ace, though, he'll be with the sheeple. Where ace will be is where you will be: Enjoying the second term of the presidency of Barack Hussein Obama. But don't blame yourself, tangonline. After all, you did what you "felt" was right.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 09:20 AM (nj1bB)

385 sorry ace, I screwed up the Hannity line

Posted by: Cherry π at June 29, 2011 09:20 AM (OhYCU)

386 Remember, the brain is dirty and should not be trusted. Only the emotions, the heart, matter.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 09:20 AM (nj1bB)

387 And when the fuck did you become my father?

Then I guess I'd have to answer you with another question:

Who's your daddy? Posted by: Empire of Jeff

Why Jeff, I'm hurt.  I thought you knew...it's you!

Posted by: mpfs at June 29, 2011 09:20 AM (iYbLN)

388 RINO and Establishment get tossed around like hand grenades and kill everyone within striking distance- innocent or not.

Immediately, when a Republican takes a position contrary to somebody's parochial idea of what a Republican should be, they get hammered with that term. Then that candidate gets to wear it like a sandwich board for the rest of their campaign.

Gee- who does that hurt? Democrats? Yeah. that's them in the background laughing like jackals.

Ive had enought of us killing our own candidates. If we ever want to win again, how about we do it on the issues not with parochial, demeaning, partisan rhetoric? 

Posted by: Marcus at June 29, 2011 09:20 AM (CHrmZ)

389 I know that it isn't as easy to address as the "RINO v R" argument (it is always easy to beat up a strawman), but the Tea Parties are about reducing the scope of the government. That's why all the Constitution talk, why that matters. If the government followed its founding document, we'd have a lot less of it. Too many people go "oh yeah well your grandmother's social security isn't in there that means we have to get rid of it I don't see you proposing that and if you are proposing that then you are too batshit insane to be considered seriously for an elected position." Being for the Constitution becomes code for "crazy." And they get called anti-government, anti-credentials, racist, everything else. The "establishment" is all too happy to keep things exactly as they are so long as they are in charge of it. And I think a lot of people are not convinced that a huge Federal government spending trillions it doesn't have is any better in Tim Pawlenty's hands than it is in Obama''s.

Posted by: blaster at June 29, 2011 09:21 AM (Fw2Gg)

390

Credentialism is drivel; a cover for bias and nothing more.

It is a convenient excuse to declare someone has both too much knowledge and/or experience for a job ("Sorry, you are overqualified.") and simultaneously too little knowledge and/or experience for a job ("Sorry, we were looking for someone with a Masters degree and some job history.")

If you manage to get past that, you then have to deal with Credentialism as appeal to authority. ("But he has a degree from Harvard!") So what if you have ten degrees, have written fifty papers, belong to five think tanks, sit on ten boards of directors, and have your own political party? You could be competent at whatever. You could also just be a Grand Master Tukhas Lekher who outlasted everyone else.

When you finally get past those two, actual knowledge is doomed anyway because of massive infection by that vile internet meme, "That's just your opinion." Yes, that's "just" the opinion of the guy who has spent fifty years studying the subject compared to your opinion culled from reading a 500 word rant from fringe lunatic website. "Obviously" both are of completely equal worth, because heaven forbid anyone "win" the internet or something.

Here is an example, modified from something I once did on a political list. I will describe a President with purely negative spin. See if you can see through it to figure out who it is.

He left school at 15. After doing nothing for 2 years, he got his first job with the government at 17 through the intervention of a friend. He quit after two years to travel with a male friend to the Caribbean for "health reasons".
When he returned, he used his connections to acquire a field rank commission at 21 with NO prior military experience. Almost immediately he provoked a Captain Kirk level diplomatic incident, being captured in the process, eventually causing a global war. In that war he first served as executive officer in a disastrous offensive. Surviving, he was somehow promoted, becoming first a vicious martinet, and then leading a brutal ethnic cleansing campaign for which he was praised. He moved on to join another major offensive, this time leading his troops in a horrific friendly fire incident. He retired from military service afterwards.
On retiring, he pursued and married a "Sugar Mama", using her wealth to attain political office, social acceptance, and of course pay off his debts. After 15 years of such "service", he used his connections to achieve high military rank yet again, at which point he promptly lost all major battles he was involved in, but employed highly efficient PR to have his skirmish victories serve as cover. When the war was finally ended, due to the support of allies, he leveraged his position to become President.
Never mind President, what "credentials" for dog-catcher are in any of that?

Posted by: Sam at June 29, 2011 09:21 AM (V9Tsq)

391

351 Beth - check out Henry Olsen's "Dissafection Danger" article today at NRO.  While I don't agree with a lot of what he had to say in terms of his suggested solutions to the problem of blue-collar whites being "out of touch" with conservative priorites of 2011, he's pointing out a problem we need to deal with.

I agree with you rather than Olsen in terms of what to do - sell conservatism, not sell it out (as Olsen seems to suggest).  Ryan's appealing because he can sell his plan and knows well enough that gutting welfare wholesale won't sell. 

I'd like to hear more from all of our candidates about substantive issues, but I'm not a typical voter.  The poll numbers cited by Olsen suggest that talking up wholesale spending cuts could be electoral suicide at this point, but we've still got time to hammer the "reform or collapse" view of MediCare and Social Security.  I don't think we have the luxury of a "hands off my entitlements" option anymore, despite what Olsen suggests.  We're too close to real financial collapse, and someone's going to have to tell the kids they can't have any more cake for breakfast - even if they bitch about it.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at June 29, 2011 09:21 AM (jxW5N)

392 I think that was a bit of snark and probably should have had a Sean Hannity sock.

Sorry, but I won't give up my cherry for anyone.

Posted by: Cherry π at June 29, 2011 09:22 AM (OhYCU)

393 Remember, the brain is dirty and should not be trusted.

Only the emotions, the heart, matter.

Ah, now I get it.  We morons aren't using our brains.  We are unable to think logically because we don't agree with ace and Jeff B., etc.  It's amazing I can tie my shoes in the morning.

Posted by: mpfs at June 29, 2011 09:22 AM (iYbLN)

394 >>>The Strong Form you mention is just anti-elitism, which means it's elitism. It's stupid in that it relies on blind prejudice for guidance. Besides that, it's impractical. I can only think of one business (Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream, pre–Unilever takeover) that resorted to absence of credentials as credentials. They tried it twice in hiring a CEO. It flopped both times. Of course I agree. I think the Strong Form of anti-credentialism quickly becomes its own decadence, the credentialism of having few credentials.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 09:22 AM (nj1bB)

395 I dunno why ace is so upset,Perry is the frontrunner and he's pretty damn "electable" in every way.

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 09:22 AM (QslGJ)

396 I really wish everyone would quit claiming Reagan was doing this or that which supports their intractable positions.  There is NO ONE who is like Reagan, not even close.  I'm not saying this in the sense that he is so elevated above everyone, I'm saying this because he is not like any current politician.  Times are different.  Reagan today would not be the Reagan of his day, because times have changed.

Posted by: Beth at June 29, 2011 09:22 AM (5NfIh)

397 I think Strong Form is the direct result and an overreaction to the failure of Weak Form as a means of electing competent people.

"Oh, he went to Harvard, spent a little time as a governor or senator. Sounds like a prez, looks like a prez, I'll vote for him, not Sarah Palin with her squeaky voice and degree from U of Boise!"

Oops, he's an asshole. No, they're all assholes!

The real credential, if you will, is our knowledge about a candidate's background and experience and, most importantly, their behavior under pressure in the arena of business or in politics or a bureaucracy.

The American people accepted the appearance of Obama and voted for him and now regret it. It amazes me still that people who voted for him are surprised at his failure.

Posted by: PJ at June 29, 2011 09:22 AM (0RFqu)

398 >>> We morons aren't using our brains. We are unable to think logically because we don't agree with ace and Jeff B., etc. It's amazing I can tie my shoes in the morning. "I don't care. I want the True Conservative."

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 09:23 AM (nj1bB)

399 395 Extremes are almost always bad(well,always).

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 09:23 AM (QslGJ)

400 Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 02:12 PM (nj1bB)

ace, are you saying that you don't believe the GOP establishment attacked its own base with that long push for Shmanesty that killed the GOP and brought us the disasters of 2006 and 2008?

This has nothing to do with RINOs.  You made a statement about the GOP establishment and the base and I noted that the GOP Brahmins launched a massive assault against their own base.  Where was I incorrect?  What do you think killed the GOP before the Tea Party came along and rescued it?

Posted by: progresoverpeace at June 29, 2011 09:24 AM (G/MYk)

401 Yeah, let's have McCain run again. He's a maverick, he's got oodles of appeal for moderates.

Posted by: Heorot at June 29, 2011 09:24 AM (Nq/UF)

402

Continue insisting, all evidence to the contrary, that all that matters is ideology, and the nation is eager to embrace that which it has generally rejected before.

Here's our problem, Ace.  Yes, "our."

We have, since either the Flordia recount or the Iraq invasion, allowed the other side to frame every question as some sort of compassion tests or various forms of intellectually dishonest assaults on George W. Bush and his adminstration.  Therefore, it hasn't really been about ideology but a stream of biases that just won't die.

We have an opportunity now to stiff arm that line of rhetoric and replace it with something calm, factual, and rational.  Who can do that best?  I do not believe that this is a credential or an ideology issue, but rather an issue of competence.  I'll be sending my trademark violation check to the Dukakis campaign later.

Who do we have that can codify a three or four point conservative message heading into next year?  Who has the discipline to do that?

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at June 29, 2011 09:24 AM (B+qrE)

403 Extremes are almost always bad(well,always).

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 02:23 PM (QslGJ)


Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Posted by: Barry Goldwater at June 29, 2011 09:24 AM (7BU4a)

404

I see that ad on RedEye all the time . . .

Posted by: filbert at June 29, 2011 02:18 PM (smvTK)

Do they do that?  I don't watch red-eye.

Posted by: progresoverpeace at June 29, 2011 09:24 AM (G/MYk)

405 "I don't care. I want the True Conservative."

Well, I for one certainly like the cut of this Generic Republican's jib.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 09:25 AM (5wsU9)

406
ace, are you saying that you don't believe the GOP establishment attacked its own base with that long push for Shmanesty that killed the GOP and brought us the disasters of 2006 and 2008?

Don't forget the spending like a drunken sailor either.

Posted by: 18-1 at June 29, 2011 09:25 AM (7BU4a)

407 Once again, previously serving in political office is NOT a credential for serving in political office.  At least on the national level.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at June 29, 2011 09:25 AM (26uEg)

408 404 On the other hand,you lost.

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 09:26 AM (QslGJ)

409 On a black and white level, I reject this credentialism stuff.  It's not very helpful in assessing candidates and it runs counter to what I have observed going through hiring, both in technical and non-technical fields.  We all know people who rise to excellence in their fields with minimal training or formal education, but in my experience they are the exception and not the rule. 

On the more nuanced level, it depends on the job.  I know my particular disciplines (structural biology and non-profit fundraising) well enough now to feel very confident in gauging someone's competence based on their credentials.  It's not just what degrees or training they have, it's where they got it and how they applied it.  I'm sure most of us are that way in our specialties.

Politicians are a type of employee, but they are very unusual type of employee.  Incompetents get elected to office all the time -- hello, Maxine Walters! Much of that has to do with the machine of people who decide to back (or destroy) a candidate.  So their resume is not as easy to gauge, even if it includes a business background (as we've seen with Jon Huntsman, Jr). 

You have to look at the sum total of the person's life to date.  Experience is definitely part of that for me.  One reason I resisted the idea of term limits (I am now over that resistance, btw) is that I think that in any job, including political jobs, there's a learning curve and that learning curve includes learning the culture.  I've hired what seem like competent people who came from different work settings (work cultures if you will) and they've completely tanked because they couldn't adapt to the new work culture.  (This is pretty common in academe, ime.) 

So what we've seen is that a really absolutely wonderful guy like Allen West has made a couple of blunders, including that most recent vote that he apologized for.  Basically, he wasn't savvy enough to realize he was voting without sufficient information and he voted in a way that he almost immediately regretted.

I think Allen West is da bomb, but it does give me pause about elevating anyone to the highest office in the land -- or even to many Cabinet positions, where there's not a committee/consensus like there is in Congress -- straight out of the gate. 

I think the folks who run down candidates because they went to Harvard are just as bad as people who run down candidates who dropped out of high school or college.  It's not helpful and I think it makes conservatives look defensive and dumb. 

Posted by: Y-not hasn't read the comments at June 29, 2011 09:26 AM (TFxd0)

410 sockpuppeting me is grounds for a ban. sockpuppeting any real poster is grounds for a ban.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 09:26 AM (nj1bB)

411 Not what I'm saying ace.  You are tarring everyone with the same feather who doesn't agree with you.  Give it a rest, talk a walk, smile.

And with that I'm off to lunch.  It's a beautiful day and I'm going to Balboa Park and SMILE.

Posted by: mpfs at June 29, 2011 09:26 AM (iYbLN)

412

Ace is asking a difficult question because he is asking about what others think (or say they think (or think they think)).

I suspect most people who view themselves as "conservative" have a very complex view about "elitism" and "credentialism."

(1) Most everyone sane relies on "credentials" to a certain extent. Almost all conservatives go to licensed doctors for serious medical issues; they almost all go to licensed lawyers for serious legal issues.

(2) Most everyone sane does not rely exclusively on credentials. As some have said, credentials may represent one minimum requirement out of multiple requirements, and even that minimum may be subject to exceptions. For example, I have known some excellent lawyers who went to Harvard Law and two brilliant ones who went to Yale Law, but I'd hire an experienced and successful litigator from Brooklyn or Pitt over a recent graduate from Yale if I had to get involved in litigation. 

(3) Credentials in pseudo-sciences such as economics are meaningless. There is virtually no statement made by a credentialed economist that has not been disputed by another credentialed economist. Economics has no generally agreed process for determining empirical relevance.

(4) Credentials in the art of getting elected are meaningless for any purpose except getting elected. Being a Senator does not mean that a person is informed on even one topic of public policy. Unfortunately, elected officials have a lot of say about all topics of public policy. (I recognize that some elected politicans are very knowledgeable about certain topics. Being knowledgeable, however, does not guarantee being right. Barney Frank truly does know a ton about banking and finance, but even he admits that he was way off base about Freddie and Fannie.)

(5) Credentials from a proven liar are meaningless. False in one, false in all, with or without credentials. This has broad implications for what is said by politicians of all ideological persuasions. Most conservatives believe on solid grounds that this proposition also has very broad implications for what is said by the press. (The press may require a more nuanced statement than I have made. It MAY BE that Dan Rather actually believed the Texas National Guard story. I am reluctant to conflate delusions with lies.)

(6) When the credentials are used as evidence that advances someone's self-interest or someone's self-importance or someone's ideology, those credentials lose much, if not all, of whatever credibility they may otherwise have.

(7) When credentials are used as a substitute for reasoned debate, they represent the fallacy of arguing from authority and are insulting. It is this insulting fallacy that properly generates emotions of scorn, contempt, and perhaps even rage.

( When credentials in one field are used to back statements in another field, they are worthless.

I could go on, but this is enough to indicate why I suspect that any simple statement about how conservatives view credentialism or elitism will be wrong. Such a statement will reflect at best one aspect of what many conservatives think under some circumstances.

 

Posted by: JeffM at June 29, 2011 09:26 AM (zD0RO)

413 407 Yeah and if the R's spent like drunken sailors(and they DID)what can we say about the last 4 years??

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 09:27 AM (QslGJ)

414

For tango and the others who're jumping Ace's shit, I'll throw out the same Olsen article I referenced in 392 - a nasty-large slice of the electorate that we used to have in our camp (blue collar whites) aren't exactly marching in step with the Conservative Revolution of 2012.

FWIW, I think Olsen's too willing to sell us out in terms of his suggested solutions, but he's pointing at the same thing Ace is - unbridled Red Meat Conservatism isn't (nearly) as popular as some seem to think it is.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at June 29, 2011 09:27 AM (jxW5N)

415 As long as the focus is in throwing each other under the bus--"RINO" vs. "True Conservative" or whatever, political defeat is a certainty.

Ace is correct in that.

However, it's always rather frustrating when--in frustration himself with the . . . er . . . over-exuberance of some--he (appears to) throw the 'True Conservatives" under the bus.

Isn't there enough room under the bus for all of us?

Screw the "Big Tent."  Let's go for the "Big Undercarriage."

Everybody Under The Bus!!!!!!

Posted by: filbert at June 29, 2011 09:27 AM (smvTK)

416 Remember, the brain is dirty and should not be trusted. I get that a lot.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff's brain at June 29, 2011 09:28 AM (lbo6/)

417 damnit, sorry ace.

