Palin and Book Banning: Here’s the original news story from Alaska that got Sarah Palin tagged as a book banner. I’ll let you read it and judge for yourself. Then I’ll just say that I agree with Roger, who is emphatically NOT a Palin supporter.
Palin Rumors: Charles Martin is keeping a list of Palin rumors and comments as to their truth or falsehood. The book-banning thing is numbers 40-42 on the list.
Michael Gerson on the Saddleback forum: “Obama was fluent, cool and cerebral — the qualities that made Adlai Stevenson interesting but did not make him president. Obama took care to point out that he had once been a professor at the University of Chicago, but that bit of biography was unnecessary. His whole manner smacks of chalkboards and campus ivy. Issues from stem cell research to the nature of evil are weighed, analyzed and explained instead of confronted.”
“His whole manner smacks of chalkboards and campus ivy. Issues from stem cell research to the nature of evil are weighed, analyzed and explained instead of confronted.”
I have to say that I find this type of language very derogatory. Why should “chalkboards and campus ivy” smack? What is wrong with weighing, analyzing, and explaining things? I certainly prefer that approach to confronting.
The majority of Americans go to college. Since when is being a Professor a bad thing?
Kelly,
I don’t think it is a bad thing to be a professsor. Mr. Gerson is pointing out that we haven’t tended historically to elect professor-types to be president. I’m not sure he’s right about that. Woodrow Wilson was a professor and president of Princeton.
However, I do think we’re more attracted to a “man of action” for president. Obama himself has said in the last few days that his answer about deciding when a baby gets human rights was inadequate. It’s not “above his pay grade.” Presidents are sworn to uphold the Constitution, and the COnstitution says that “no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” It’s fairly pertinent to know when a person becomes a person entitled to that protection. I think he didn’t answer because he’s afraid to answer the question and so he equivocates. No one asked him when a baby gets a soul or when a baby becomes a person perse. He was asked “at what point does a baby get human rights?” He couldn’t answer. So how do I know that this “intellectual” who can discuss the issue, but can’t decide, will protect the right of nine month old babies or two year old babies or anyone? Or will he just discuss it to death?
THe problem isn’t that he’s a professor. It’s that his approach to governing is theoretical, and in this case he doesn’t even have a theory that he’s willing to articulate.