Eugene asks about successful Professor-Politicians. Commenters add several he omitted, most notably Dick Armey. To the list we can also add former Mercer Law Prof Jim Marshall of Georgia and the late Paul Wellstone (oddly, if you type in a Google search for “Was Paul Wellstone ___,” Google suggests the word “murdered” instead of “a professor”).
For me it brings to mind the famous story about Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s challenge to incumbent James Buckely in the 1976 New York Senate race. Buckely at one point referred to Moynihan as “”Professor Moynihan from Harvard” to which Moynihan memorably replied, “the mudslinging has begun!”
But Eugene’s post suggests a larger point–I suspect that the real reason why there are so few successful professor-politicians is a matter of temperament. Academia is at root a job for introverts who like to sit in their offices and read and write. Politics is at root a job for extroverts who like meeting and working with other people. It is this same dichotomy that suggests why so few academics are interested in, or capable of, being a successful dean or administrator.
My impression is that this dichotomy may have grown in recent years. As professors generally have come to teach less and gain fewer rewards for student interaction, the self-selection for introverted personality types has grown. Meanwhile, the almost universal growth in administration in universities has led to more people pursuing those jobs as a permanent career and an earlier self-selection into those jobs, as naturally smart but less-introverted people move into administrative careers earlier. The extreme specialization of academia today, moreover, reinforces this divergence in the career path as administrators find it increasingly difficult to return to research after being away. In a more teaching-oriented world, I suspect that movement in and out of administration is probably easier.
My prediction would be that in years to come we will see more academic-politicians–but drawn increasingly from a class of professional university administrators that increasingly is coming to look more like corporate CEOs or politicians and less from the ranks of typical professors.
Note also that in recent years it seems that there are a larger number of politician-professors–a movement from politics to academia. One thinks of Tom Kean, Bob Kerrey, and Hank Brown, as examples of Senators who became university presidents. I suspect that has something to do with the nature of the job of a university president these days, which is much more of a CEO-type job of managing a large organization, and a glad-handing fund-raising job, rather than steward of the intellectual mission of the institution. I have my doubts as to whether that is a beneficial development overall, but it does seem to be the case.
As to Eugene’s query about the errors that might arise from professor-politicians, I think that he is likely being too kind to our colleagues in the academy. I think more likely is not that professors would overestimate articulateness and data, but rather that professors in general have very little patience for the minutiae of policy. As one who has worked in and with the government I am struck by how much detail work there is in the regulatory and legislative process, and that this is the truly hard work of the job. And work that I suspect that professors are ill-suited to tackle. I think this is what an academic might be tempted to refer to as “boring details,” but is the bread-and-butter of actual policymaking. I suspect that a government run by academics would look an awful lot like the Berkeley city council rather than an oasis of reason and data.
As for President Obama, I suspect that the issues that have arisen have less to do with the professorial aspect of his personality (however we choose to define that). Instead, I think that his performance thus far tends to confirm a concern that was raised when he was running–that he does not have an “executive” temperament, by which I mean the ability to act decisively and then move on. Of course, it is possible to have an overabundance of executive personality in terms of acting too decisively and being unable to reconsider a course of action–as arguably George W. Bush illustrates.
I suspect that is much of the appeal that Sarah Palin had in 2008 was that she was the only one in the race with executive experience and executive temperament. Like GWB, it seems likely that she probably has that in over-abundance. But voters, I suspect, look for an executive temperament in their Presidents, which is a main reason, I suspect, that Governors tend to become President rather than Senators. Palin’s popularity, I further suspect, is largely a manifestation of being compared to such a weak group when she arrived on the national scene (Obama, Biden, and McCain). Compared to a group of more plausible and qualified presidential candidates, especially those with executive experience, I doubt that she’d have gotten any traction. Compared to that particular group though, for those who consider executive decisiveness a valuable presidential attribute she provided a distinct contrast to the others. If she runs for President in 2012 and she gets matched up with others who have worn the mantle of executive decisionmaking but also have greater knowledge to back it up (Romney, Huckabee, Pawlenty, Barbour), her distinct appeal compared to the 2008 general election field will be less prominent.
Martinned says:
That sounds right to me.
February 11, 2010, 10:59 amNelson Lund says:
On the point in the third paragraph, I think I recall that Les Aspin made exactly that observation about himself.