 I wasn't paying attention and your name went in the name field rather than the Ctrl+F search field.

Posted by: taylork at June 29, 2011 09:28 AM (5wsU9)

418 Arg, I should have made it clearer.  When I am talking about "credentialism" I'm talking about what you are calling Weak and Strong forms of anti-credentialism. 

Posted by: Y-not hasn't read the comments at June 29, 2011 09:29 AM (TFxd0)

419 George Washington

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at June 29, 2011 09:29 AM (OXWdU)

420 And, disclaimer, I'm not a "True Conservative" but more of a little-l libertarian type, actually.  I just get lumped in with conservatives because liberals have so little imagination.

Posted by: filbert at June 29, 2011 09:29 AM (smvTK)

421 Bachmann wouldn't even make her home state close, and this is a state that has been closer in recent presidential elections.

Yeah, they're just so in LOVE with the Zero in Minnesota.

Posted by: 57 states at June 29, 2011 09:30 AM (sMgrb)

422 >>>However, it's always rather frustrating when--in frustration himself with the . . . er . . . over-exuberance of some--he (appears to) throw the 'True Conservatives" under the bus. No I don't think so. I am looking for a consensus candidate, whereas many seem to be determined to find a NON-consensus candidate. I find it frustrating that I support hardcore pro-lifers like T-Paw or Perry and no one is willing to recognize that consensus takes a little give from everyone. I think the True Conservatives are a bit drunk on their own presumed virtue and find such talk of consensus and bridge-building to be anathema.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 09:30 AM (nj1bB)

423 Everyone loves a military man.

Posted by: Gen. Eric Republican, Ret. at June 29, 2011 09:31 AM (GTbGH)

424 Ace is asking a difficult question because he is asking about what others think (or say they think (or think they think)).


Yes he is but then he turns around and insults those who don't agree with him, especially on this issue. My interpretation: we are foolish to believe we can win unless we support their candidate from the beginning.  I have a brain and I use it on occasion and I do look at all the candidates and the issues.  Sometimes I just trust my gut instinct more than all that crap.

Posted by: mpfs at June 29, 2011 09:32 AM (iYbLN)

425 "I don't care. I want the True Conservative."

We tried it your way in 2008.  And we got Obama.

Posted by: Cherry π at June 29, 2011 09:32 AM (OhYCU)

426 taylork, okay, just don't sockpuppet real people except with names that clearly indicate it's not the real person. For example, while I wouldn't love it, "Acehole" or "Arrogant Acehole" or "Ace the RINO lovier" are all fine sockpuppet names to mock me, because it's clearly not me, just someone making fun of me. But posting as me (or any real commenter) is out of bounds. You can make fun of me, just don't actually impersonate me.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 09:32 AM (nj1bB)

427

Who do we have that can codify a three or four point conservative message heading into next year?  Who has the discipline to do that?


PAUL RYAN.  But he's not running.  *cries*

Also, ditto 415. 

Posted by: Beth at June 29, 2011 09:32 AM (5NfIh)

428 422 Who has really written off Perry?Maybe a few extremists.

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 09:33 AM (QslGJ)

429 Yeah and if the R's spent like drunken sailors(and they DID)what can we say about the last 4 years??

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 02:27 PM (QslGJ)

Wasn't there a comedy movie from decades back where the protagonist had to spend $x million dollars in a short period of time to inherit a large fortune.

Well, it is like that only it isn't funny and the only they we'll be inheriting is a bunch of IOUs.

Posted by: 18-1 at June 29, 2011 09:34 AM (7BU4a)

430 I think the True Conservatives are a bit drunk on their own presumed virtue and find such talk of consensus and bridge-building to be anathema. Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 02:30 PM (nj1bB) And I think that becoming the tax collector for the welfare state is anathema. I don't want those assholes working together to take my stuff, because in the end, that is what they do. I want them to do less, and they can all stay at each other's throats for all I care if it keeps them out of my stuff. I am not a Libertarian, but we need to roll back what government does. Not slow the growth or bend the curve. We need to point it the whole other way for a bit.

Posted by: blaster at June 29, 2011 09:34 AM (Fw2Gg)

431 399 >>> We morons aren't using our brains. We are unable to think logically because we don't agree with ace and Jeff B., etc. It's amazing I can tie my shoes in the morning.

"I don't care. I want the True Conservative."

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 02:23 PM (nj1bB)

Really?  Condescending treatment of your posters isn't going to weigh well.  Believe me.

I want, in my president:

1) financial competence.  the ability to do simple math (no I didn't say 'arithmetic' because it requires 'math').  A 4th grader can do fractions:  you can't spend more than you make.

2) the ability to differentiate between the right of an owl to live and the right of a person to make a living, and hire people that will find the solution that ensures both rights are respected.

3) someone who recognizes the resources we have within our borders, and to exploit them to the profit of the people who live here.  Since the dawn of mankind:  your land, and its resources = profit and the happiness of your people.  Did none of these fuckers ever play Civilization?  It's simple, stupid.

4) someone who recognizes our borders and is willing to bring the hammer to mexico.  It's drugs, stupid.  Snipers and claymores.  Fuck the fence.

5) a president who respects our allies, and pledges support for them.  Fucking your friends never ends well (take note, Obama).

6) a president who understand the roles of congress and the judiciary, outlined in the Constitution (which I doubt none of these idiots has read) and doesn't seek to undermine them with "executive orders."

7) the first thing we do, is we kill all the lawyers.

Posted by: tangonine at June 29, 2011 09:34 AM (x3YFz)

432 "Ace the RINO lovier"

Hey want to take a roll in the flour, IYKWIMAITYD?

Posted by: Meggic Mac at June 29, 2011 09:35 AM (7BU4a)

433 Where ace will be is where you will be: Enjoying the second term of the presidency of Barack Hussein Obama.

But don't blame yourself, tangonline. After all, you did what you "felt" was right.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 02:20 PM (nj1bB)

If America votes the Indonesian in for a second term, to finish his destruction of our nation, then there was nothing left of this nation to save, anyway.

You know, it seems to me as though you would prefer to ask someone an unimportant question if the answer is more likely to be agreeable or inconsequential, than to confront someone with a serious question about a very important issue, whose answer might have to be taken very seriously and change many of your own ideas about what circumstances truly are.

I, for one, would like to know if America actually has a chance.  If not, I would like to get that knowledge down early and clearly.  Times are too consequential to be messing around trying to just put off the inevitable for another couple of years.

America, for 2008, made the most frivolous choice possible.  I give America the benefit of the doubt and write that off from the psychotic break that America experienced because of the credit crisis (which will be making a return appearance, BTW) ... but we'll find out in 2012.

If the GOP screws up by picking another person who is distatsteful to the base, you might well see a third party emerge, this time.  You have to factor that (if you believe it) into your calculations.

And don't claim that I'm advocating a third party run as a spooil-sport.  I am just laying out a possible consequence of picking another McShame-type as candidate.

Posted by: progresoverpeace at June 29, 2011 09:35 AM (G/MYk)

434 Folks,the country is in for a world o hurt no matter who gets elected.One way or another.

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 09:36 AM (QslGJ)

435 Reagan once commented on the need for compromises by saying You can't govern well unless you can get elected.

Posted by: toby928™ at June 29, 2011 09:36 AM (GTbGH)

436 "If T-Paw is determined "acceptable" to the Establishment, he's written off, in knee-jerk, unthinking fashion -- gee, if the Establishment says he's acceptable, he must not be. " I am in the weak-form camp. However, I think the reaction you're noting has to do more with the track record of the establishment types. Using the analogy of the 36-inch measuring stick, with radical conservatism being at the 0 end and radical leftism being at the 36 end, hypothetically we should be ending up somewhere in the middle. Problem is, with the sage advice of the establishment types, we keep getting people who should bue starting the negotiations at 0 and ending up at 18 but in practice start negotiations at 18 and end up at 27. And we're at the point now where the establishment types want us to start negotiations at 27 instead of 18. When people see the establishment types giving up more and more ground from the get-go, and the country being driven further and further left without any real effort to drag it back to at least the center, then I think it's inevitable that there will be a backlash against those who told us our best bet was to go for candidates x, y, and z who conceded so much ground and got nothing in return. the result is that people don't trust the judgment of the establishment types anymore to the point that they'll take it out on the perceived establishment candidates. Again, I'm in the weak-form camp, so I'd give Pawlenty a shot if he got the nomination. Honestly, the two candidates that most closely reflect my own views are Santorum and Cain; both of which I think have no real chance. So, I'd be happy to see a Bachmann or a Perry. Both may have their own flaws, but I think they would both try and drag us back towards the 18 inch mark. The only candidate currently running who I would decidedly NOT vote for would be Huntsman.

Posted by: Mandy P. at June 29, 2011 09:36 AM (vGmv/)

437 426 "I don't care. I want the True Conservative."

We tried it your way in 2008.  And we got Obama.

Posted by: Cherry π at June 29, 2011 02:32 PM (OhYCU)

and who, exactly, was the "true conservative" in 2008?  If you say McCain you get an F- and will be summarily flogged and waterboarded.

Posted by: tangonine at June 29, 2011 09:36 AM (x3YFz)

438 There aren't any easy solutions it's going to be "resonsible pain" or "Mad Max pain".

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 09:37 AM (QslGJ)

439

Ace, this is among your worst posts ever. First, you telegraph your dishonesty, by declaring the opposite upfront; an old and tired technique. Then you float the trial balloon, prettied-up: weak form = good and reasonable; strong form = rigid and intellectually vacant- but, ‘strong’ sounds good and might not offend the mouth-breathers you have to tolerate on your blog (tea party conservatives). You’re afraid to state your position, so you toss out a lip-painted piglet and nudge it in the direction you want her to go.

WTF “tension” are you referring to? Where’s the line of demarcation, and on which side do you stand?

Sad. Cowardly. And, obtuse.

Posted by: Beefy Meatball at June 29, 2011 09:37 AM (bZ8J6)

440 434 Where ace will be is where you will be: Enjoying the second term of the presidency of Barack Hussein Obama.

But don't blame yourself, tangonline. After all, you did what you "felt" was right. Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 02:20 PM (nj1bB)

Ace.  My nic is NOT "tangoline"  can you even read?

Posted by: tangonine at June 29, 2011 09:37 AM (x3YFz)

441 438 Wernt none.Romney was the best pretender though.(Fred was a nonstarter)

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 09:38 AM (QslGJ)

442 My way was not McCain. I think that McCain is more on the true conservatives, who came to him by process of elimination, eliminating everyone else, and coming up with someone bad. But it's not really anyone's fault, as the GOP just tends to nominate the Next in Line candidate. Further, no one could have won. The Lehman collapse sealed it.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 09:38 AM (nj1bB)

443 If the Republicans manage to nominate someone who doesn't excite the Republican base, not only will they lose the election, they won't be challenged by a third party, they will become the third party.

Posted by: blaster at June 29, 2011 09:39 AM (Fw2Gg)

444 >>>Ace. My nic is NOT "tangoline" can you even read? I misspelled a made-up word, I must be a horrible human being.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 09:39 AM (nj1bB)

445 osted by: progresoverpeace at June 29, 2011 02:35 PM (G/MYk) And don't claim that I'm advocating a third party run as a spooil-sport. I am just laying out a possible consequence of picking another McShame-type as candidate. I worry about that too. However I also worry about that working the other way around. I could see the progressives financing a RINO third party just to keep the elites employed.

Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at June 29, 2011 09:39 AM (NtTkA)

446 and yes, ace, I vote on what I believe to be "right."  what do you vote on? 

Really?

Posted by: tangonine at June 29, 2011 09:39 AM (x3YFz)

447 That's why I tossed in the (appears to).

I think I get where you're coming from, Ace.  But I also see how some of the True Believers get their panties in a twist, too.  Too much caffiene, probably.

We just need to keep pounding the message the Job #1 is beating Obama in 2012. 

We can fight like rabid honey badgers among ourselves AFTER we get the "progressive" tide turned back for a while.  Personally, I think that Romney is "unelectable" (because of Romneycare) but that doesn't mean I won't vote for him in the general over Obama.  I won't be delighted to do so, but I'll do it.  I also don't go out spamming all the boards berating Romney backers and shouting "he's NOT ELECTABLE" at them.

People need to back--in the primary--the person who they think best represents their interests. 

You are correct that those interests should include, as a major factor, electability.  However, electability is a matter of opinion, and is not a static element, and can change drastically in the sixteen months from now to November, 2012.

Let the process play out.  Pick a favorite and back him (or her), or stand back and watch the fun.

Be of good cheer.

I gotta go buy beer for my brother in law, now . . .

Posted by: filbert at June 29, 2011 09:40 AM (smvTK)

448 443 Yeah,his reaction hurt him too(suspend the campaign!!)but it was a perfect storm of shit for the GOP.

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 09:40 AM (QslGJ)

449 Wasn't there a comedy movie from decades back where the protagonist had to spend $x million dollars in a short period of time to inherit a large fortune.


Brewster's Millions.

Posted by: mpurinTexas supports Rick Perry, bitch at June 29, 2011 09:40 AM (5d6vv)

450 I see now, tango nine. I always thought it was some play on "tangerine."

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 09:40 AM (nj1bB)

451 409 404 On the other hand,you lost.

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 02:26 PM (QslGJ)

On the other hand, the guy he lost to was so hopeless that he chose not to run after his first full term.

In fact, I recall that the Democrats instead nominated the happiest, sunniest guy ever -- The Happy Warrior himself, Hubert H. Humphrey.  Humphrey ran against a grumpy guy who'd lost the Presidency just 8 years earlier - and Humphrey got creamed.

Happy and sunny are overrated.  The one political line that is anything like a guaranteed winner is, "Come with me if you want to live."  It doesn't have to be delivered with a smile, so long as it's delivered with absolute conviction.

In 2012, it will be very easy to use that line against Obama: it's pretty clear to a majority of voters that sticking with him is sticking with a sinking economy and going undeer.

Posted by: stuiec at June 29, 2011 09:40 AM (1beh4)

452 The point about having limited government is that the competence and abilities of the people populatiing that government are not nearly as important as they are for governments that have total control over anything.  For a truly limited government, the best trait a politician can have is knowing when "we are not allowed to do that". 

Limited governments, because of this, tend to not attract the best, since it is a job that calls, mostly, for restraint of action whereas regular jobs and universally powerful governments require people who are willing and happy to meddle in every single area.

This is the hardest part about maintaining a limited government, as the Founders well-noted.  Much of America has long forgotten it, though.

Posted by: progresoverpeace at June 29, 2011 09:40 AM (G/MYk)

453 I think the True Conservatives are a bit drunk on their own presumed virtue There Can Be Only One True Conservative.

Posted by: DOCTOR! RON PAUL! at June 29, 2011 09:40 AM (lbo6/)

454 The GOP needs to operate smarter. Why doesn't the Democrat Party run a bunch of open primaries the way the Republicans do?

Posted by: blaster at June 29, 2011 09:41 AM (Fw2Gg)

455 452 I was just joking.

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 09:41 AM (QslGJ)

456 I actually thought it was tangonline. I misspelled my own misspelling.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 09:41 AM (nj1bB)

457

I think this discussion of "credentialism" is more or less anti-elitism of a different charachter. I think it comes from the more populist urges of society, but is more prevalent on the right where a more "fuck off, I'll decide myself" individualism predominates.

As I've said before, no matter the motivation, no matter her position on issues, I have a big problem with Palin quiting. If she declared her canidacy tommorow and kept talking the conservative line, in the back of my mind would be the fact that she walked away. That she let the leftards win. Its hard to see me voting for her to take over a spot with far more scrutiny and responsibility than a state with 700,000 residents, no matter how much I like her positions.

Posted by: Jollyroger at June 29, 2011 09:41 AM (NCw5u)

458 445 >>>Ace. My nic is NOT "tangoline" can you even read?

I misspelled a made-up word, I must be a horrible human being.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 02:39 PM (nj1bB)

It's ok.  I get that you think I'm below you.  You don't value us folks that vote with the steel of our conscience.  I'd be remiss to assume you'd take the time to get my nic right.

Posted by: tangonine at June 29, 2011 09:41 AM (x3YFz)

459 Further, no one could have won. The Lehman collapse sealed it.

A fighter might have won.

Posted by: Cherry π at June 29, 2011 09:41 AM (OhYCU)

460
I think that McCain is more on the true conservatives, who came to him by process of elimination, eliminating everyone else, and coming up with someone bad.

Uh, no.

McCain was the Establishment choice because he could beat Obama unlike those icky conservatives.

Out of the big three Romney was the most conservative, as pathetic as that was...

Ironically, he is now filling in the McCain role for 2012...

