« Popular sperm donors | Main | In the future, MMORPGs will be more popular »

September 06, 2011

Comments

The MSM is deluded if not outright insane.

They are especially deluded if they think Perry is either unelectable or stupid. But I hope they keep thinking that!

Texas A&M is an Ag school that trains farmers and ranchers which is pretty big business in Texas. Also, some people like to party when in college.

W&M Law is currently ranked 27th in the USWNR rankings and tied with Boston College where John Kerry got his law degree.

[HS: Michele Bachmann didn’t get her JD from W&M. An LLM in Taxation from any school besides NYU, GTown or UF is bogus.]

"I’d really like to know what Obama scored on the SAT and the LSAT."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You'll find out what happened to Judge Crater and who D.B. Cooper really was before those state secrets are ever divulged.

In Perry's defense, he seems to have attempted real science courses in college

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/05/rick-perry-college-transcript_n_919357.html

Dollars to donuts Obama and the other candidates didn't even attempt the science courses Perry did.

He's stupid because he got an average score at a time before massive grade inflation?

I know GPA is probably one of the only areas you compare favorably to Mr. Perry, but come on

Can you explain why an LLM in Texation from any beside just those three means it is bogus? What separates those three schools from the other seven of the top 10 or 27 of the top 30 as W&M ranks in? I hope it is more reasoning that because graduates of those three equals supreme elite-ness and the other graduates in Taxation lower chances in working for the best firms/companies.

HS, that was mean spirited of me, and I apologize

Still, point remains. You have to be stupid TODAY to get a 2.2, but not at all in Perry's time

"He's stupid because he got an average score at a time before massive grade inflation?"

Has there been massive grade inflation at Texas A&M? I doubt it. Those schools basically only function because of their weed-out classes.

Half --

Rick Perry was born in 1950, probably old enough to be your father. In your father's time, grades were centered around a C and someone with a 2.22 was doing fine. Nothing to write home about but perfectly acceptable. This at a time when few people went to college and the pool of college people was much better. These days you get an B just for showing up, and some of your classmates might not be literate.

What's more...

I think democrats have to be a lot smarter than republicans. If you, like Reagan, believe in less regulation and less government involvement, your job is much easier. If like Obama, you believe the government needs to go marching around doing lots of things and righting imagined wrongs, you are trying to do the impossible.

"But I think the MSM has decided they prefer Rick Perry as the anointed challenger to Romney, because Perry is really stupid . You surely have to be pretty stupid to get a 2.22 gpa while majoring in animal science. What the heck kind of major is animal science anyway?"

Rick Perry is an alpha male so he didn't need to get good grades to be successful in life. And if he was retarded, there is no way they'd let him fly a C-130. And you need to seriously do some cursory research before you spout your ignorant comments about stuff like animal science. You should be glad that there are people who major in it or else you'd be eating rancid and diseased beef. Also, animal science majors can transfer into the hard sciences with a focus on animal biology or genetics. Animal science is definitely more challenging and useful to society than an English degree from a TTT.

I watched Mitt Romney's speech from Las Vegas on his plans for the economy about an hour ago. I was very impressed. When he talks business, the economy, he is genuinely animated, passionate, and knowledgeable. Furthermore, he eschewed personal attacks. It's nice to watch a politician talk ideas, not parties and personalities.

Then, I turned to Neil Cavuto's show where I caught a snippet of some guy, a GOPer, I believe, saying that Romney needed to concentrate on just a few things, not the 50+ something ideas in his book. I thought, "My God, did this guy just watch the same speech I watched"?

True, after he had gone over his major points, Romney held up the book, told the audience that it was the result of study and consultation with his economics team and that it put forth some 50+ ideas for ways to improve the economic growth of the country. However, he didn't dwell on it at all. Rather, in laymen's terms, his speech explained the differences between the old American economy of the 50s, 60, 70s versus the new global economy in ways I think Americans need it to be told to them since so many people cling to, "Why can't we simply return to the old days?"

His speech laid out his vision for the growth of the middle class and he concentrated on a handful of major things he'd do the minute he became President, just as his critic said he should have.

I was left thinking about Cavuto's guest, "Is this guy a Perry plant?" but I don't think he was. I just don't think he listened to the whole speech and maybe he didn't since he was on Cavuto talking about Romney before Romney even finished, I think. Makes me distrust talking heads even more.

Even then, you have to be pretty dumb to get a 2.2...I mean, my father, uncles and aunts all managed to get above a 3.0 at comparable schools during the 1970s without studying that hard. And they majored in things like Business, Accounting, Finance and Political Science. Animal Science is just a bunch of easy crap that people take to boost their GPA before vet school; and of course Perry never even made it to vet school!