February 11, 2010, 11:02 amRecovering Law Grad says:
The references to Palin’s “appeal” and “popularity” are frustrating because, as has been demonstrated over and over again, Sarah Palin is not actually “popular” at all. In fact, she is among the least popular politicians with any sort of national profile.
February 11, 2010, 11:03 amepluribus says:
Good observations. When I think of professors-turned-politicians, I think of Woodrow Wilson and his tendency to lecture Americans (and indeed the world). He lacked the ability to engage in the give and take necessary to successful politics. As a result, he failed to achieve his goal of ratification of the Versailles Treaty and American participation in the League of Nations. Obama seems different to me. I think of him more as the practictioner of the Socratic method. He asks Congress for their best ideas about healthcare, encourages debate, and thinks (or hopes) that they will come up witn the best answer. He is doing that now with the Republicans. He does not offer his own answers. He does not lecture. I am reminded of my Scoratic method law school classes. We struggled for the answers. Sometimes we got them. Sometimes we merely learned that it was darned hard to get answers. I say all of this as one who admires Obama and hopes that he succeeds but is beginning to entertain doubts about whether he will.
February 11, 2010, 11:07 amAF says:
I suspect that is much of the appeal that Sarah Palin had in 2008 was that she was the only one in the race with executive experience and executive temperament.
Then how do you explain McCain’s defeat of Romney, Huckabee, and Giuliani? And do you seriously believe that those candidates would have defeated Obama in 2008 — which is the clear implication of your argument?
February 11, 2010, 11:07 amepluribus says:
Palin was not in a race with Romney, Huckabee, and Giuliani. She stepped onto the national stage only after McCain had secured the presidential nomination.
February 11, 2010, 11:12 amMartinned says:
The use of the Socratic method would logically be based on the premise that politicians can learn. Can they? Does reason ever come into it?
(In my humble efforts at teaching students about political/international negotiating, we always teach them to resist the temptation to try to convince on the merits. The other guys at the table are just as stuck to their mandates as you are.)
February 11, 2010, 11:15 amepluribus says:
I would also observe that Romney, Huckabee, and Giuliani all had major flaws, despite their executive experience. McCain, a weak candidate in himself, emerged as the victor mainly because the others were all even weaker.
February 11, 2010, 11:15 amTom in Houston says:
I’m not sure how the last paragraph fits in with the overall thesis of this piece. Plus there’s the dissonance of inserting a discussion of Sarah Palin and George W. Bush into a discussion of professors. George Bush founded, and Sarah Palin took to another level, the scary concept that book-larnin’ is actually a bad thing. More scary still is that a large plurality of our society apparent believes this.
February 11, 2010, 11:17 amAF says:
Palin was not in a race with Romney, Huckabee, and Giuliani. She stepped onto the national stage only after McCain had secured the presidential nomination.
Right. But if (1) Palin looked good only relation to “weak” candidates such as McCain and Obama (2) would not be impressive in relation to “more plausible and qualified” candidates such as Romney and Huckabee, that implies that (3) “weak” candidate McCain shouldn’t have defeated “plausible and qualified” candidates Romney and Huckabee, and (4) “plausible and qualified” candidates Romney and Huckabee would have defeated “weak” candidate Obama.
February 11, 2010, 11:17 amAF says:
I would also observe that Romney, Huckabee, and Giuliani all had major flaws, despite their executive experience. McCain, a weak candidate in himself, emerged as the victor mainly because the others were all even weaker.
I assume you’d make the same argument about Richardson, Warner, and Vilsack on the Democratic side. The exceptions swallow the rule. Zywicki’s hypothesis that Palin’s popularity is due to executive temperament is inconsistent with all the available evidence.
February 11, 2010, 11:22 amDave N. says:
In the last 110 years, only three Presidents (Harding, Kennedy, and Obama) were elected out of the U.S. Senate. By comparison, since 1900, nine Presidents served as Governor of various states (McKinley, T. Roosevelt, Wilson, Coolidge, F.D. Roosevelt, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and G.W. Bush).
But those numbers are misleading, since Truman and LBJ spent much of their careers as U.S. Senators, Ford spent most of his career in the House, and neither Nixon nor G.H.W. Bush were ever elected to an executive office other than Vice President and then President.
But all that said, executive experience of some kind does seem like a better training ground for a President than being a United States Senator.