Posted by: 18-1 at June 29, 2011 09:41 AM (7BU4a)

461 454 Beck had him on yesterday and he sounded nearly sane.The meds were well adjusted.

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 09:42 AM (QslGJ)

462 We tried it your way in 2008.  And we got Obama.

Do we have to go to the complete opposite, though?  Can't we have SOME of what made McCain acceptable to almost half the voting public, like I dunno, an actual record and deep understanding of the issues (even if you don't agree with him, you can't deny he understands the issues)?  Do we really need to go from McCain to Michele Bachmann or God forbid, Herman Cain? 

We don't have to do 2008 over again.  I don't want to do 2008 over again.  But I don't want to do 1964 either. 
 

Posted by: Beth at June 29, 2011 09:42 AM (5NfIh)

463 Further, no one could have won. The Lehman collapse sealed it.


I remember ace called this before the 2008 election.

He was accused of being an Eeyore.


Posted by: mpurinTexas supports Rick Perry, bitch at June 29, 2011 09:43 AM (5d6vv)

464 The point about having limited government is that the competence and abilities of the people populatiing that government are not nearly as important as they are for governments that have total control over anything. For a truly limited government, the best trait a politician can have is knowing when "we are not allowed to do that". ^^^^ THIS.

Posted by: blaster at June 29, 2011 09:43 AM (Fw2Gg)

465 A fighter might have won.

Posted by: Cherry π at June 29, 2011 02:41 PM (OhYCU)

That's crazy talk!

Posted by: The RNC at June 29, 2011 09:43 AM (7BU4a)

466 464 Hope is necessary.

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 09:44 AM (QslGJ)

467 "But I vow to you if you elevate beating the Republican Establishment over beating Barack Obama you will beat neither." But we need to beat BOTH. Unless the GOP Establishment wants to get its head out of its ass. And they've shown precious little inclination to do that.

Posted by: tsj017 at June 29, 2011 09:44 AM (4YUWF)

468 451 I see now, tango nine.

I always thought it was some play on "tangerine."

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 02:40 PM (nj1bB)

I'm sure you don't care, but the nic comes from my time in the military.  I played an aggressor in training folks, and my callsign was tango 9.

Posted by: tangonine at June 29, 2011 09:44 AM (x3YFz)

469 us folks that vote with the steel of our conscience

Every Paulbot could say as much.

Posted by: toby928™ at June 29, 2011 09:44 AM (GTbGH)

470 Cain is kinda shallow.  Bachmann is a flake, right? That's what the Credentialists have told me.

Posted by: Cherry π at June 29, 2011 09:45 AM (OhYCU)

471 Unless the GOP Establishment wants to get its head out of its ass. And they've shown precious little inclination to do that.

Posted by: tsj017 at June 29, 2011 02:44 PM (4YUWF)

Indeed, winning is not having a big R next to the President's name. It is almost certainly a pre-requiste for winning, but let us not forget what the actual goal is.

Posted by: 18-1 at June 29, 2011 09:45 AM (7BU4a)

472 Yeah "God forbid Herman Cain" an intelligent business man who succeeded at every level.

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 09:45 AM (QslGJ)

473 Yeah "God forbid Herman Cain" an intelligent business man who succeeded at every level.

Except politics, alas.

Posted by: toby928™ at June 29, 2011 09:46 AM (GTbGH)

474

Jolly Roger,

me too.  That's when I went from Palinmania to bitter Palin apostasy.

Her supporters have lots of excuses, but I feel about politicians the way AS Johnston felt about generals:

The test of merit in my profession with the people is success. It is a hard rule, but I think it is right.

 

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at June 29, 2011 09:47 AM (epBek)

475 >>>In fact, I recall that the Democrats instead nominated the happiest, sunniest guy ever -- The Happy Warrior himself, Hubert H. Humphrey.  Humphrey ran against a grumpy guy who'd lost the Presidency just 8 years earlier - and Humphrey got creamed.

Um....check your history again.  Nixon beat Humphrey in an absolute nailbiter, by less than a percentage point of the popular vote -- Nixon won 43.3% to Humphrey's 42.7% -- and only really won the race because of the apocalyptic infighting in the Democratic party, involving the 1968 Chicago Convention and, oh yeah THE SPOILER THIRD PARTY RUN BY GEORGE WALLACE THAT SIPHONED OFF A HUGE NUMBER OF OTHERWISE DEMOCRATIC SOUTHERN VOTES.

In a world where Humphrey had run without his own Ross Perot dogging him, he probably would have beaten Nixon pretty handily.

History fail.

Posted by: Jeff B. at June 29, 2011 09:47 AM (hIWe1)

476 474 He not my guy but that just seemed a bit harsh and peremptory,one could almost here the "boy" in it.

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 09:48 AM (QslGJ)

477 My way was not McCain.

How can McCain not be your guy? He's super credentialed and moderate out the wazzoo.

Posted by: Heorot at June 29, 2011 09:48 AM (Nq/UF)

478 We just need to keep pounding the message the Job #1 is beating Obama in 2012.

Posted by: filbert at June 29, 2011 02:40 PM (smvTK)

Could not disagree more.

We need solutions to some problems which threaten the very existance of the Republic.  Just running someone who can beat Obama, as the ONLY criteria, will not help this country get back ontrack.

It could very well be a case of creating a Phyrhic Victory... you win the battle, but loose the War.

Posted by: Romeo13 at June 29, 2011 09:48 AM (NtXW4)

479 >>>You don't value us folks that vote with the steel of our conscience. I'd be remiss to assume you'd take the time to get my nic right It's terrible that I should demean you, when you merely suggest the difference between thee and I is that you "vote with the steel of your conscience" and I am just a dirty, devious RINO with a flexible conscience and a drive for mere political power and more DC cocktail parties. It is terrible that I should do so, when I am offered such respect for my own opinions and beliefs.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 09:48 AM (nj1bB)

480 >>>It's ok.  I get that you think I'm below you.  You don't value us folks that vote with the steel of our conscience.  I'd be remiss to assume you'd take the time to get my nic right.

Jesus.  This from a commenter who regularly accuses *me* of being a butthurt pussy.

Posted by: Jeff B. at June 29, 2011 09:49 AM (hIWe1)

481 Nice, Steevy, boy.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at June 29, 2011 09:49 AM (epBek)

482 477 Hear even,geesh.I'm beig extra snarky cause I'm in pain.

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 09:49 AM (QslGJ)

483 and it's time for me to egress.

I love you ace, we disagree, obviously, but I respect your willingness and effort to keep the site up, and gives me a place to go crazy.  I'll hit the tip jar on the way out. 

We disagree, but we're all on the same side.

Posted by: tangonine at June 29, 2011 09:49 AM (x3YFz)

484 Cain says that one of his biggest qualifications is that he is NOT a politician. It is also one of his biggest applause lines. The "credentialed" have time and again shown themselves to be not better, when it comes to politics. So I don't agree with the sentiment that his lack of credentials is his best attribute, but I can understand it.

Posted by: blaster at June 29, 2011 09:49 AM (Fw2Gg)

485 "Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them."

 Someone said that once. I'm not so sure that any other "politician" can say it more directly. I want to elect someone who agrees. If they have a long string of credentials or not I want them to understand this and if, or when, I find someone who agrees and can show that they have in the past worked against the entrenched
bureaucracy I will push for that canditate.Results count, more so than a long list of credentials, but credentials aren't a negative.

Posted by: The Great Satan's Ghost at June 29, 2011 09:49 AM (UrPTC)

486

the steel of our conscience

Wow.  Suck your own weiner much?

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at June 29, 2011 09:50 AM (epBek)

487 >>>"But I vow to you if you elevate beating the Republican Establishment over beating Barack Obama you will beat neither."

>>>But we need to beat BOTH.

Sorry.  You get to pick one. 

Choose wisely! 

And remember that you don't have to "beat" the GOP establishment (whatever that term means to you) in order to bring it with you in your direction.

Posted by: Jeff B. at June 29, 2011 09:50 AM (hIWe1)

488 I think that McCain is more on the true conservatives, who came to him by process of elimination, eliminating everyone else, and coming up with someone bad. 

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 02:38 PM (nj1bB)

You're going to have to explain that one.  McCain himself crowed about his Florida win in the first closed primary of that cycle: "Thery said I could only win open primaries -- well, I just won a primary among Republican voters only."

The voters of Florida had all of the candidates to choose from and picked Mr. Electable.

Posted by: stuiec at June 29, 2011 09:50 AM (1beh4)

489 I am donning the poo jacket now.  Phasers armed.

Posted by: Cherry π at June 29, 2011 09:50 AM (OhYCU)

490 You don't value us folks that vote with the steel of our conscience. So THAT'S what that clanging noise was - your pure brass balls smashing together while you walk.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 29, 2011 09:51 AM (lbo6/)

491 Let's have a hockey like handshake line after we beat each other up(though I will snub JeffB)HeHe.

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 09:51 AM (QslGJ)

492 How can McCain not be your guy? He's super credentialed and moderate out the wazzoo.

Posted by: Heorot at June 29, 2011 02:48 PM (Nq/UF)

Here I think is the difference, you are including moderation with credentialism. I do not believe that purity of belief and credentialism are mutualy exclusive.

Posted by: Jollyroger at June 29, 2011 09:51 AM (NCw5u)

493 Look, I told you Christine O'Donnell was a loser. You didn't listen. You thought I was "hustling" you, attempting to convince you to support a RINO based on made-up, invented grounds. I see you're doubling down on that bet. I guess maybe you want to at least come away from the table one down, one up, so you're even. I would suggest the same principles (obvious principles) that allowed me to see that Christie O'Donnell would lose, without a doubt, are still in effect, and further, just as obvious as they were previously, for all that would open their eyes to see. I think the slogan "Ideology is all that matters" will be proven just as true in November 2012 as it was in November 2010. Which is to say: Not true. But I'm bad because I'm realistic and look at evidence and history? I'm bad because I am unwilling to accept another term for Barack Hussein Obama? Okay, I'm bad. I'm a bad, bad guy, who just loves cocktails, I guess.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 09:52 AM (nj1bB)

494 an intelligent business man who succeeded at every level.

That's nice.  In that case, I'm voting for my dad, because he's more qualified and far more informed on the issues than Herman Cain is, and doesn't duck out of every other question with "I don't have all the facts" or "I'll get good advisers."  I mean, if we just think a conservative "intelligent business man who succeeded at every level" and thinks he can hire good staff is enough

Right of return, yeah!  LMFAO


Posted by: Beth at June 29, 2011 09:52 AM (5NfIh)

495 McCain was my guy once he won the nomination(even though it made me throw up in my mouth a little).

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 09:52 AM (QslGJ)

496 Great flame war, guys. The real debate, Ace's POS lead-in notwithstanding, is: Do we have to water down our message to win? And, if so: how much? I could tell you the answer, but then you wouldn't learn anything.

Posted by: Zombie Ronald Reagan at June 29, 2011 09:53 AM (bZ8J6)

497 493 - "Here I think is the difference, you are including moderation with credentialism. I do not believe that purity of belief and credentialism are mutualy exclusive."

THIS ^^^^

Posted by: Beth at June 29, 2011 09:53 AM (5NfIh)

498 494 "I'm a bad, bad guy, who just loves cock" Doesn't it feel better to unburden yourself?NTTTAWWT

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 09:54 AM (QslGJ)

499 487

the steel of our conscience

Wow.  Suck your own weiner much?

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at June 29, 2011 02:50 PM (epBek)

I *was* leaving and was just scrolling down one more time when I saw this motherfucker here.

"suck your onw weiner?" 

seriously.  no.  If I could, I wouldn't have time to post here.  Having said that, you and your drive-by bullshit comment can go stuff yourself up Rosie O'Donnell's ass.  Bitch.

Posted by: tangonine at June 29, 2011 09:55 AM (x3YFz)

500 And remember that you don't have to "beat" the GOP establishment (whatever that term means to you) in order to bring it with you in your direction.

Posted by: Jeff B. at June 29, 2011 02:50 PM (hIWe1)

Yes, because they promised 100 Billion in cuts THIS year!!!   Yeah! vote for us!!!!

Jury, is out.

Posted by: Romeo13 at June 29, 2011 09:55 AM (NtXW4)

501 Only one form of credentials really counts: can you do what you say you can do?

Why is it that some of the most successful folks in history have no college degree (other than honoraria)?  Why is it that some people in professions where their degree is proof of ability, nevertheless fail at them?

The Good News: Academic credentials are losing traction, fast.
The Bad News: Too many people think that "being famous" is a credential.

Posted by: K~Bob at June 29, 2011 09:56 AM (9b6FB)

502 Those DC cocktail parties are pretty sweet, ace.

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at June 29, 2011 09:56 AM (OXWdU)

503 Look, I told you Christine O'Donnell was a loser. You didn't listen. You thought I was "hustling" you, attempting to convince you to support a RINO based on made-up, invented grounds.

Ok, so who is Christine O'Donnell in the presidential race? And who is your Mike Castle - Hunstman?

Posted by: 18-1 at June 29, 2011 09:56 AM (7BU4a)

504 >>>I'm sure you don't care, but the nic comes from my time in the military. I played an aggressor in training folks, and my callsign was tango 9. Yes, I see that now, and said so. Previously I just saw a jumble of letters, without a break between them, and thought it was "tangonline." You seem very upset by this. I would note that my own nick here is "ace" which is exceedingly short, is a single word, and is immediately identifiable. People with multiple words smashed together without the cutomary space between two separate words should really have a little latitude for those who don't immediately scan their names properly. For a long time I thought progressoverpeace was like "progressivsmoverpease" or something. This happens. It's not like the worst sin EVEH.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 09:57 AM (nj1bB)

505 OT Odds that Lady GaGa insults the Pope when she performs in Rome??

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 09:57 AM (QslGJ)

506 491 You don't value us folks that vote with the steel of our conscience.

So THAT'S what that clanging noise was - your pure brass balls smashing together while you walk.



Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 29, 2011 02:51 PM (lbo6/)

That wasn't me.  My balls are actually stored on the aircraft carrier out back. 

Posted by: tangonine at June 29, 2011 09:57 AM (x3YFz)

507

Ace brings up a nice point, Christine O'Donnell (or Sharon Angle for that matter) would represent the great uncredentialed: no experience to speak of but purity of thought.

McCain would be credentialed but have no purity (as to the economic and social wings of the base, but was a hawk)

Reagan would be considered credentialed (Governor Reagan after all) but also had purity of ideas.

We should aim at category three if possible.

Posted by: Jollyroger at June 29, 2011 09:57 AM (NCw5u)

508 "And remember that you don't have to "beat" the GOP establishment (whatever that term means to you) in order to bring it with you in your direction." If they show any signs of NOT insulting us and looking at us like we smell funny and then telling us to vote for them and get back down in our holes, then I'll consider that maybe we don't have to beat them. I don't think they'll do that, though. And by "us", I mean "the vast majority of the American people", or at least "a large portion of what should be their natural base if they weren't busy pissing on us and laughing about it".

Posted by: tsj017 at June 29, 2011 09:58 AM (4YUWF)

509 "Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them." Damn, that's a good formulation. That figures, Google tells me it was Reagan.

Posted by: t-bird at June 29, 2011 09:58 AM (FcR7P)

510 My name is cherry (like a virgin) plus pi (like some kinda math thing).

Please don't think I am Che the raper.

Thanks for your attention in this matter.

Posted by: Cherry π at June 29, 2011 09:59 AM (OhYCU)

511 >>>eriously. no. If I could, I wouldn't have time to post here. Having said that, you and your drive-by bullshit comment can go stuff yourself up Rosie O'Donnell's ass. Bitch. But this is the whole point. I argue with you that you are being unrealistic and are failing to examine evidence and history. You respond that you are being virtuous. This IS the argument. You can't get bent out of shape when people properly identify the argument as the argument. This is always what is said, always. The argument is always rationality/prudence urged by one side, and the other side ALWAYS offers moral virtue and courage. Always. If you're going to play that card, don't get mad when you get called on it.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 09:59 AM (nj1bB)

512 Wait a friggin minute here. Obama lectured congress about taking vacation? Is he fucking serious?!

I used to think the man was such a narcissist that he would install a mirror in front of of the toilet just to watch himself take a crap. Now I wonder if he even has a reflective image.

Now I'm double-commenting because I screwed up and commented in the other thread.

Posted by: Clueless at June 29, 2011 09:59 AM (piMMO)

513 Do we need to water down our message? I don't think so. We need to have a message that our candidates are not ashamed of. For some reason, our "platform" people are not our "campaign" people. Too often, we as Republicans nominate people who not only don't believe what our platform says we believe, but disparage it or apologize for it. That schism didn't start with Tea Parties or Christine O'Donnell or Sarah Palin. It has been out there for a long, long time. I recall that in 1996, President Clinton ran on more items in the "Contract with America" than Bob Dole did. Clinton won. I don't think it was about that support, but I find it symbolic. Republican candidates need to own the platform process. I think that schism allows placation of "conservatives" but it really just creates openings for Democrats.

