A Person Can Be To Intellectual to Be a Good POTUS


What would happen if some “dumb” woman from Alaska were to win the nomination and beat Obama in 2012?  Would the Dems be able to comprehend that someone they do not consider intellectual would be a Harvard educated attorney.

Michael Medved is the most rational conservative (100% Pure) Republican voice in the country today.  His most recent column about Barack Obama and the way the right is approaching him is one of the best takes I’ve seen.  Medved cautions the right to stop slamming Obama and go after him on the issues and not on his brain power and intellect.

Medved wrote:

‘…For Barack Obama, his brain power makes him dangerous but also creates a special vulnerability that his critics should exploit….Democrats regularly make the error of dismissing the intelligence of their rivals or misunderestimating the opposition, as George W, Bush described it. They wrote off Eisenhower as a senile, foolish, military careerist, while incessantly mocking Gerald Ford (despite a degree from Yale Law), Ronald Reagan (joking endlessly about his B-movies like Bedtime for Bonzo, and George W. Bush, suggesting that the president’s appalling stupidity made him almost subhuman). Currently flourishing websites still specialize in highlighting the similarities between the W. (also known as Chimpy McBush) and various apes.

None of these attacks did serious damage, because the American people understand the profound, all important difference between intelligence and smarts. Theyre indifferent to the former and deeply drawn to the latter. Woodrow Wilson, Jimmy Carter and Al Gore were all highly intelligent, but they werent at all smart. Truman, Reagan and Bush on the other hand may not count as intellectual, but they were indisputably smart. The public knows that some of our most revered presidents (George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Harry Truman) never attended college but handled the challenges of the presidency in a clever, sensible style…”

I came from a background where the pater was an anti-higher education snob.  He still has this theory that those who can do and those who can’t spent their lives in a university setting.   He is still quite proud of his common sense and street smarts.  My grandfather Froehlich graduated from the University of Maryland by the skin of his teeth.  He was the smartes, wisest, and most level-headed, practical person I have ever known.  He had to fight for his degree in Animal Husbandry. He was honest and honorable.  I can’t think of anyone who would have been a greater POTUS, but he was too busy making money.

Look at GWB.  I know, I sound like a broken record.  I think one day The Great Man will be considered one of our great Presidents.  Sure he has an MBA from Yale, but he also has good old Texas common sense.

I’ll take common sense any day of the week.

The other night The Pink Flamingo watched a NatGeo piece about George Washington.  One of the reasons we have our freedom today is not because of the vaulted writings of Thomas Jefferson or John Adams, but the good old farming common sense of George Washington.

There are Dems who aren’t all that bright, but – because they are Dems, they get a pass and get to push their crack-pot ideas on the whole world, and get away with it. Does the name “Al Gore” ring a bell? A higher education does not indicate common sense and grounding.  Take Ron Paul, please!


The Pink Flamingo does not have a problem with people who consider themselves “ideaologues”.  I have a tendency to be a bid idealogistic.  There is though, a difference in being rational and idealogistic and a blind idealogue. Jonah Goldberg has an interesting take on Obama.

“...Here, for instance, is New York Times columnist David Brooks, an Obama confidant and champion of Obama’s nonideological street cred, asserting that Obama is loyal only to facts, evidence and logic (a theme Obama echoed in his Q&A with the GOP). Obama, Brooks writes, “is beholden to no ideological camp, and there is no group in his political base that he has not angered at some point in his first year.”

If this gruel were any thinner, it would be water. Every president annoys his base. Are we therefore to believe that no president has ever been an ideologue? And how has Obama angered his base? Not by tacking to the center but by not going fast enough in pursuit of their shared goals.

As for Obama’s personal testimony, so what? Is this the one instance in American history when a politician’s self-serving statements are to be taken at face value? Besides, how many times have we heard from the left that right-wing ideologues are in denial about what “really” drives them (the answer, we’re frequently told: greed, racism, homophobia, etc.). Is denial only a conservative malady? Certainly not.

Of course Obama is an ideologue. The important question is whether he is sufficiently self-aware to recognize the truth.

I, for one, would be horrified to learn that the president is working from the assumption that ideological biases are something only other people have. That is the surest route to hubris and groupthink (which might explain Obama’s political predicament)….”