February 11, 2010, 11:23 amCDU says:
I think this really depends on what kind of professor you’re talking about. The above might apply to many professors: law, economics, some of the social sciences, even those in the hard sciences who’s work is more theoretical. On the other hand, for professors in the sciences, particularly those who do modeling or experimental work, most of their work is composed of “boring details”.
February 11, 2010, 11:29 amHouston Lawyer says:
People have never trusted academia. The term “ivory towers” is not a new one.
People like the idea of a proven executive serving as president. That was a large part of what propelled Ross Perot’s candidacy.
People also distrust those on the inside of government. Sarah Palin appealed to those people as well.
February 11, 2010, 11:36 amRecovering Law Grad says:
The major piece of evidence being that Palin IS NOT POPULAR.
February 11, 2010, 11:38 amFederal Farmer says:
I find it oddly amusing that the qualifications for being U.S. President are a lower hurdle than is needed to purchase a firearm in the U.S.
February 11, 2010, 11:51 amgboinker says:
Many professors seem to enjoy hearing themselves speak. Seems consistent with politicking to me.
February 11, 2010, 11:58 amMartinned says:
Are they? I didn’t realise every individual firearm purchase was up for a nationwide vote.
February 11, 2010, 11:59 amFederal Farmer says:
Sometimes you’d think that’s the case. But anyway, there is nothing in the Constitution that requires a nationwide vote for President. In fact, we’ve had a President that was never subjected to any vote other than to the US Senate for one state. But still, he was subject to the very few qualifications as outlined in the Constitution.
February 11, 2010, 12:01 pmgeokstr says:
Fixed that for you.
February 11, 2010, 12:02 pmMartinned says:
Just out of curiousity: which president are you thinking of?
February 11, 2010, 12:07 pmRecovering Law Grad says:
Geokstr –
You’re not acquainted with the facts. From the most recent WaPo poll on Palin:
Additionally:
This poll is not inconsitent with others. The fact is that, outside of the Tea Party movement, there’s very little sentiment in the country in support of Palin or of her becoming President.
February 11, 2010, 12:09 pmLance Cahill says:
Paul Douglas of the Cobb-Douglas Production Function is a noticeable omission.
February 11, 2010, 12:11 pmlgm says:
This is a Fox News meme. Do you have some examples of Obama indecisiveness? This is a pet peeve of mine — conservative columnists have a habit of including irrelevant unsupported side attacks in their writing.
February 11, 2010, 12:13 pmStrictly Speaking says:
Wasn’t David Boren another example of movement from the Senate to President of a major university?
February 11, 2010, 12:20 pmwm13 says:
Regarding Sarah Palin’s popularity, she is surely popular in the same sense that Ralph Nader or Jesse Jackson is popular, i.e., she has a large number of devoted fans who cheer her enthusiastically. That doesn’t mean that she is the one out 300 million Americans who will be elected president in 2012, although she surely has a better chance than anyone reading this comment.
Despite the raging of soi-disant intellectuals who wrongly think they are smarter than I, I really don’t recall either George Bush or Sarah Palin speaking out against “book learning.” At most, they may have suggested that, for anyone over 30, what you have done since you left school is more important than where you went to school or even your grades in school. I agree totally.
February 11, 2010, 12:30 pmFederal Farmer says:
Ford (#38). He was a US Senator that Nixon appointed to the Vice-Presidency following the resignation of Agnew. When Nixon resigned, Ford was sworn in as US President, having met all of the Constitutional qualifications yet never have faced a national vote.
February 11, 2010, 12:41 pmSeaDrive says:
Also, I believe, why more governors than senators have become president, at least in my lifetime.
February 11, 2010, 12:43 pmFederal Farmer says:
I was one of the 19% that voted for Perot the first time he ran. I did so as a protest vote, however, moreso than having any particular faith in Perot himself.
February 11, 2010, 12:45 pmMartinned says:
I assumed that was who you had in mind, but Ford came from the House. He was minority leader there from 1965 to 1973. To the best of my (and Wikipedia’s) knowledge, president Ford was never a senator.
February 11, 2010, 12:50 pmHarryEagar says:
How successful do examples have to be?
Bill Whitehurst represented Virginia in the House for about 30 years.
It wasn’t his professorship, as such, that go him elected but his (to my taste) idiotic TV commentaries that a local broadcaster let him deliver almost every evening.