Posted by: blaster at June 29, 2011 09:59 AM (Fw2Gg)

514 OT I bet Obama wants a gold star every time he takes a shit and doesn't get skidmarks in his drawers.

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 10:00 AM (QslGJ)

515 I'm sure you don't care, but the nic comes from my time in the military.  I played an aggressor in training folks, and my callsign was tango 9. I was known as "MurderDeathPainKillStrike-Four Echo."

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 29, 2011 10:00 AM (lbo6/)

516 >>>The voters of Florida had all of the candidates to choose from and picked Mr. Electable.

The voters of Florida were basically choosing between McCain (who at least could boast of solid pro-life and prescient defense/WoT credentials), Huckabee (the Unacceptable) and Romney (who at the time was the Weird Plastic Flip-Flopper Mormon), with Giuliani siphoning off a further portion of the FL vote. 

Don't look at the primaries in isolation.  Actually, if you want to choose a better example of McCain winning a closed GOP primary, it would be SC. 

I actually supported McCain back in 2008 as the 'least-worst' candidate who had a shot at the nomination (sorry, Fred!), and ironically enough I think he still probably was...which tells you what a shite set of choices we had back then.  He would have been a crap President, and if his loss allows us to get someone like Pawlenty or Perry in for 2012 with both houses of Congress then maybe (MAYBE, given the pain Obama's put us through in just four years) there's a silver lining to his failure...but don't pretend he wasn't a better option than Obama.

I've learned a little something from 2008 myself, actually.  (I'm not merely stuck in my views myself...I try to evolve with events.)  2008 has made me very wary of GOP candidates whose appeal seems based far more around their 'crossover' appeal (as opposed to electability per se, which is a significantly different thing, a distinction I'm afraid is lost on many here and lies at the crux of this entire argument).  That's why the Huntsman campaign radiates such massive douchechills to me, and why even Romney makes me worry...he seems like a much softer target than someone like Pawlenty or Perry.

Posted by: Jeff B. at June 29, 2011 10:00 AM (hIWe1)

517 Further, no one could have won. The Lehman collapse sealed it.

I have to disagree with that.  The Lehman collapse and the subsequent insanity that spilled out of Congress gave so much power to the Executive that that should been the nail in the coffin of the Indonesian's run - many of kept making that point over and over during the campaign, but McShame wouldn't let anyone even touch the subject among the establishment folks.  Everyone knew enough about the Indonesian, by then, to know that he couldn't be trusted with the massive power that was being created and concentrated in the Executive branch.  But, America went the opposite way - which was clearly a vote for national suicide.  everyone knew what they were voting for.  They had had enough of America (the psychosis of the credit crisis setting in) and wanted the nation put in the past.

Posted by: progresoverpeace at June 29, 2011 10:01 AM (G/MYk)

518 I think the COD problem is a "last election" kinda problem.  The GOP has learned their lesson and knows what kind of candidate to push. (I'm hopeful)

Posted by: Cherry π at June 29, 2011 10:01 AM (OhYCU)

519 515 Also OT VP Biden DOES get a gold star every time he takes a shit and doesn't get skidmarks in his drawers(alas he usually just gets a silver star for "trying ").

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 10:01 AM (QslGJ)

520

I wonder what hasn't been said in 473 comments?

Anyway, IÂ’ll just point out that credentials may be correlated with competence, though not as strongly as experience, but in many cases the guilds that give out the credentials, due to a group think and liberal bias, lead many credentials to have a correlation with a destructive ideology or worldview, and the intelligence to rationalize away relevant facts to the job if they conflict with the worldview.

Posted by: Randy M at June 29, 2011 10:02 AM (vI8R6)

521 505 >>>I'm sure you don't care, but the nic comes from my time in the military. I played an aggressor in training folks, and my callsign was tango 9.

Yes, I see that now, and said so. Previously I just saw a jumble of letters, without a break between them, and thought it was "tangonline."

You seem very upset by this. I would note that my own nick here is "ace" which is exceedingly short, is a single word, and is immediately identifiable.

People with multiple words smashed together without the cutomary space between two separate words should really have a little latitude for those who don't immediately scan their names properly.

For a long time I thought progressoverpeace was like "progressivsmoverpease" or something.

This happens. It's not like the worst sin EVEH.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 02:57 PM (nj1bB)

You have a lot of posters, and a lot of crzy mfers like me to keep up with.  No harm done. I'm an overly-sensitive very dangerous man.  I'll just call you "ase" from now on

Posted by: tangonine at June 29, 2011 10:02 AM (x3YFz)

522 I was known as Agent Orange.

Posted by: Alabaster Jones at June 29, 2011 10:02 AM (GIeoW)

523

It's ok.  I get that you think I'm below you.  You don't value us folks that vote with the steel of our conscience.  I'd be remiss to assume you'd take the time to get my nic right.

Posted by: tangonine at June 29, 2011 02:41 PM (x3YFz)

Jeebus, you've been around long enough to realize that ace is lucky to make it through a sentence without screwing something up. It's one of his charms.  It makes him more like us ( is he channeling Bill Clinton?)

Posted by: Where're my ping pong balls? at June 29, 2011 10:03 AM (XIXhw)

524 Federal Appeals Court in Cincinnati upholds individual mandate.

Posted by: Clueless at June 29, 2011 10:03 AM (piMMO)

525 516 I'm sure you don't care, but the nic comes from my time in the military.  I played an aggressor in training folks, and my callsign was tango 9.

I was known as "MurderDeathPainKillStrike-Four Echo."

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 29, 2011 03:00 PM (lbo6/)

by simply posting that, it's obvious you were known as "that dumbass, over there."

Posted by: tangonine at June 29, 2011 10:03 AM (x3YFz)

526 Don't ever call tangonine Francis.

Posted by: Alabaster Jones at June 29, 2011 10:04 AM (GIeoW)

527 497 - No! We don't have to water it down, and that's what the RINO-hunters misunderstand about the rest of us that they call "elitists" or "credentialists."  We don't believe in watering down conservatism.  We DO have to make the message appealing to voters, though.  
But then, you're Zombie Reagan so you already know this.

502 - "The Good News: Academic credentials are losing traction, fast.
The Bad News: Too many people think that "being famous" is a credential."

I present to you, the bad news:  Famous Donald Trump.  (worst GOP almost-candidate ever!)

The good news:  Scott Walker, Cheezhead Ranger.  *love*  (Also Jan Brewer!)

Posted by: Beth at June 29, 2011 10:04 AM (5NfIh)

528 526 Aw comeone,that was teh funny.

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 10:05 AM (QslGJ)

529 523 I was known as Agent Orange.

Posted by: Alabaster Jones at June 29, 2011 03:02 PM (GIeoW)

you know... the instant I posted that, I knew.  I fucking KNEW it would bring out the shitbags.

I need to open up my psychic business on the side.  I can see the future!

Posted by: tangonine at June 29, 2011 10:05 AM (x3YFz)

530

IÂ’ll give an example of the value of credentials from my own profession of Information Technology. Experience ALWAYS trumps certifications, but certs can be a tie breaker when all other areas are more or less equal.

 

In other instances, the cert is completely useless. Take for example a very common entry level certification known as an A+. Issued by CompTIA, itÂ’s a credential that tests people on basic cabling, PC hardware, and how to not shock yourself when opening a server chassis. My experience, shared by many of my colleagues, is that the credential itself is completely meaningless as a predictor of competence. Not having one also does not prove incompetence. The only place an A+ credential has any value whatsoever is in the folks who try, but fail, to obtain the credential. For those, IÂ’d suggest a different career path, say the janitorial arts, investment banking, or Congress.

Posted by: GGinNC at June 29, 2011 10:05 AM (x7byD)

531 529 "comeone"?

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 10:05 AM (QslGJ)

532

Did I miss something, did someone throw tpaw or perry under the bus?

However, there is a line in the sand that has to be drawn.  I've said this before and won't back off if; if a cadidate still believes in AGW in spite of the evidence that the IPCC falisfied the data or they believe through some convoluted logic that the gov't should be managing my health care - then I have to say, don't throw them under the bus, run them over with the bus, throw it reverse and do it again.  Repeat until done.

Posted by: 57 states at June 29, 2011 10:05 AM (sMgrb)

533 I present to you, the bad news:  Famous Donald Trump.  (worst GOP almost-candidate ever!)

I'm glad you specified "GOP". Otherwise, I might have to question the validity of that statement.

Posted by: Clueless at June 29, 2011 10:06 AM (piMMO)

534 Vote for me, and I can offer you safe passage across the wasteland.

Posted by: Lord Humungous 2012 at June 29, 2011 10:06 AM (NiX4O)

535 Late to the game as usual. Its not anti-credentialism at all-weak, strong, or strange. Its the simple fact that our politicians are unbound from fact or truth. They aren't at all who they tell us they are. Especially the Democrats. If the media actually did it's job, no problem. since they don't or worse yet tell us outright lies and propaganda points- We no longer respect or believe them- hence their credentials no longer matter. Same with science and AGW- lots of non-science spouted by supposed scientists because it gets them grants. They violate their own standards. The eliminate their own credentials. That's what is going on in many levels of government and business- self-throat cutting.

Posted by: naturalfake at June 29, 2011 10:06 AM (jkSbV)

536 535 JUST WALK AWAY! 2012

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 10:07 AM (QslGJ)

537 Too often, we as Republicans nominate people who not only don't believe what our platform says we believe, but disparage it or apologize for it.

This.  See McCain, John.

Posted by: Where're my ping pong balls? at June 29, 2011 10:08 AM (XIXhw)

538 If by shitbags you mean people making fun of you then yeah you're psychic.

Posted by: Alabaster Jones at June 29, 2011 10:08 AM (GIeoW)

539 >>>Ok, so who is Christine O'Donnell in the presidential race? And who is your Mike Castle - Hunstman?

Ace's point is that we are lucky enough to NOT HAVE TO FACE a horrible "O'Donnell/Castle" conundrum in the GOP nominating process.  It's NOT a situation where we only have a choice between a hideously unqualified, unelectable "True Conservative" or an ideologically unacceptable RINO.  But rather, that some on the right (as seen here, or at HotAir, or elsewhere) are trying to manufacture such a situation artificially by now affirmatively disqualifying or downing on actual good, electable conservatives...and are using some truly disturbing & noxious grounds for doing so, mainly "oh they're experienced, the media seems to think they're semi-plausible candidates, hence they must be loathsome Establishment RINO Scum." 

Otherwise why the weirdly ungrounded attacks on people like Pawlenty or Perry? 

Or the bizarre, emotion-based embrace of candidates who combine national toxicity with a manifest lack of neutral qualifications like Bachmann or Palin? 

Why the new insistence that, whenever someone like me asks "um...what has Bachmann ever done that qualifies her for the job of President other than make pretty speeches, which is easy to do?", that a candidate's actual accomplishments or record are irrelevant?  

Posted by: Jeff B. at June 29, 2011 10:08 AM (hIWe1)

540 Did I miss something, did someone throw tpaw or perry under the bus?

Tpaw is looking more and more like the kid who really doesn't want to fight but is goaded into it by the other kids on the sideline yelling "Fight! Fight! Fight!" "Oh, you pussy! I knew you wouldn't fight him!" He's going through the motions, but his heart isn't in it.

Walking away from the fight may be the honorable thing to do. Walking away from the fight may be the higher road to take.

Mehbe.

Unless the other kid has your mom in a strangle hold with one arm and his other arm shoved up her skirt.

Then, he's just a pussy.

Posted by: Clueless at June 29, 2011 10:09 AM (piMMO)

541 540 Ahh but don't you see your condecension,everyone that disagrees with you is simply emotion based.Don't you see how you rub people the wrong way with lines like that?

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 10:11 AM (QslGJ)

542 I would suggest the same principles (obvious principles) that allowed me to see that Christie O'Donnell would lose, without a doubt, are still in effect, and further, just as obvious as they were previously, for all that would open their eyes to see.

I think the slogan "Ideology is all that matters" will be proven just as true in November 2012 as it was in November 2010.

Which is to say: Not true.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 02:52 PM (nj1bB)

See, that's an appeal to credentials: "I was right about Christine O'Donnell, so you can be sure I am right about all political candidates and races."

"Ideology is all that matters" is absurd -- but so is "Electability is all that matters."

As you keep pointing out, the Buckley Doctrine blends BOTH ideology and electability, and requires its adherents to consider both.

Posted by: stuiec at June 29, 2011 10:11 AM (1beh4)

543 by simply posting that, it's obvious you were known as "that dumbass, over there." I'd be happy to stretch DD-214s with you, but I know how much you disdain credentials, unless they're your own.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 29, 2011 10:11 AM (lbo6/)

544 Posted by: tangonine at June 29, 2011 02:36 PM (x3YFz)

You can't criticize ace's typing mistake when you completely missed the point of this comment. Dude, You live in a glass house and you just threw a big fucking rock at your host.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at June 29, 2011 10:11 AM (LH6ir)

545 539 If by shitbags you mean people making fun of you then yeah you're psychic.

Posted by: Alabaster Jones at June 29, 2011 03:08 PM (GIeoW)

by "shitbag" I mean "shitbag"

It's pretty self explanatory.  Bag of shit.  shit in a bag.  a bag filled with shit.  etc. 

I mean shitbag.  you = shitbag. 

It's unfortunate that you're stupid as well as a bag of shit, but I guess I had to break it down for you. 

Posted by: tangonine at June 29, 2011 10:13 AM (x3YFz)

546 you just threw a big fucking rock at your host.

ace is a big guy. He can handle it.

Posted by: Cherry π at June 29, 2011 10:13 AM (OhYCU)

547 Should I go with this or is it too much?

Posted by: steevysixniner at June 29, 2011 10:13 AM (QslGJ)

548 Ace, this is simple.  And it has more to do with logic than you credit.

Many Tea Party (and non-members who sympathize) have seen Establishment types trade away more and more of what they hold dear.  They've learned that, far too often, they can't trust them when the rubber hits the road.

It is not illogical to distrust someone whose track record has done you harm.

And face it, you can bring up Nevada and Delaware, fine.  I can match that with Scozzafava and Crist.  We may need to work together, but if you think the problem is solely with the Tea Party, then I assure you that you have gravely misunderstood why the Tea Party even exists.  And so long as you place the onus of compromise solely on that one party, whilst giving the other a pass on 'pragmatic grounds', then I humbly submit the situation will not improve--except to guarantee even worse trouble next time...

Posted by: AoSHQ's *second* worst commenter, DarkLord© at June 29, 2011 10:14 AM (GBXon)

549 Further, no one could have won. The Lehman collapse sealed it.

Absolutely, now that the economy is banging on all 8 cylinders our only hope is the most moderate candidate we can find.

Posted by: Heorot at June 29, 2011 10:14 AM (Nq/UF)

550 Posted by: tangonine at June 29, 2011 03:05 PM (x3YFz)

Shitbags?

Wrong. It's called a target rich environment. And you are the target.

Just lie back and try to enjoy it, because it ain't stopping.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at June 29, 2011 10:15 AM (LH6ir)

551 Dennis Prager covered this years ago.

Posted by: Chuckit at June 29, 2011 10:15 AM (LUDtq)

552 Meanwhile, as we're all freaking out about the nomination and which shit sandwich we're gonna get, the Democrat party is eyeing House and Senate seats.

To be honest, I think Obama is probably going to be re-elected because most people are just plain stupid.  I think we need to also be thinking about the Senate, because even if the Jackass in Chief is given another four years, a Republican-controlled House AND Senate can put the brakes on his bullshit in a hurry - and with a big enough margin, maybe even override a veto on repealing Obamacare. 

I'm gonna vote for any Republican shit sandwich (other than Ron Paul) anyway.  If my primary vote matters, I'll worry about it when the time comes.  But beyond that, the Senate needs attention.

Posted by: Beth at June 29, 2011 10:15 AM (5NfIh)

553 This can't end well.

I'm out before I do any more damage.

Posted by: tangonine at June 29, 2011 10:16 AM (x3YFz)

554 "Weak form anti-credentialism" as you describe it is not "anti-credentialism," because it does not reject credentials. It is simply the pragmatic observation that refuses to make an assumption and pre-judge the outcome of a candidate/policy/affiliation. It is the ability to make this kind of dry observation that is required to the political process for a responsible citizenry. The "strong form anti-credentialism" on the other hand is an idealistic reactionary assumption. As such it skips the observation process which is so essential. Akin to its polar opposite "pro-credentialism", any kind of "anti-credentialism" is a lazy, irresponsible, and an emotionally motivated. It is a pre-mature relinquishment of trust (i.e. representative power in elected officials) that is not based on real observation but on the taste of the Kool Aid being sold. I think for the purposes of the practical, and not theoretical benefits of answering your question Ace, finding a forumla broadly applicable to the public and/or popular opinion regarding elected officials is a faulty way to approach the issue. What you are looking for is a hypothesis...proof.. (if...then...) type of statement. The reason that works in sciences is because of redundancy and consistency. People have free will which renders predicating the "then" part vastly inconsistent. This is why in a democracy the citizenry must stay engaged and not get lazy and this is where the Era of Liberal Enlightenment came up with the only three "non-varying factors of human life" that are shared by human beings: Life, Liberty, Property. When you reduce the pro/anti-credentialism debate to these three factors, then if someone is screwing you over on any of the them it doesn't matter if they are qualified or not to do so. It matters that you have foresight to analyze them before letting entrusting them authority, and patience to stay engaged in the process to kick them out of the position of authority if they dont. Its like with financial efficiency. You shouldn't work for money, you should let money work for you. You shouldn't be a piece of the puzzle to someone's career (credentialled or non-credentialled). You should make him/her work for you. Sorry for the long winded response. I rarely post, but this issue is something I am passionate about.

Posted by: igor at June 29, 2011 10:16 AM (RlqY7)

555

@tangerineniner:

Lighten up, Francis.

Posted by: Lewis at June 29, 2011 10:16 AM (Y3uPw)

556 Posted by: Cherry π at June 29, 2011 03:13 PM (OhYCU)

Oh, I'm not worried about ace, I'm just piling on to tangoline!

Tinglenine?

Tinglemine?

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at June 29, 2011 10:17 AM (LH6ir)

557 If you can't take a joke AOSHQ is not for you.Seriously,chill out.

Posted by: steevysixniner at June 29, 2011 10:17 AM (QslGJ)

558 I never stick around for the end of these threads.  This is mildly amusing and reminds me of high school.  Or junior high.

Posted by: Cherry π at June 29, 2011 10:18 AM (OhYCU)

559 For a long time I thought progressoverpeace was like "progressivsmoverpease" or something.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 02:57 PM (nj1bB)


Just don't call me "late for dinner".


My grandfather's favorite line ... he was a great man.  A real mensch.

Posted by: progresoverpeace at June 29, 2011 10:18 AM (G/MYk)

560 666 is near

Posted by: Cherry π at June 29, 2011 10:19 AM (OhYCU)

561 Posted by: Cherry π at June 29, 2011 03:18 PM (OhYCU)

Just wait. Soon there will be diaper emptying and poop flinging.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at June 29, 2011 10:19 AM (LH6ir)

562 ====Just don't call me "late for dinner".

can we call you "Shirley"?

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at June 29, 2011 10:20 AM (OXWdU)

563 #561:  Don't you mean sierrasierrasierra?

Posted by: Beth at June 29, 2011 10:20 AM (5NfIh)

564 Had to actually work for a while..........did I miss anything?

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at June 29, 2011 10:20 AM (OWjjx)

565 561 Yep,the twelfth imam is climbing out of his well.

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 10:20 AM (QslGJ)

566

All right, you kids play nice, I have to go.

This was kind of a nice warm up for the evening.  I've having dinner with the campaign staff here in my state for one of the above mentioned candidates.  There's a couple hour ride ahead of me to get there and I'll see if I can't sort out all that was said here this afternoon.

Remember, play nice.

Posted by: 57 states at June 29, 2011 10:23 AM (sMgrb)

567 I will just reiterate......this is all irrelevant.........Alan Keyes is the man!

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at June 29, 2011 10:24 AM (OWjjx)

568 Great flame war, guys. The real debate, Ace's POS lead-in notwithstanding, is: Do we have to water down our message to win? And, if so: how much? I could tell you the answer, but then you wouldn't learn anything.

Posted by: Zombie Ronald Reagan at June 29, 2011 02:53 PM (bZ8J6)

You would think that the answer would be obvious from the example of Ronald Reagan.  However, that would put political campaign consultants out of business because the focus would be taken off triangulation and tailoring one's positions and put back onto making a strong -- forceful, even -- case for conservative principles in a manner that isn't off-putting.

Posted by: stuiec at June 29, 2011 10:24 AM (1beh4)

569

I don't think it's credentialism purely.  The problem is, what is the credential of these "elites"?  It's being a politician or being a bureaucrat.  We all know there's nothing special about either one of those things.  Neither one represents solid achievement or even good character.

Let's consider other forms of credentials.  I have a professional designation which tells anyone in my business that I spent several years studying what we do and that I am just chock-full of knowledge.  I also have an occupational license required for my business.  Although everyone recognizes that the license is handy to have, no one particularly respects me for having it.

The only credential a politican has is being able to get people to like him enough to vote for him.  A bureaucrat doesn't even have that.  Yet these people think they are in charge of us.  That's what the problem is:  these people aren't virtuous enough to tell me how to live, yet they keep trying.

There's something deeply wrong about being a professional politician or a professional bureaucrat and to have no other ambition.  I don't think that's got to do with credentials; I think it's what used to be the American spirit.

Posted by: Tonestaple at June 29, 2011 10:25 AM (WwKgy)

570

See, that's an appeal to credentials: "I was right about Christine O'Donnell, so you can be sure I am right about all political candidates and races."

Posted by: stuiec at June 29, 2011 03:11 PM (1beh4)

Actually, that's an appeal to experience.  Regardless of his credentials, he got the correct result.  Hence, he can make an appeal to trust him again.

"Ideology is all that matters" is absurd -- but so is "Electability is all that matters."

Both sides seem to have climbed into their towers and are firing arrows (or bolts for Malamutt) at each other.  I hate it when the Pres refers to "false dichotomies" that he himself creates, but that's what often seems to happen here.

Posted by: Where're my ping pong balls? at June 29, 2011 10:25 AM (XIXhw)

571 Damn you ace you've italicized us!!!!!

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 10:27 AM (QslGJ)

572 Oh,it's gone.

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 10:27 AM (QslGJ)

573 Sorry stuiec (stewey sea?); my italics on your two quotes got disappeared.

Posted by: Where're my ping pong balls? at June 29, 2011 10:27 AM (XIXhw)

574 >>>And face it, you can bring up Nevada and Delaware, fine. I can match that with Scozzafava and Crist. Motherfucker (and I mean that in a friendly way), motherfucker, I supported both Hoffman and Rubio. This is what you guys don't get. You keep putting all your chips on these goofball candidates, and then some other chips on good candidates, and you say "Well I won on the good candidates." (In hoffman's case, he iddn't win, but that was the right call) You seem to overlook the fact that SOME of us look at both conservative chops AND electablility and have all of the "good calls" to our credit and none of the bad ones.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 10:29 AM (nj1bB)

575 Ace, you ignorant slut, you miss the point. As an educated anti-credentialist, I see it the other way. It's a reaction to the overexclusionary smugness of the credentialed class, the smug, "Joe the plumber doesn't even have a [non-existent] plumber's license," or "sure, Palin's been governor and stuff, but she went to a weak college after bouncing around for a while." That is, the credentialed assholes have made their alleged superior credentials as a shield to any accountability for their idiocy and failed policies while using it as a shield to prevent hoi polloi from objecting thereto or to rise to power. It's as if some kid with high SAT scores and good grades in high school is fast tracked into an unaccountable, unassailable, unchangeable path to superman by getting into a good school. So, it's not our problem, it's their problem. They can't be like Olbermann standing there debating us by pointing to their degree from Cornell Ag school.

Posted by: joeindc44 at June 29, 2011 10:32 AM (QxSug)

576 My big bad call was Joe Miller, but you don't have me on that, because you supported Miller too. A non-call I made was Rand Paul. But I didn't get upset over it, because i figured he'd probably win, so if that's what you want, fine. You want to pretend we're "even" in that some of these you won, and some of these I won. Noo.... not really. I supported all the Tea Party winners. So no, it's not "you won some, and I won some." It's I won almost all of them because I'm not sitting here like a dope saying "ideology is all that matters" over and over again. I'm looking at other stuff. Like the beauty pageant aspect. Like Neutral Qualifications. Like partisan advantage in the state. And you could get these right too if you'd only open your eyes and stop insisting "ideology is all that matters."

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 10:32 AM (nj1bB)

577 And face it, you can bring up Nevada and Delaware, fine.  I can match that with Scozzafava and Crist.  We may need to work together, but if you think the problem is solely with the Tea Party, then I assure you that you have gravely misunderstood why the Tea Party even exists.  And so long as you place the onus of compromise solely on that one party, whilst giving the other a pass on 'pragmatic grounds', then I humbly submit the situation will not improve--except to guarantee even worse trouble next time...

Posted by: AoSHQ's *second* worst commenter, DarkLord© at June 29, 2011 03:14 PM (GBXon)

Don't forget Mike Lee in Utah.

And don't forget Lincoln Chaffee in Rhode Island: sometimes the "electable Republican" isn't.

And don't forget Jim Jeffords in Vermont: sometimes the "electable Republican" decides that, having won election, he's really a Democrat.

And don't forget that in Nevada, as in California, the unions were bound and determined to make damn sure that the Democrat won the Senate seat - by any means necessary.

Posted by: stuiec at June 29, 2011 10:33 AM (1beh4)

578 whoa 576 posts? did someone mention v e r a b a k e r ? (couldn't resist).

Posted by: joeindc44 at June 29, 2011 10:33 AM (QxSug)

579 Wait?

Did I miss the cock-measuring event again?

Damnit! I hate I miss that!

Posted by: Clueless at June 29, 2011 10:35 AM (piMMO)

580 557 Posted by: Cherry π at June 29, 2011 03:13 PM (OhYCU)

Oh, I'm not worried about ace, I'm just piling on to tangoline!

Tinglenine?

Tinglemine?

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at June 29, 2011 03:17 PM (LH6ir)

seriously? 

Dude.  You've adopted, as your on-line name, the figure of a cartoon character being anally raped with a dildo.  You have some SERIOUS issues.

If your uncle Charlie visited you in the dark of night, then you need to call 911 and report him to child services.

I'm sorry you were abused, and I'm not offended that you lashed out: it's understandable.  Seek help.  We'll pray for you.

Posted by: tangonine at June 29, 2011 10:35 AM (x3YFz)

581 580 I still have my tape measure.

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 10:36 AM (QslGJ)

582 Ace, you've completely misunderstood the point.  Where as you (rightly) give O'Donnell and Angle as bad ideas from the TP camp, Scozzy and Crist stand as shining examples of similarly bad decision making from the Establishment.  (I'm not even going to go into Scott Brown.  So much there...on both sides of the debate.  And probably not even germane to this discussion, regardless.)

Folks are worried about candidates who 'can win' but 'won't help.'  Screaming at us for wanting a little more fight and principle in our candidates doesn't help.

And please, quit with the 'you guys.'  I'm not looking for doctrinaire candidates, just candidates that won't screw me once elected.  That's not a big thing, I would think.

Posted by: AoSHQ's *second* worst commenter, DarkLord© at June 29, 2011 10:36 AM (GBXon)

583 >>>540 Ahh but don't you see your condecension,everyone that disagrees with you is simply emotion based.Don't you see how you rub people the wrong way with lines like that?

You know, I see where you're coming from with that argument.  I don't think I really AM dismissing solid intellectual points being made in favor of Palin or Bachmann, but it's definitely possible that I am.  And I've really made an effort to scale back the heat in my own posts about Palin recently because I realized that it wasn't helping anything to get all shouty and ranty myself.  So point taken -- I can see how it rubs some folks the wrong way, how it appears insufferable and condescending, and that's on me.  Sorry. (Let's bump fists in the hockey line!)

My point, however, is this: what I mean when I call the arguments I'm hearing in favor of Bachmann or Palin 'emotion-based' is that they seem to be made in the absence of (indeed, with the active dismissal of) practical considerations of qualifications for President.  I see folks reacting to Bachmann along the lines of "I love what she says, she seems like good people, hell yeah!" without any of the skepticism I normally expect to see from us here in the base.  People are really angry right now about Obama and the direction the country's going -- I get that.  What I don't get is why (at least in my perception) people are letting that anger take control to the point where they're no longer critically investigating a candidate like Bachmann.  A candidate who comes to them, tells them *everything* it just so happens they want to hear, but has no accomplishments or record to back up their rhetoric. 

It's easy for Bachmann to pander to exactly what she thinks her audiences want to hear -- she's a Congresswoman without any executive or governing responsibilities from an overwhelmingly safe GOP district.  She doesn't have to worry about doing anything except pitching herself directly at folks like you.  And moreover, she has exactly zero achievements to her name in Congress (or even in the MN state house -- she used to be a state rep) that would make anyone think she has the wherewithal or grasp of legislative complexities to actually deliver on her base-pleasing rhetoric should she actually be elected. 

And FURTHERMORE, on the negative side of the ledger, Bachmann has a huge number of major red flags that we would be jumping all over were she pretty much anyone else (including, I suspect, a man).  1.) A history of downright nutty, intemperate and/or shockingly ignorant public statements. (I'm going to say this again: you people think I'm tough on Palin, but for all her flaws Palin essentially seems to have her head screwed on straight, and her various public errors are much more understandable as everyday gaffes -- meanwhile Bachmann says indefensible or flat-out wrong shit and then just digs in and keeps digging.)  2.) A complete inability to demonstrate substantive accomplishments or ever decent constituent service for the people who elected her. 3.) A well-known sub rosa (but increasingly coming to MSM attention) history of personal dysfunction, involving dereliction of her official duties, an inability to handle the responsibilities to her party, a notoriously poor relationship with EVERYONE who has ever worked for her in nearly any capacity  4.) a history of privileging her own personal political gain over the actual advancement of the conservative principles she purports to stand for. 

These are real problems.  They aren't invented media smears.  They aren't even 'insubstantial' things on the level of the Palins' goofy quasi-tabloid issues (i.e. Bristol and Levi, the reality show, etc.).  They are problems that go directly to her fitness for office, her ability to run a successful campaign in a general election, and her ability to effectively discharge her duties should she take office, and advance the conservative agenda.  These are, in other words, actual disqualifying issues.

So I don't understand why people who are going all-in for Bachmann right now are so cavalier about her lack of qualifications, and so unwilling to credit any of the actual real negative problems she has as being all.  All I hear is, as Ace keeps repeating, "I don't care.  I want the True Conservative."

And that's without even delving into the problems I have with the way a lot of these same people keep dismissing other possible candidates like Pawlenty or Perry on grounds that seem, at best, to be knee-jerk irrationalism: "if the media says they're electable/if they seem to be nice and friendly/if they happen to share the same state as Bush & Rove...then they're not Really Conservatives."  Strikes me as a similarly emotion-based reaction: "I don't like those guys because people who I KNOW I don't like seem to think they're sort of acceptable. So I smell a trap!"

That's what I mean when I say that a lot of the arguments I see for people like Bachmann (and Palin) come from an emotional, angry place rather than a reasoned one.  I don't see anyone saying "gee, Michele Bachmann would be a great President because she's a solid conservative with a record of accomplishments that makes me feel confident that she'd be the one to help us navigate the incredibly tangled and difficult fiscal and foreign-policy issues facing America."  I don't see that, frankly, because she doesn't actually HAVE a record. 

What I do see is "I like Bachmann because she says the right things."  But it's EASY to say the right things, particularly when you don't have to worry about governing or making tough decisions or running in an ideologically mixed district (and running a nationwide campaign is the essence of running in a 'mixed district,' so it matters).  I see a lot of "I like Bachmann because she has a great family, and she's one of us."  But that's identity politics: basing your support for someone not on what they've done, but how they look or where they come from.  We're conservatives, we should be violently opposed to that sort of reasoning of principle.

Anyway, that's where I'm coming from.  TL;DNR, I know.

Posted by: Jeff B. at June 29, 2011 10:38 AM (hIWe1)

584 You keep putting all your chips on these goofball candidates

We love goofballs. That's why we're here.

Posted by: Cherry π at June 29, 2011 10:39 AM (OhYCU)

585 Can we all at least agree that "your gonna lose your mind in Detroit,rock city"?

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 10:42 AM (QslGJ)

586 I'm not sure what the point is about who backed whom.  Is it who was the best at placing bets on electability?  or who stuck the most to conservative principles in his/her predictions? 

In any event, it may have been good to oust Bennett, but I think the jury is still out on whether or not Mike Lee is going to be a good (as in effective) Senator.  He hasn't impressed me so far. 