February 11, 2010, 12:52 pmepluribus says:
Yes. Before he went to the Senate, he was governor of Oklahoma. He is now president of the University of Oklahoma.
February 11, 2010, 12:56 pmjfb2252 says:
An obscure politician-professor:
“At the helm of Christopher Newport University is President Paul S. Trible Jr., a former U.S. Senator from Virginia who was appointed to lead CNU on January 2, 1996. President Trible represented the Commonwealth of Virginia in the U.S. Senate from 1983 to 1989 and the U.S. House of Representatives from 1977 to 1983. Following his term in the Senate, Trible was a Teaching Fellow at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.” from http://www.cnu.edu
CNU is a state school in Newport News, VA
February 11, 2010, 12:58 pmepluribus says:
If we agree that executive experience is on the whole valuable in a presidential candidate, do we look at the quality of that experience? For example, Palin was governor of Alaska, but she resigned half-way through her first term. Does that experience still recommend her as a presidential candidate?
February 11, 2010, 12:59 pmFederal Farmer says:
I stand corrected. In my defense, I was born in 1965.
Then in fact he was elected by an even smaller minority of total national voters. My point still stands.
February 11, 2010, 1:06 pmLe Messurier says:
Other than the “Ivory Tower” comment above, commenters are, IMOP, missing the personality “flaw” that renders academics less than ideal administrators/policy makers and cabinet officers… academics are not pragmatic people. They tend to be savants, restricted to their area of knowledge and without the ability to translate that knowledge to the messy real world. I believe that is why Obama has been such a failure. His advisers and he have tried to bring radical academic theory to the real world in their misbegotten attempt to “change” America into their theoretical vision(s)
February 11, 2010, 1:07 pmHelen says:
Tom Kean was never a senator; he was governor of New Jersey.
February 11, 2010, 1:14 pmMartinned says:
Me: 1981.
Anyway, I’d say the procedure of the 25th amendment still provides more of a hurdle than anything someone looking to purchase a fire arm is faced with. (And while legitimacy-wise, you might argue for a supermajority vote instead of the ordinary vote currently required, I’d say a VP appointed that way still has all the legitimacy he needs.)
February 11, 2010, 1:16 pmMartinned says:
Ignoring, for now, the “radical” qualifier, I’d have to agree with the original post: Obama doesn’t strike me as that kind of an academic. (Or politician, for that matter.) What grand vision is he supposed to have? I’m not seeing any actual evidence of that. On the contrary, he seems like a Clinton-style pragmatist to me.
Like prof. Zywicki writes: it’s less about academics being stuck with grand theories. Academic work involves messing with the details all the time. The problem is that (we) academics do our details mostly on our own, behind their desks, with their books and internet access. That kind of job profile attracks exactly the kind of person who has the opposite personality traits from what you need to be a good politician. In short: an introvert.
Obama, on the other hand, is many things but not introverted. We’ll have to wait and see how he does.
February 11, 2010, 1:22 pmgeokstr says:
Irrelevant.
It tells us more about how despicable leftists can be as they filed every frivolous ethics complaint in the book in an attempt to bankrupt her. One of the “ethics” charges was even that she was trying to raise money to defend herself against these slime attacks. So apparently leftists believe that their opponents should just give up when they smear them.
Fat chance.
February 11, 2010, 1:26 pmFederal Farmer says:
Aside from Article 22 (term limited person) the only qualifications to be US President are:
“No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”
However, form 4473, which must be filled out prior to every purchase there are about a dozen qualifications only some of which legally apply to attaining the office of US President.
Of course, someone failing many of those might not be able to convince enough voters or persons in power to place them in the office, nonetheless they are not all legal disqualifiers.
February 11, 2010, 1:33 pmMartinned says:
@Federal Farmer: You forgot two further requirements: (following the Ford scenario) You have to have the support of 51 senators (60?) and 218 members of the House. Or (following the usual procedure): You have to have the support of 270 electoral college members.
AFAIK, you don’t need that many signatures to purchase a gun.
February 11, 2010, 1:46 pmepluribus says:
Got a thin skin on this one, don’t you? Any post that combines the words “despicable leftists,” “slime attacks,” and “smear” tells me that this is a real sore point. Are your telling me that Sarah from Alaska is the only governor in the last year who has had to answer slime attacks or smears? I am telling you that she is the only one in the last year who has resigned.