Posted by: Y-not at June 29, 2011 10:42 AM (TFxd0)

587

What I do see is "I like Bachmann because she says the right things."  But it's EASY to say the right things, particularly when you don't have to worry about governing or making tough decisions or running in an ideologically mixed district (and running a nationwide campaign is the essence of running in a 'mixed district,' so it matters).  I see a lot of "I like Bachmann because she has a great family, and she's one of us."  But that's identity politics: basing your support for someone not on what they've done, but how they look or where they come from.  We're conservatives, we should be violently opposed to that sort of reasoning of principle.

In defense of Bachmann (a limited defense) she does not come from a lock down Republican district, she is constantly at the top of the Democratic hit list and has proven she has an ability to win in a district that is not heavily tilted to the GOP.

 

I do not reside in that district. My hunch is she is probably really good at helping her constituents. Or her staff isÂ….which would be a reflection on her.

 

Is she my first choice? Nope. But in the end, I really donÂ’t care. Bachmann, Perry, Palin, T-Paw, etc. I will vote/work for whatever Republican is nominated. Except, maybe, Ron Paul. But I have a hunch that I will never have to face that choice.  

 

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at June 29, 2011 10:43 AM (OWjjx)

588

Tangonine, not only do you take yourself far too seriously, but you seem to take other posters' comments far too seriously as well.

You may find that life's a lot more fun once you remove that giant stick from your butt.

Your mileage may vary, of course.

Posted by: Lewis at June 29, 2011 10:44 AM (Y3uPw)

589 There are no perfect candidates. There are no perfect voters. Everyone will disappoint you at some time. To quote Churchill "the best argument against Democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter"

Posted by: Alabaster Jones at June 29, 2011 10:44 AM (GIeoW)

590 But I have a hunch that I will never have to face that choice. 
-----
I hear LauraW has a hunch, too.  ;-)

Posted by: Y-not at June 29, 2011 10:44 AM (TFxd0)

591 And you could get these right too if you'd only open your eyes and stop insisting "ideology is all that matters."

Nope. Wrong. All you need to do is run a candidate who is a solid conservative and espouses solid conservative views, irrespective of where they are runningÂ…and they will win. History shows this to be true. Well, at least the history we havenÂ’t flushed out the archives.

 

Now, here is some messages from Gold Line and Life Alert!

Posted by: Stuff I hear on Conservative Talk Radio at June 29, 2011 10:45 AM (OWjjx)

592 Let's use a marriage analogy.

You've found this girl that loves you and she looks pretty good to boot.  But her family is not rich or anything.

You go to ace for advice with an honest question, seeking answers.

ace suggests you marry your 3rd cousin that was arranged for you by your family.  She has money and you will get a great job at her Dads law firm.

/ hehe

Posted by: Cherry π at June 29, 2011 10:46 AM (OhYCU)

593 583 Ace, you've completely misunderstood the point.  Where as you (rightly) give O'Donnell and Angle as bad ideas from the TP camp, Scozzy and Crist stand as shining examples of similarly bad decision making from the Establishment.

I'm pretty sure ace supported neither of those.  Which I think is his point, optimal wins come from the side that is neither establishment nor anti-establishment, but rather focused on winning with the best candidates. Throw in what's her face from AK too.

That said, part of me thinks were boned no matter what and I don't want someone with an R by their name holding the bag.  In some ways, after a total collapse I think the conservatives would need to do a lot less compromising.  I have a kid though so that way is pretty frightening to me.

Posted by: Where're my ping pong balls? at June 29, 2011 10:46 AM (XIXhw)

594 Posted by: Lewis at June 29, 2011 03:44 PM

Please stop poking tangonine. He promised to egress an hour ago, but the thread has been largely taken up with the pissing match since then. 

Posted by: Y-not at June 29, 2011 10:46 AM (TFxd0)

595 Posted by: joeindc44 at June 29, 2011 03:32 PM (QxSug)
I hold a similar view.  In a rational world, credentials would have meaning, e.g., experience in high office with a record of success should mean that some level of demonstrated performance exists.  But we are no longer in a rational world as even words cannot mean what we think they mean because they are redefined by the observers/elites, (tax cuts is still the "term of art" in discussions about taxation  even though they represent no changes to a tax code that has been in existence for a decade or so).  And thus, the credentialed have warped the language to say that credentials themselves are the necessary AND sufficient condition for competence, and that actual competence at anything is an insufficient condition for high office.
Apparently we have decided that our betters are really better because they went to Harvard (or insert other meaningless Ivy League college name here) and we don't attack them on their demonstrated non-performance and incompetence that is obvious from their public record (at least that part they have not yet been able to out under lock and key) and their credentials which could easily be exposed as meaningless.

Posted by: Hrothgar at June 29, 2011 10:46 AM (GmKdo)

596 And you could get these right too if you'd only open your eyes and stop insisting "ideology is all that matters."

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 03:32 PM (nj1bB)

You keep throwing out that accusation, but it doesn't apply -- except in the inverse, in that the people you're accusing are saying that "a candidate who's not just weak on the ideology but is out-and-out WRONG on the ideology is not worth electing."

The expression "Blue-Dog Democrat" was an attempt to distinguish centrist Democrats from the well-known "Yellow-Dog Democrats."  "Yellow-Dog Democrat" is a Texas expression for someone who is so committed to the Democrat Party that he'd vote for a yellow dog as long as it was on the Democrat ticket.

The irony is that advocating for electing Mike Castle is a form of "yellow-dog Republicanism": overlooking all of his defects in the name of keeping the seat in the GOP column.  As Jim Jeffords proved, sometimes the reward for that is watching the yellow dog switch sides.

It would have been great to have had a better challenger to Castle in the primary -- but the decision not to swallow Castle as the nominee is completely defensible, or at least as defensible as those Republicans who refused to swallow O'Donnell as their candidate and voted for the Democrat instead.

Posted by: stuiec at June 29, 2011 10:48 AM (1beh4)

597

<i>Posted by: Y-not at June 29, 2011 03:46 PM (TFxd0) </i>

You are correct.

Sorry about that.

But now, I gotta make my own exit stage right.  For reals.

Posted by: Lewis at June 29, 2011 10:52 AM (Y3uPw)

598 >>>Don't forget Mike Lee in Utah. >>>And don't forget Lincoln Chaffee in Rhode Island: sometimes the "electable Republican" isn't. >>>And don't forget Jim Jeffords in Vermont: sometimes the "electable Republican" decides that, having won election, he's really a Democrat. Wait, I supported the RINOs here? Hm, that's odd. I don't remember that. I seem to remember supporting Lee almost as soon as I heard there was a serious challenge to Bennett.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 10:54 AM (nj1bB)

599 I'm pretty sure ace supported neither of those.

So?  At what point did I say he did?  I didn't.  I know he didn't, I'm a crappy poster, not a crappy reader.  My point had nothing to do with candidates he supported.  Zip, zilch, zero.

Posted by: AoSHQ's *second* worst commenter, DarkLord© at June 29, 2011 10:54 AM (GBXon)

600 I think you're looking at this wrong Ace. I look at it more as who is best able to pick a cabinet that will help him/her make the right decision. I'd like my candidate to have experience in making decision but also someone who knows how to hire people that better the front end. No one individual knows best, i.e. Obama. I look at Bush and look at the who he picked to run his administration. Granted, mistakes were made, but for the most part, I trusted that Administration to make a well reasoned, informed decision.

Posted by: mastour at June 29, 2011 10:56 AM (efrly)

601 589

Tangonine, not only do you take yourself far too seriously, but you seem to take other posters' comments far too seriously as well.

You may find that life's a lot more fun once you remove that giant stick from your butt.

Your mileage may vary, of course.

Posted by: Lewis at June 29, 2011 03:44 PM (Y3uPw)

I take life deadly seriously.  I take myself deadly seriously.  I have no sense of humor.  I'm not funny.

My life is just fine.  But thanks for your advice.

Posted by: tangonine at June 29, 2011 10:58 AM (x3YFz)

602 >>>It would have been great to have had a better challenger to Castle in the primary -- but the decision not to swallow Castle as the nominee is completely defensible, or at least as defensible as those Republicans who refused to swallow O'Donnell as their candidate and voted for the Democrat instead. "BLAH BLAH BLAH I CAN'T HEAR YOU" is not really a terrific rebuttal. I told you she couldn't win; she couldn't win. But let's continue trusting your very sketchy political prognostication abilities, and your discredited algorithms for determining electable candidates. And while you're talking about voting for people who just have an R next to their name -- I'm a little sick of the brand-name shoppers who will embrace anyone with "TP" next to their name. How about we stop being imbeciles and looking only at labels and start looking at shit that matters as far as winning elections? As my track record shows, I am plenty willing -- eager, actually -- to support a TP candidate. But not EVERY TP candidate. Not the ones who will surely lose and therefore SET US BACK and lose the country for us. I want the best candidate who is broadly acceptable to the R's and the TPers and also, sure, to the independents (where necessary; not necessary at all in R+10 states, but necessary in a general national election). Again, I say now: Those of you who are determined to pick a candidate with limited appeal to people outside the TP and the Conservative Wing of the Republican Party will reap the whirlwind. Just as you reaped it before.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 10:59 AM (nj1bB)

603 Let me caveat that with I understand we're looking at people going for the top job. I would suggest we look at who they put in positions of authority in their administration to judge their abilities to function at the top level. I don't want a theorist in the position of power.

We've lost sight over the years that running for office and serving the public good was suppose to be a temporary position. I'd love to see us get back to that.

Posted by: mastour at June 29, 2011 11:00 AM (efrly)

604 602 589

Tangonine, not only do you take yourself far too seriously, but you seem to take other posters' comments far too seriously as well.

You may find that life's a lot more fun once you remove that giant stick from your butt.

Your mileage may vary, of course.

Posted by: Lewis at June 29, 2011 03:44 PM (Y3uPw)

I take life deadly seriously.  I take myself deadly seriously.  I have no sense of humor.  I'm not funny.

My life is just fine.  But thanks for your advice.

Posted by: tangonine at June 29, 2011 03:58 PM (x3YFz)

oh. and if I ever do pull that stick out of my ass, I'll find you, first, and you won't like the way in which I present it to you.

Posted by: tangonine at June 29, 2011 11:00 AM (x3YFz)

605 Thanks, Hrothgar! Indeed, let's look at the performance of the credentialed class, does that include Ward Churchill or that idiot black guy who got arrested for pulling a do you know who I am to Boston cops? Indeed, what has Cornell West done except pose? Also, there's BS artists like Larry Summers who applies his credentials as an excuse to rubberstamp anything Obama (who was a front for Pelosi, Pelosi being a front for Soros) came up with. The academy is incestuous and ignorant. Also, what happened to that Professor who gave the child of a GOP congressional candidate an F in his nuclear engineering degree out of spite?

Posted by: joeindc44 at June 29, 2011 11:00 AM (QxSug)

606 And I'm tired of this idea that if "The Public re-elects Obama, it's on them, and the country has nothing left to be saved!" No, if you put up a candidate the public will not embrace and you do so without caring that the public will not embrace that candidate, that's on YOU, too. And I'm not willing to give up on the country over a snit like this. You all know the profile of people who tend to win elections. Stop with the endless "we have to tear the rulebook up!!!111!!eleventy!!!1!" bullshit. The rulebook may be amended but it has not been rendered obsolete.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 11:03 AM (nj1bB)

607 vox populi, vox dei this has not changed. When it does change, we will no longer have a democracy.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 11:07 AM (nj1bB)

608 605 602 589

Tangonine, not only do you take yourself far too seriously, but you seem to take other posters' comments far too seriously as well.

You may find that life's a lot more fun once you remove that giant stick from your butt.

Your mileage may vary, of course.

Posted by: Lewis at June 29, 2011 03:44 PM (Y3uPw)

I take life deadly seriously.  I take myself deadly seriously.  I have no sense of humor.  I'm not funny.

My life is just fine.  But thanks for your advice.

Posted by: tangonine at June 29, 2011 03:58 PM (x3YFz)

oh. and if I ever do pull that stick out of my ass, I'll find you, first, and you won't like the way in which I present it to you.

Posted by: tangonine at June 29, 2011 04:00 PM (x3YFz)

...and that whole internet tough guy thing never does solve anything, so I'm sorry I threatened you with the poop-covered stick in my ass.

It was small of me to even suggest it.  I humbly ask your forgiveness.  I'm better than that.

No.  Seriously.  it was a stupid comment.  I would like to think that I'm better than that.

Posted by: tangonine at June 29, 2011 11:07 AM (x3YFz)

609 Depends on the credentials. If your credentials are demonstrated competency in an actual job with measurable results, then hell yes it's valid and important.

If your credentials are meaningless academic accolades and fellowships from a corrupted system, then it's at best unimportant and possibly does count against you.

Posted by: Trimegistus at June 29, 2011 11:10 AM (COthu)

610 The stick thing is hard to do over the Interwebs anyway.  Unless you tweet something.

Posted by: Cherry π at June 29, 2011 11:10 AM (OhYCU)

611 "he profile of people who tend to win elections. " oh my, I think this thread on anti-credentialism devolved into another Christine O'Donnell piece in 600 posts. Look, the left will attack the credentials, smarts, education, military service, morality, marriage, looks, sobriety, and humanity of ANY CANDIDATE we nominate. The only people we should support are those that refuse to play along because I think McCain was happy to play along until it became apparent that he was no longer first among equals in the press's eye (e.g., a convenient but fun tool to use as a mallet against Bush). COD was stranded by the GOP. Even our flakiest candidates are better than their mainstream candidates because every DNC candidate is a closet commie. Once the left got into power, they spent EVERYTHING. But we, as conservatives, seem to like giving the power to kill us to the media. So, credentials? So, what? Just another tool to use against conservatives.

Posted by: joeindc44 at June 29, 2011 11:11 AM (QxSug)

612 My answer. At one time the essential credentials were, at least to the extent that the public thought of them, equal opportunity credentials. Where in fact college degrees, and elected positions within state and local governments, were thought of to be open to anyone who had real ability, drive, and persuasive arguments. Now with the exception of owning your own business, almost all the big ticket items on the list, College degree in a relevent humanitarian study, elected office, party standing, law degree, are all seen to be a closed game that accepts only a political class conformer with only one point of view, that more government is in fact better. That is how the beltway insiders think, almost all of them anyway. So unless someone has been particularly outspoken against that premise in their career to present, the logical mindful person would conclude that by having the punch list complete that they in fact worked into the political class, meaning that at least behind closed doors and within university halls, they were affirming the power structures viewpoints on the role of government. One that we popularly as a conservative movement reject. And so proof of qualification by these traditional credentials is also proof (barring conclusive evidence to the contrary) that the individual is of a mindset at odds with my (our) ideological goals. So proof of qualification also becomes prima facie evidence of non-qualification.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 29, 2011 11:12 AM (0q2P7)

Posted by: andycanuck at June 29, 2011 11:12 AM (vtqbC)

614 >>>o, credentials? So, what? Just another tool to use against conservatives. Right, because we don't have anyone with credentials.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 11:14 AM (nj1bB)

615 >>>COD was stranded by the GOP. Even our flakiest candidates are better than their mainstream candidates because every DNC candidate is a closet commie. Once the left got into power, they spent EVERYTHING. But we, as conservatives, seem to like giving the power to kill us to the media. You know, I don't mind when people are wrong. I'm wrong all the time. Where I start to hate people is where they cannot admit they were wrong, but have to concoct farcical theories to explain how they were really right all along. Whatever, joe. You made the right damn call with COD and she only lost because the RINOs "abandoned" her and you should just keep on keepin' on with this line of mistaken thinking, because, remember, a man who ever reevaluates his choices, even once, is NOT A MAN AT ALL. Real men never re-examine their decisions. Because stubborness and a refusal to engage in thoughtful re-examnation is a feminine, "liberal" trait.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 11:16 AM (nj1bB)

616 Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 29, 2011 04:12 PM (0q2P7)
Look at nearly every current entrenched establishment Repub politician and ask if you can believe that they have never "gone along to get along (and get ahead)".  Their qualification of holding high office is indeed almost an automatic disqualifier for holding office as a representer of the people.


Absolute credentials absolutely lead to corrupt credentials!

Posted by: Hrothgar at June 29, 2011 11:22 AM (GmKdo)

617 611 The stick thing is hard to do over the Interwebs anyway.  Unless you tweet something.

Posted by: Cherry π at June 29, 2011 04:10 PM (OhYCU)

No twitter account.  No facebook account. 

I'm a loose cannon.  Or, let me rephrase and say I'm a total asshole to anyone that pisses me off.  However, I'm smart enough to know when I've lost my mind, twitter/facebook are not the place for people like me.

You've seen how much trouble I got into here in just one thread.  I wouldn't unleash me on FB.  Good Lord, it'd take a year to clean up 1 afternoon of my madness.

Posted by: tangonine at June 29, 2011 11:25 AM (x3YFz)

618 Hey, IIRC Castle pretty much dissed COD, along with other insiders, *after the primary* and we saw how credentialed the Widmer law students were when they did their oh so educated snickering about COD's statement regarding the first amendment. But chill, I am not a 80 year old Japanese soldier living on an island in the pacific keeping the faith in the great war of COD, 60 years after the cease fire. My point's always been to maintain adherence to the 11th commandment and to apply that to the next election. Any candidate that feels the need to join the smug-train and join in with the MSM's attacks on another GOP candidate should be (as was done with Newt (and as probably should be done with Bachman)) cut off.

Posted by: joeindc44 at June 29, 2011 11:26 AM (QxSug)

619 --And I'm tired of this idea that if "The Public re-elects Obama, it's on them, and the country has nothing left to be saved!"

You might be tired of it, but that doesn't make it untrue or illogical.  Electing Obama would be a clear sign that America is gone.  He would be totally out-of-control in a second term and what people have seen of his idiocy, lying, anti-Americanism ... should be more than enough to let everyone know that a vote for him in 2012 will not be one of ignorance but of intent.  Intent to destroy America.

--No, if you put up a candidate the public will not embrace and you do so without caring that the public will not embrace that candidate, that's on YOU, too.

Against a normal candidate, this might be true.  Against Obama, this argumetn doesn't hold water.

--And I'm not willing to give up on the country over a snit like this.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 04:03 PM (nj1bB)

You don't have to give up on the country.  But, if Obama gets re-elected, I would bet that you will have some serious rethinking on your hands - no matter who was running against him.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at June 29, 2011 11:27 AM (G/MYk)

620 Guys, quit sockpuppeting Tangonline.  Just leave him alone.  Tanglename bowed out from this thread two hours ago but you morons keep pretending to be Tonguelennon and posting these as shat remarks.  Tingonads deserves better than that.  Just stop.

Posted by: Tan Glenheim at June 29, 2011 11:28 AM (epBek)

621 611 The stick thing is hard to do over the Interwebs anyway.  Unless you tweet something.
Stick-pics? LOL!

Posted by: Tan Glenheim at June 29, 2011 11:30 AM (epBek)

622

Any candidate that feels the need to join the smug-train and join in with the MSM's attacks on another GOP candidate should be (as was done with Newt (and as probably should be done with Bachman)) cut off.

 

Depends on the attack, seriously.  If Newt had been lambasting Ryan's plan from the right, that would have been diffferent.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at June 29, 2011 11:33 AM (epBek)

623 I guess the other thing that ace is getting riled up about on this thread is nominating credentialed guys. Cool. do it. I suppose I missed the opportunity to say that maybe Delaware could have come up with some other candidates that were less, ah, objectionable. It sucks that we were hurt in Colorado, California, and Washington by COD and by whoever it was who lost to Reid in Nevada. But, it sure felt like the MSM put the spotlight on the weaker nominees to paint the whole field.

Posted by: joeindc44 at June 29, 2011 11:34 AM (QxSug)

624 I think that Ace is making a valid point (although not necessarily a pleasant one) that says basically picking winning political candidates is a non-trivial task.  The easy (and ideological) way to pick candidates is to go with the one that presents best (good sound bites etc.), but it is not a given that this will result in a winning candidate.  And if they don't win, they do not contribute to turning the country around.
I don't know what the solution is. But I hope we can figure it out while we still have a recognizable country because I sure don't want us to use our last time on the field on a Hail Mary pass.
The key criteria seem to me to be a conservative philosophical track record, a demonstrated ability to disagree with the party establishment on meaningful issues (and Juan McCain's record is a perfect example of an inability to do this), and an ability to speak to people as an individual.  This is an incomplete list, and no candidate will get a 100% score on anything, but once we get a candidate, we better all coalesce quickly into a por-conservative anti-Democrat team and attack  our Socialist /Marxist fellow countrymen on the issues constantly. 

Posted by: Hrothgar at June 29, 2011 11:37 AM (GmKdo)

625 621 Guys, quit sockpuppeting Tangonline.  Just leave him alone.  Tanglename bowed out from this thread two hours ago but you morons keep pretending to be Tonguelennon and posting these as shat remarks.  Tingonads deserves better than that.  Just stop.

Posted by: Tan Glenheim at June 29, 2011 04:28 PM (epBek)

nice effort.  Worth noting is your play on the tangonine nic.  You mashed some keys and did your best.  Not really sarcastic enough, though, and the line you took really didn't hold up.

I'll give it a 6 out of 10.

This is not to say you shouldn't keep trying.  practice, practice, practice!

Posted by: tangonine at June 29, 2011 11:48 AM (x3YFz)

626

Ace does have a point that COD was probably unelectable no matter what support she received from the GOP.  She was a long shot from the start.

 

However, even though we donÂ’t have that seat, isnÂ’t it nice to have votes that are strictly party line on our side?  No one for MSNBC to bring on as the “reasonable” republican.  No NY Times claiming a “bipartisan vote” for some stupid amendment that one RINO went with the democrats on.

Posted by: jwest at June 29, 2011 11:55 AM (qeYI9)

627 621 Guys, quit sockpuppeting Tangonline.  Just leave him alone.  Tanglename bowed out from this thread two hours ago but you morons keep pretending to be Tonguelennon and posting these as shat remarks.  Tingonads deserves better than that.  Just stop.

Posted by: Tan Glenheim at June 29, 2011 04:28 PM (epBek)

LOL, I think that's funny!

Posted by: Bill Maher at June 29, 2011 11:59 AM (XIXhw)

628 The stick thing is hard to do over the Interwebs anyway.  Unless you tweet something.

Posted by: Cherry π at June 29, 2011 04:10 PM (OhYCU)

Goddammit!  There goes my sure-fire plan to get rich selling Poop-On-A-Stick by e-delivery!

Posted by: stuiec at June 29, 2011 12:28 PM (ZPwZl)

629

Ace,

Apply the same train of logic to modern journalism versus bloggers - the former sneers at the latter for a lack of formal training, while the latter laughs at the so-called professionals - who seem to always get it wrong.

The GOP has always had a merit based versus emotional argument going on just below the surface. The democrats don't because everything they do is emotional. Ergo, while it appears the GOP is struggling, in the end they usually get it right (2008 being an exception).

 

 

Posted by: Murph at June 29, 2011 12:32 PM (Tiq9D)

630 I consider Strong-Form Anti-Credentialism to be a blight not only upon our party and our base, but upon humanity itself.  We need to just go ahead and call it what it is: anti-intellectualism. Before anyone starts (or maybe you guys have already, I haven't read 600+ comments), intellectualism =/= elitism.

Posted by: Vyceroy at June 29, 2011 12:33 PM (hLtWZ)

631 There's no way this thread makes it to 666. I'm gonna go play checkers.

Posted by: Lucifer, the Checkers Master at June 29, 2011 12:38 PM (YYaIP)

632 How about we stop being imbeciles and looking only at labels and start looking at shit that matters as far as winning elections?

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 03:59 PM (nj1bB)

Remember, if you behave as if the only thing that matters is winning an election, you may be sorely disappointed in your candidate when he or she ends up winning, because you may find that candidate's governing agenda is directly antithetical to yours.

Posted by: stuiec at June 29, 2011 12:42 PM (ZPwZl)

633 We really do get it, Ace.  You're not voting for Palin.

Posted by: MarkD at June 29, 2011 12:44 PM (6CLxP)

634

i don't despise Romney because he has a basket full of lovely credentials, I don't believe his credentials automatically make him suspect, I despise him because of what he has done and not done as a politician, i don't hate the establishment GOP because they are establishment, i hate them because they have proven over and over again that they can not be trusted.

believe it or not i am not a total reactionary, it's what they do and don't do that counts, it's the only thing that counts.

Romney, Pawlenty and Huntsmen have proven who they are by their own words and actions.

and Palin, Bachmann, Cain have proven who they are by their own words and actions.

i know who is who and i make my choices accordingly.

 

Posted by: Shoey at June 29, 2011 12:46 PM (jdOk/)

635 I think a lot of you are conflating different issues here.  Ace's question was narrowly tailored, I think, to get at the specific issue he raised.  He's not really talking about RINOs / moderates etc.  I think he's trying to get at why people would prefer Bachmann or Palin over someone like Pawlenty or Perry.  I think he gets the impression, and I do too, that their experience actually counts against them, that because they've been in government longer, people are more critical or hypersensitive to any perceived flaws, while Bachmann or Palin get more of a pass since neither of them have a great deal of governmental executive experience.

I don't want to put words in Ace's mouth.  But I don't think he is at all advocating that ideology doesn't matter.  He is trying to understand a perspective about credentialism and experience, and whether that actually raises the bar of scrutiny on a candidate rather than give them more credibility.

Posted by: Matt from CO at June 29, 2011 01:26 PM (I771D)

636 We need to find a Frodo to take down the Federal leviathan. Gandalf, Aragorn, Elrond, Galadriel, and everyone else with the right credentials will succumb to the will to power. Most politicians have already made their accomodation with the existing power structure and are unwilling to do anything except fiddle around at the margins.

Posted by: Jacob Asplund at June 29, 2011 01:29 PM (m2AqP)

637 um, is that what he was asking, Palin the unprepared, unelite versus prepared, elite Romney? Well, I wonder if there are those on our side who are all, populisted up and prefer some home spun wisdom over some college boy's fancy words. But. There's another side, the what's wrong with Kansas crowd asking why us republicans are so anti-intellectual, not being bowled over by the DNC's imaginary (as in, they imagine they're so educated) degrees. Do we hate smart people? No, we hate people hiding behind worthless degrees.

Posted by: joeindc44 at June 29, 2011 01:31 PM (QxSug)

638 637 We need to find a Frodo to take down the Federal leviathan. Gandalf, Aragorn, Elrond, Galadriel, and everyone else with the right credentials will succumb to the will to power. Most politicians have already made their accomodation with the existing power structure and are unwilling to do anything except fiddle around at the margins.

Posted by: Jacob Asplund at June 29, 2011 06:29 PM (m2AqP)

So Jacob says, yes.  Credentials are bad.  We need someone unexperienced.

Joeindc44 says, no.  The problem is not credentials.  The problem is lack of character and integrity, which cannot be overcome by some credentials.

OK.  This is the difference between Ace's weak form (joeindc44) and his strong form (Jacob Asplund).  This is just what Ace is trying to figure out, I think.

Posted by: Matt from CO at June 29, 2011 01:35 PM (I771D)

639 There are a couple of applications of credentialism in the modern age, one is the "You should believe me because of X credential", the other is "That person is fit/unfit for that job because of X credential".

The first has come about because certain scientists have decided that their specialty society political organization (American Meterology Society, for example) is an insufficient stage for their own awesomeness and they need to get into big-boy politics so the rest of us can enjoy their awesomeness.  Therefore, we get climate scientists who tell us based on computer models that we are all essentially dead already unless we listen to them and change everything about us in a way that would make Ed Begley look like a technophile.  This has been the case in the various social sciences and in a few physical sciences for so long that most conservatives tend to blow off anything that fits the filters of Everything We Knew Was Wrong and We Have To Change Everything Now.  We know that if we wait a couple of years most everything we knew will turn out to be not so wrong, and as is our philosophic bent, we believe that whatever plan to change everything will not have been well thought-out and will be a veritable thicket of unintended consequences that are usually worse than the problem that we Have To Solve.  From this point, credentials are often suspect because "Wolf!" has been cried so often in our presence by the credentialed, and, well, we're still present.  The currency of the scientific dispassionate observer has been well and truly devalued.

The other issue of credentialing is in the political realm, and usually the discussion revolves around fitness for the Presidency.  This is a false argument IMO because there is no resume that prepares you for the modern imperial presidency.  One person cannot possibly amass enough experience and knowledge to have any possible effect on the actions of our bloated and intrusive government through the force of their intellect.  It may have been possible under the original framework laid out in the Constitution, but given that the President is in essence CEO of a worldwide company with $4 trillion in annual revenue and several million employees, there's not a chance in hell that the President actually knows more than anyone who works there about much of anything.  The President is not going  to walk into any Department of the government and blow them away with a novel idea that helps them do their jobs better.

This is not a failing of the current President, it's that the scope of the job stretches from Agriculture to Zoology (in the EPA) and there's no sense pretending that we are going to find someone who is that much of a polymath, or several orders of magnitude more intelligent than the rest of us.  The only weapons a president can bring to bear are temperament, a worldview and some people skills in assessing other world leaders.  These are the criteria I judge candidates on, because there ultimately is nothing else.  The best we can hope for is for them to be consistent in their worldview, and honest about what their worldview actually is (and this is a failing of the current President, IMO).  There simply are no credentials you can present me that will get you to the front of the line because there is nobody who is qualified for the job of President, there are just people who can get it.

If we whittle the Federal Government down to the size it was when Thomas Jefferson was President, then maybe a polymath like TJ could make a difference and we would have an intelligence test to determine who is President.  As it is, and as it will be, intelligence (real or perceived) or experience in terms of prior jobs are far less important than temperament, worldview and caginess/street smarts.


Posted by: Darren at June 29, 2011 01:38 PM (hRoUw)

640 We need to find a Frodo to take down the Federal leviathan. Gandalf, Aragorn, Elrond, Galadriel, and everyone else with the right credentials will succumb to the will to power.

Uh...so did Frodo.  If Gollum hadn't bitten his finger off to get the Ring, accidentally falling into the volcano in the process, the quest would have failed.

Sadly, this only makes the metaphor more apt...

Posted by: AoSHQ's DarkLord© at June 29, 2011 01:38 PM (Fs7RJ)

641 We need to find a Frodo to take down the Federal leviathan. Gandalf, Aragorn, Elrond, Galadriel, and everyone else with the right credentials will succumb to the will to power.

Uh...so did Frodo.  If Gollum hadn't bitten his finger off to get the Ring, accidentally falling into the volcano in the process, the quest would have failed.

Sadly, this only makes the metaphor more apt...

Posted by: AoSHQ's DarkLord© at June 29, 2011 06:38 PM (Fs7RJ)

That would be an argument for term limits I think.  Get em out before they get corrupted.

Posted by: Matt from CO at June 29, 2011 01:41 PM (I771D)

642 The only credentials I would value would be those a judge could develop by consistently holding the government accountable to the people and the Constitution.

Posted by: Jacob Asplund at June 29, 2011 01:45 PM (m2AqP)

643 Thanks Matt, that's a good way to clear up my thoughts. Yes, I'd go with weak form of the matter. I mean, of course, if there were some conservative with degrees from Harvard and Yale, I wouldn't piss on those credentials. In fact, getting those degrees from institutions that have poisoned their own intellectual, ah, how you say, curiosity with partisan posturing would seem to me as an accomplishment. Now, say if there were a conservative candidate with the Harvard and Yale degrees, like a BS and a MBA, and that candidate had good experience as a governor and said the right things, then boom. Good to go. If there were a conservative candidate with good experience and or ideas or adherence to good ideas, but no gold plated degree, again, good to go. But will I take someone's word for it, if they're pissing on my leg and telling me it's raining because they have a fancy degree. no. Imagine there's a lib with a fancy harvard law degree with no experience in the real world or in academia, where trumped up adjunct work is further trumped up into dun dun dunnnnnn, constitutional scholar? Um...not buying it. That doesn't make me anti-credential, I just know those credentials are cooked. So, to circle all over my circle, there may be strong form out there among a certain populist set, which I reject, but hey, that's America. If there's a weak form which seems to me to say, hey credentials are fallible since they attach themselves to fallible people, then um, what's the big deal? I think the credential I am looking for, in the end, is good governing experience, resisting the temptations to cash in and crap on fellow conservatives, and an actual intellectual understanding of conservatism. In fact, I would agree with Hitchens who in his typical pissiness said that W illustrated that anyone could run america in that I would say that "an actual intellectual understanding of conservatism" would be more important than the other two issues. Ace would throw in electibility there, so fine, if you are "an actual intellectual understanding of conservatism," without the rest of the resume, then you'd better be charming and dashing and able to get middle america to cotton up to you.

Posted by: joeindc44 at June 29, 2011 02:05 PM (QxSug)

644


We need to just go ahead and call it what it is: anti-intellectualism.

Before anyone starts (or maybe you guys have already, I haven't read 600+ comments), intellectualism =/= elitism.