February 11, 2010, 1:49 pmFederal Farmer says:
There is at least one Governor that should have resigned but didn’t. Two now that I think about it.
At any rate, I think Palin resigning is more to her credit than not. She obviously knew she’d take flack for it, and certainly no one likes to resign, but did what was in the best interests of her constituency. She felt she couldn’t adequately fulfill her job whilst under the attack of hundreds of frivolous lawsuits.
February 11, 2010, 1:55 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
I suggest that Palin’s popularity (with her base, at least) rests not on her executive experience but on the fact that she gained it while opposing the political Establishment in Alaska. Palin isn’t politics-as-usual, while all her Republican rivals are: indeed, their greater executive experience simply makes them more so. Of course, that may not sell with a wider public but disillusionment with things as they are seems pretty widespread at this point.
February 11, 2010, 1:57 pmFederal Farmer says:
Ford did not need those signatures to be President. Nixon could have picked anyone off the street that met the slim qualifications required by Article 2 Section 1. That person would have been sworn in and been lawfully President regardless of the will of the American people or their elected representatives.
February 11, 2010, 1:58 pmElliot says:
I don’t think that’s an attitude either of them have. However, I suspect both reject the idea that academic achievement qualifies one to lead or decide what is best for others. Both would probably agree that kbowledge and experience are important, but both can be acquired both in and out of school.
Perhaps they have more respect for accomplishment than degrees.
February 11, 2010, 2:04 pmMartinned says:
Hardly, since the Democrats controlled Congress at the time. Quoting wiki (sorry…)
Anyway, just because the requirement is easy, in practice, doesn’t mean it is irrelevant. The requirements of your fire arm form can’t be that difficult, either. Certainly living ’till you’re 35 isn’t that hard.
February 11, 2010, 2:05 pmSmooth, like a Rhapsody says:
FTFY
February 11, 2010, 2:14 pmFederal Farmer says:
I think you are reading that wrong. He asked for advice, they gave him no other choice (meaning offered no other candidate) than Ford, but that does not mean he was compelled to select Ford.
At any rate, I freely acknowledge that actually becoming President is insanely more difficult than purchasing a firearm in the US, but I was quibbling over the legal requirements alone.
So is this where I’m supposed to say “Cheers”? >P-)
February 11, 2010, 2:16 pmDave N. says:
Um, no, that would be wrong.
Since President Obama took office, the Governors of Illinois (Blagojevich), Utah (Huntsman), Arizona (Napolitano), and Kansas (Sebelius) have all resigned in addition to Palin.
If you are going to snark, be factually accurate.
February 11, 2010, 2:22 pmMartinned says:
Indeed. I don’t think there was any misunderstanding or disagreement between us. The point simply amused me.
As for Palin c.s., I’d have to agree with Smooth, like a Rhapsody [???]. A good analogy is with Supreme Court clerks. Apparently, they make ridiculously more money once they go into private practice than other associates similarly situated. That isn’t because they know so much about Supreme Court practice. If the law firms want that, there are other people they can hire. Instead, firms likely see clerking experience as a good proxy for overall quality, making the hire much less of a gamble.
Similarly, academic achievement may not be valuable in itself, but it is a good proxy for making sure that the candidate isn’t – to stick with recent parlance – a retard, as well as for many other qualities that are desirable in a politician.
February 11, 2010, 2:26 pmFederal Farmer says:
In my own industry (software engineering) one’s college credentials are really only significant until one acquires practical experience.
February 11, 2010, 2:32 pmpmk says:
Executive temperament! Haha. Todd Zywicki wins the thread!
February 11, 2010, 2:36 pmepluribus says:
I stand corrected. I didn’t think it was snark, however. My statement was wrong.
February 11, 2010, 2:38 pmpmk says:
epluribus, didn’t you get the memo? Executive experience was only important till Palin
February 11, 2010, 2:39 pmfledresigned her post in the face of mounting allegations of corruption, impropriety et al. Starting July 3, 2009, being a mom/being a fox news contributor/ghostwriting a book/writing on palm etc. etc. have become the leading indicators of “executive temperament”.epluribus says:
BTW, Dave, if I was snarky, I apologize. I also apologize for not just being wrong but so spectacularly wrong.