 

That may be so, but anti-credentialism is not anti-intellectualism either. To propose that traditional forms of credentialing, as I have argued, have become in inarguable corrupting influence themselves, is not to say you don't want learned candidates, or smart ones, just ones who haven't been fed a steady diet of "rule by the philosopher kings" their entire adult life. Go get a Poli/Sci degree that the Prof's don't lean left so far that they need a cane to walk. Go get a law degree where evolution of written law as interperated by the bench is not doctrine for legal understanding. How many prestigious Universities are left that are by and large conservative, that also do not bear the name "Academy" or "Military" or both?

It's not that I don't want credentials to give me some indication of competence, and the intellectual ability to understand the complex issues of today, I'm just having a hard time comming up with said credentials which don't strongly imply a belief that running the Citizenry's life is indeed what is better for them. If you all have some suggestions, other than "Served as a Military Officer" or "Owned successful business X" then I'm all ears. But all those pedigrees that are held up by candidates that have been the hallmark of civilian leadership for years are also likely the reason that the best we can seem to do is socialist, and diet socialist when it comes to actual law and policy.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 29, 2011 02:12 PM (0q2P7)

645 So I guess that makes me strong form. If you hold up one of those nifty degrees from all of those best schools, or your career has been politics for more than 4 years, I want proof you're NOT an elitist. Because likely you are.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 29, 2011 02:16 PM (0q2P7)

646 So I don't think the right example to test Ace's question is Romney.  I think it's Pawlenty.  I think that it's fairly easy to make the case that Romney is an unprincipled flip-flopper who cares mostly about power, and no amount of government experience can overcome that.  I think Ace is more concerned about someone like Pawlenty, who seems to have pretty good conservative credentials (not perfect, but pretty good) and has executive experience.  The main advantage that someone like Bachmann has over Pawlenty, as far as I can see, is what Bachmann says, not anything that Bachmann has done.  Pawlenty has actually delivered results in the very messy world of politics.  It appears, though, that this fact, in the minds of some, actually counts against Pawlenty instead of for him as it should.

Posted by: Matt from CO at June 29, 2011 02:19 PM (I771D)

647 I think the academy is messed up, so credentials are again at issue and so is intellectualism because intellectualism is now "I agree with everything everyone else says about how awful the wrong kind of americans are." You can't flunk out of the Ivy League and the lower leagues are also handing out degrees like bubblegum, very very expensive bubblegum. So, with a devaluing of the currency, where else do you look? And why is this anti-intellectual or anti-elite? So, T-paw v Bachman? Heard T-paw on rush, thought he sounded like da bomb. Do It. Bachman's attack on Palin is now a dealbreaker, so case closed. I was a Romney guy until it has become apparent that he isn't the guy who intellectually understands conservatism by embracing global warming. But, he is Don Draper looking, and chicks dig that, and it is comforting to have a guy who looks presidential be president, so there is that. But I'm not shopping for electibility like Ace is.

Posted by: joeindc44 at June 29, 2011 02:29 PM (QxSug)

648 Interesting take, M.t.Moose. I suppose I would temper it by saying, anyone with those, ahem, credentials, better be the type of person saying, "I am not an armchair totalitarian, I want less power, not more," and back it up.

Posted by: joeindc44 at June 29, 2011 02:31 PM (QxSug)

649

Pawlenty has actually delivered results

And exactly what were those results? And where and on what did he compromise conservative ideals to get them? What real opposition did he have to meet? Scott Walker drum circles? SEIU thugs? ACORN community agitators? Soros Brand Astroturf? DNC Advertising Media blitz? MFM hit jobs? If T-Paw is going to do what is needed for this nation, he has to face all of that. He needs not only to be someone who can "deliver results" but also fight harsh unprincipled opposition to whom any method is on the table. And he hasn't got the nads to stand up and call out his opponents in a primary? And he wants me to campion him for the political fight of the age?

 

O BTW nice Ethanol mandate. I guess we rubes can't be trusted to select a fuel for our cars.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 29, 2011 02:35 PM (0q2P7)

650

But, he is Don Draper Bruce Campbell looking, and chicks dig that

 

FIFY

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 29, 2011 02:37 PM (0q2P7)

651 Strong form only works for credentials of specific spin, charm and flavor. For example, service in a state government like NY's, riddled with debt, corruption, avarice and failure at every level, is a less valid credential than service in a state government that manages a higher level of professional competency. This applies across party lines, so it is not a simple matter of positive and negative polarity. A Wisconsin public service credential, or Texan, for a Republcan, is more impressive than a GOP credential from NY or MA.

Posted by: richard mcenroe at June 29, 2011 03:13 PM (Iqx1J)

652 >>>...and that whole internet tough guy thing never does solve anything, so I'm sorry I threatened you with the poop-covered stick in my ass. It was small of me to even suggest it. I humbly ask your forgiveness. I'm better than that. No. Seriously. it was a stupid comment. I would like to think that I'm better than that. Posted by: tangonine at June 29, 2011 04:07 PM (x3YFz) No problem. Good for you, sir!

Posted by: Lewis at June 29, 2011 03:36 PM (6TClq)

653

An interesting and well written post. Thanks for sharing. As commented above, " Search for  swf to video converter _ PDF Converter for mac | PDf to image | pdf converter | flv converter

Posted by: rennee at June 29, 2011 04:32 PM (/YK+e)

654 I haven't read the comments so I suspect this has already been said in various forms, but here's my input on the questions.

At this time in our history, it is the safest assumption to hold that any person who has been raised up in the program is fully compromised by the program.

A person can not continually win elections and hold office is he's not completely willing and able to game the program. This tends to mean that no person of either honor or integrity can survive multiple election bids. The person who can win multiple election bids does so only because they stand for nothing, their word means nothing. Their only real capability is to say the right things at the right time, smile or frown on que, strike convenient poses for appropriate audiences and have no intention of holding to any of it once elected.

There's an old saying that's proven true over and over again. "No man can rise above city level politics and keep his own soul." In some cities, even city level politics makes that impossible.

The best man or woman for an elected office rarely ever wins. And when they do, it's an accidental fluke. The best player of the game wins. Winning, therefore, indicates a capacity to play the game, rather than an ability to do the job.

There are exceptions, but those tend to occur only after the voters in a particular district become so angry at previous players and the wrecks they cause that the voters start playing closer than usual attention to who's saying what, where and when and whatever real measurable track records are pulled up and used against what's being said by those in the game. Such rages tend to settle too quickly for any real corrective accomplishments to be gained by "clearing house" because political house clearing takes many election cycles and never reaches down to the powers behind the players the public is allowed to see on TV.

Posted by: Grimmy at June 29, 2011 05:53 PM (uUsh9)

655 Late to the party, but I'd like to offer a third option: Mainstream credentials create a rebuttable presumption of incompetence.

Posted by: mrobvious at June 29, 2011 06:47 PM (G7Jng)

656 I would say that the importance varies with the job. It's great that your electrician is well qualified, because that connotes an expertise in the field that the person without such bona fides may well not have. In a field like politics, though, where experience is often a negative (think of how people change once inside the beltway, for example), and where learning the ins-and-outs of the job is less important than taking the right positions on important issues, experience means almost nothing. I don't care if the candidate has ever held public office in his life. I don't care if he's run huge corporations or not. I care if he seems capable of holding firm in his opinions and learning the basic necessities of his job, most of which can be learned by any chinchilla with only a minor learning disability. As for Supreme Court Justice, I'd like someone who seems versed enough in the Constitution to understand where his arguments are rooted, and who can make credible arguments backing his positions. Beyond that, I don't care if he's a former judge, former lawyer or former stripper.

Posted by: Just A Guy at June 29, 2011 07:13 PM (mWFwD)

657

IOW, what Grimmy said.

Posted by: mrobvious at June 29, 2011 07:45 PM (G7Jng)

658 633 How about we stop being imbeciles and looking only at labels and start looking at shit that matters as far as winning elections?

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 03:59 PM (nj1bB)

Remember, if you behave as if the only thing that matters is winning an election, you may be sorely disappointed in your candidate when he or she ends up winning, because you may find that candidate's governing agenda is directly antithetical to yours.

Posted by: stuiec at June 29, 2011 05:42 PM (ZPwZl)


And who tells us who can or can not win the election? The media.

We've allowed the media to pick our horse in this race for far too long.

Remember, please. The cultural destructionists don't usually gain their ground in perverting our nation into an abomination of mixed European filthosophies from the late 19th and early 20th centuries in fell swoops. Nope.

They gain ground every round by the same constant erosion as water flowing through a gorge. The constant compromise. ALL compromise with the left ends up with more ground gained by the left. The Big Lie, when it doesn't win the fight outright, forever skews the discussion of whatever issue the Big Lie was aimed at. Any ground lost to compromise is rarely ever gained back. And when there is recovery of lost ground, it's nearly always in conjunction with other ground lost in other compromises so that, in the final accounting of a particular conflict, the victory can only ever be pyrrhric.

Posted by: Grimmy at June 30, 2011 04:49 AM (uUsh9)

659 There are credentials and then there are credentials. A credential received for time served (e.g., high school diploma or college degree in pretty much anything other than a hard science or engineering) is just about worthless; a credential based on proven competency has value. For example, a degree in accounting means you stuck around for four years and sat in some classes; passing your CPA means you know something about accounting (whether you can meaningfully apply it is another story). We need more of the second kind of creds and less of the first.

Posted by: Raul Johnson at June 30, 2011 10:24 AM (MiBr0)

660 Oh, ye of little faith.

Posted by: Damien at June 30, 2011 01:24 PM (YYaIP)

661

You know my name, so look up the number.

-John Lennon

Posted by: Jugeared Bastard at June 30, 2011 01:26 PM (YYaIP)

662 But continue to reject the counsel of the "RINOs" and continue agitating for candidates for the purpose of only beating "RINOs" and etc.

Continue being strategically dumb, in the grand, solipsistic, narcissistic fallacy that strategic dumbness is moral virtue.

Once again, I am late to the party, no matter.  Ace, it's not a matter of rejecting the counsel of the 'RINOs" it's a matter of trust.  We know the RINOs despise us, we are used to it, all we want is the RINOs to make a promise and keep it. Can you really say that Boehner has kept any promise? Instead of keeping an important wing of his party happy he plays with Sir Golfsalot.  Really tells us where the Republican Party's heart is.

Posted by: Decaf at July 01, 2011 01:34 AM (XUoX3)

663

We morons aren't using our brains. We are unable to think logically because we don't agree with ace and Jeff B., etc. It's amazing I can tie my shoes in the morning.

"I don't care. I want the True Conservative."

Ace, Jeff B is a staffer and is using your blog.  If you know who he works for and are OK with that than you owe us that information.

Posted by: Decaf at July 01, 2011 01:41 AM (XUoX3)

664 Ace, haven't you noticed something rather interesting?  Up to almost 300 comments people are responding to your question and giving you candid answers and you engage in the debate.  Suddenly Jeff B shows up, insults half, maybe more, of your audience and you don't rebut his claims.  What can we conclude from this?

Posted by: Decaf at July 01, 2011 01:51 AM (XUoX3)

665

 #381  There are plenty of people, probably most around here, who appreciate that a win is better than a loss, and RINOs are unfortunately going to be a part of most wins.

Which means that we know on whose side the RINOs are/were?

Posted by: Decaf at July 01, 2011 01:54 AM (XUoX3)

666

#388 Remember, the brain is dirty and should not be trusted.

Only the emotions, the heart, matter.

Nothing of the sort, most of us who think we just know what the right answer is are not idiots, we simply do not hear our brain going through the motions of reasoning, we just hear the end result.  You are especially blessed in that you can document your brain's work and display it for all to see. 

Posted by: Decaf at July 01, 2011 02:01 AM (XUoX3)

667

#410 I think the folks who run down candidates because they went to Harvard are just as bad as people who run down candidates who dropped out of high school or college.  It's not helpful and I think it makes conservatives look defensive aan and dumb. 

OK, Y-not, so what are your criteria for an acceptable leader?

Posted by: Decaf at July 01, 2011 02:17 AM (XUoX3)

668

#422 I find it frustrating that I support hardcore pro-lifers like T-Paw or Perry and no one is willing to recognize that consensus takes a little give from everyone.

Ha, ha, ha, Ace.  Hardcore pro-lifers?  Yet the practical pro-lifer Palin is not really pro-life?  Funny that.

Posted by: Decaf at July 01, 2011 02:29 AM (XUoX3)

669

 #425 mpfs  Sometimes I just trust my gut instinct more than all that crap.

See #672

Posted by: Decaf at July 01, 2011 02:36 AM (XUoX3)

670

#439 There aren't any easy solutions it's going to be "resonsible pain" or "Mad Max pain".

Steevy, we already have the res

onsible pain so we must now look forward to the Mad Max kind. 

Posted by: Decaf at July 01, 2011 03:02 AM (XUoX3)

671

$440  WTF “tension” are you referring to? WhereÂ’s the line of demarcation, and on which side do you stand?

Beefy Meatballs, Ace is conducting a focus group execise.   OK?  Basically, at this stage he is just looking for an excuse to jump ship.  After two years of frequenting this blog I will be sad to see that happen.

Posted by: Decaf at July 01, 2011 03:10 AM (XUoX3)

672

#421 And, disclaimer, I'm not a "True Conservative" but more of a little-l libertarian type, actually.  I just get lumped in with conservatives because liberals have so little imagination.

And here is another one who thinks we have cooties.  Sad.

Posted by: Decaf at July 01, 2011 03:12 AM (XUoX3)

673

#434 If the GOP screws up by picking another person who is distatsteful to the base, you might well see a third party emerge, this time.  You have to factor that (if you believe it) into your calculations.

If that happens it really won't matter any more, it'll all be overf.

Posted by: Decaf at July 01, 2011 03:21 AM (XUoX3)

674

#448 I think I get where you're coming from, Ace.  But I also see how some of the True Believers get their panties in a twist, too.  Too much caffiene, probably.

Never touch the stuff.

Posted by: Decaf at July 01, 2011 03:33 AM (XUoX3)

675

It's terrible that I should demean you, when you merely suggest the difference between thee and I is that you "vote with the steel of your conscience" and I am just a dirty, devious RINO with a flexible conscience and a drive for mere political power and more DC cocktail parties.

It is terrible that I should do so, when I am offered such respect for my own opinions and beliefs.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 02:48 PM (nj1bB)

And you are and immediately followed by:

Jesus.  This from a commenter who regularly accuses *me* of being a butthurt pussy.
Posted by: Jeff B. at June 29, 2011 02:49 PM (hIWe1)

What shall we conclude?

Posted by: Decaf at July 01, 2011 03:46 AM (XUoX3)

676

Look, I told you Christine O'Donnell was a loser. You didn't listen. You thought I was "hustling" you, attempting to convince you to support a RINO based on made-up, invented grounds.

Yes, you told us and many others, just like Krauthammer and Rove told millions of others and then you all feel justified that she tanked.  Fancy that.

Posted by: Decaf at July 01, 2011 03:49 AM (XUoX3)

677  Those DC cocktail parties are pretty sweet, ace.

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at June 29, 2011 02:56 PM (OXWdU)

When Mr Bingley thinks you are about to jump, you are about to jump.  I lay the blame at JeffB's door simply because I don't like him, but it could be true just like any of his theories.

Posted by: Decaf at July 01, 2011 03:59 AM (XUoX3)

678

OT Odds that Lady GaGa insults the Pope when she performs in Rome??

Steevy, not odd at all.  She must insult the Pope to register as transgressive in Europe.

Posted by: Decaf at July 01, 2011 04:10 AM (XUoX3)

679

#575 You seem to overlook the fact that SOME of us look at both conservative chops AND electablility and have all of the "good calls" to our credit and none of the bad ones.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2011 03:29 PM (nj1bB)

And in 2012 we end up in the same place as in 2008.  How is that better when you can tell us who cannot win but cannot tell us who can?

Posted by: Decaf at July 01, 2011 04:23 AM (XUoX3)

680 #542  540 Ahh but don't you see your condecension,everyone that disagrees with you is simply emotion based.Don't you see how you rub people the wrong way with lines like that?

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2011 03:11 PM (QslGJ)

I've come to the conclusion that JeffB is not a sentient being.

Posted by: Decaf at July 01, 2011 04:35 AM (XUoX3)

681 #545 by simply posting that, it's obvious you were known as "that dumbass, over there."

I'd be happy to stretch DD-214s with you, but I know how much you disdain credentials, unless they're your own.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 29, 2011 03:11 PM (lbo6/)

I keep hearing about EOJ's prowess as a trollbuster and what do I see here but friendly fire.

Posted by: Decaf at July 01, 2011 04:39 AM (XUoX3)

682 Great post,I will read your post time to time.thank you!

Posted by: Jersey at July 02, 2011 12:29 AM (VpAvQ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
573kb generated in CPU 0.73, elapsed 2.0642 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.4782 seconds, 918 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.