February 11, 2010, 2:41 pmMartinned says:
I’d imagine. Then again, voters can’t evaluate a candidate’s practical experience quite as easily as a recruiter can, even if they’d want to. That’s why proxies (e.g. party affiliation) are extremely important.
February 11, 2010, 2:44 pmDave N. says:
epluribus,
I re-read your comment. You were not snarky. I apologize for implying you were. Consider the last sentence of my previous post stricken.
February 11, 2010, 2:44 pmepluribus says:
Thanks, Dave. I’ll take this as a lesson that I should think before posting, not post before thinking.
February 11, 2010, 2:49 pmDave N. says:
Something we should all take to heart. :)
February 11, 2010, 2:54 pmAlt_n says:
Either I am misunderstanding your post, or you misunderstand Section 2 of the 25th Amendment: “Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.”
Ford most certainly did need support of the House and the Senate to become Vice President. After Sprio Agnew resigned on October 10, 1973, Ford was nominated by Nixon on October 12. The Senate voted 92-3 to confirm the appointment on November 27, and the House voted 387-35 to confirm the appointment on December 6. Ford was sworn in as Vice President on December 6.
February 11, 2010, 3:36 pmepluribus says:
I’m not backing off my apology for wrongly stating that Sarah Palin is the only governor to have resigned in the past year–I was dead wrong on that, Dave corrected me, and did so graciously. However, I have checked the facts on Blagojevich, and it appears he did not resign. He was removed from office by the Illinois Senate after impeachment. This is admittedly a quibble. Napolitano, Sebelius, and Huntsman all resigned.
February 11, 2010, 4:51 pmDave N. says:
epluribus,
You are absolutely correct about Blago. I thought he had left voluntarily and didn’t doublecheck. Rather, he was rather rudely shown the door — and deservedly so after trying to auction Barack Obama’s Senate seat to the highest bidder.
February 11, 2010, 4:56 pmElliot says:
I would agree that both Palin and Bush reject the idea that intellectual curiosity qualifies someone to lead or decide what is best for others.
Is there some reason to think intellectual curiosity qualifies one to lead or decide what is best for others?
February 11, 2010, 7:33 pmButternut says:
Yes, Nixon could have picked anybody for his VP. Remember, however, the political environment at the time. Strom Thurmond (for example) was eminently viable but a hostile Congress would have raised holy hell about it with Nixon. They would have been hard pressed to find a substantive reason to reject him, however. Such fights turn political momentum in odd directions. The democrats were more interested in sharpening their knives for Watergate. Nixon was looking for political breathing room with an electorate starting to turn on him. He saw consensus with Congress being to his advantage at the time. All demurred the conflict and the affable Jerry breezed thru with the country showing the world a smooth transition.
February 11, 2010, 7:53 pmRicardo says:
Maybe, but then why do the people keep on electing insiders to become President? Ross Perot was the quintessential outsider, got a huge amount of publicity and still never had a serious chance at getting elected. Mike Bloomberg, another “outsider” (sure, he’s mayor of NYC but that’s a new gig for him), got the statistics PhDs who work for him to estimate whether he would be a viable candidate in 2008. The numbers did not come back looking good.
Sarah Palin herself is certainly no “outsider” anymore if she ever was one. She is and has been for a few years a darling of many key figures within the conservative movement. That’s why she was chosen to be McCain’s running mate in the first place.
February 11, 2010, 9:23 pmDave N. says:
Challenging the incumbent Governor in a primary is typically not a tactic used by “insiders.”
February 12, 2010, 12:39 amRicardo says:
Whereas hobnobbing with William Kristol, Rich Lowry and Robert Bork on the luxury conservative junket circuit back in 2007 just cements her grassroots, anti-establishment credentials. A woman of the people if ever there was one.
February 12, 2010, 1:48 amMark Field says:
If you have to ask….
February 12, 2010, 10:11 amDave N. says:
Any, you know, citations for your claim? I realize you hate Sarah Palin with every fiber of your being, but if you are going to make comments like that, citations would be nice.
February 12, 2010, 11:06 amMartinned says:
One clue: quoting the bible as if it was scripture is usually not a sign of intellectual curiosity.
February 12, 2010, 11:45 amElliot says:
Perhaps there is an intellectual here who can tell us what intellectual curiosity is and how we recognize it?
February 12, 2010, 7:34 pm