Perry is a terrible candidate. Not just because he's stupid, but also because he is sympathetic to illegal aliens.

Perry flew jets in the Air Force. He can't possibly be *that* stupid. Doesn't mean he's smart but I find it hard to believe that an actual dummy would flight qualify.

Perry went to Texas A and M--the SAT scores to get in are maybe around 1210, combining math and verbal (I'm basing this on info at this url: http://collegeapps.about.com/od/collegeprofiles/p/Texas-A_M.htm).

Assuming he's around average for those admitted to Texas A and M, and standards were higher in the past, I'm guessing he's probably a fairly bright guy. Getting in seems more telling than your performance when you're in, since how much do grades matter once you're in college?

I don't know if Perry is smart or not, but I do know that his performance in college is not necessarily proof that he is dumb.

A popular kid from a small West Texas farm town, several decades ago, when most did not go to college, and many did not even finish high school (like my parents), may not have motivations consistent with building academic credentials or getting a high power job.

I went to Texas A&M a couple of decades after Perry did. I knew many animal science majors, many of them were very smart. I remember one who took engineering calculus for the challenge and made an A (a bunch of people in our dorm were engineers, he took it with us), but his overall GPA was well short of 3.0 because he spent most of his time drinking.

You have to be very careful about judging people based on east coast norms. You wouldn't be impressed with my GPA either, it's probably much closer to Perry's GPA than yours.

The MSM always

1) Supports the most liberal Republican in the primary who has any chance of winning.

2) Supports the Democrat in the general election.

These are iron laws. Intelligence has nothing to do with it. Suppose it was a two-way race between Paul Ryan and Romney. Who do you think would be getting the better press?

I don't think that his GPA is a sign of his stupidity. Maybe he just didn't care about grades when he was in college. After all, your GPA doesn't appear on your diploma.

"Perry is a terrible candidate. Not just because he's stupid, but also because he is sympathetic to illegal aliens."

LMAO, I guess that means Bachmann is the only non-terrible candidate. Almost all the rest get Ds and Fs.

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/action/2012-presidential-hopefuls-immigration-stances.html

What do people expect, that this guy have a 4.0 in Quantum Physics from MIT? Politicians need to have social skills, that's all. The people the President hires can do all the smart work.

@Blah

Biology is not a hard science, the fact that it's 50%+ women gives it away. It's all memorization.

Liberals base everything on going to an Ivy League school. It doesn't even matter if you get lousy grades at the Ivy League school, you just need to be a pseudo-intellectual and support the right social causes.

Perry is at least as smart as Obama- although that isn't saying much- and has other personal abilities and skills Obama can't come close to.

"The MSM always

1) Supports the most liberal Republican in the primary who has any chance of winning.

2) Supports the Democrat in the general election.

These are iron laws. Intelligence has nothing to do with it."

Absolutely true. Perry is an open borders advocate. He is horrible on all things illegal alien. I don't think Republican voters know this about him yet, and when they find out, his support will fall dramatically. To see just how bad he is, check this:

www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61076.html

I remember when Reagan ran against Carter. I thought Reagan was the dumbest guy in the universe. I voted for Carter. (What a dope!)

I'd say Perry is about as smart as Reagan was. So the choice is Obama (Carter-like smart) or Perry (Reagan-like smart). I'll take Perry.

A lot of remedial science in there, B and C grades at that, that he should have picked up in HS.

That being said, Obama still rates a big fat goose-egg Zero overall in his college education since there is no evidence he ever received one.

OT, but lots of sweet gunfire this weekend in NYC. And from what I read, 10 less problems..

Perry is more Bush than Bush himself. If he's nominated, the election will boil down to this question, "Who do you think sucks more? Bush or Obama?"

@Kaz

I agree. But it's harder than a non-Ivy English degree because rote memorization requires more work and you can't bullshit your way through the courses. Perry's bad grades can be explained by him not having the time to do his homework and study. Btw, I do not like Perry and I don't think he's smart. But sneering at an animal science degree is a little much. It's not STEM but it's isn't as horrible or useless as a journalism major.

I have a hunch that most people who get married pick a spouse who is more or less their intellectual peer. Most women will not marry a guy who is appreciably less intelligent than they are, and contrary to popular opinion, most men don't want a dim-witted wife, unless they too are similarly slow.

That said, my guess is that the Obamas are probably about evenly matched in the brains department. It took Michelle multiple tries to pass the bar, and she let her law license lapse later on. It could be that she's got an attitude problem or simply is averse to work (I know, big shock) but she and Barry may simply be a couple of people who are of somewhat above average intelligence who benefitted from the old thumb on the affirmative action scale.

"It’s too bad that the MSM is a lot better at unearthing embarrassing facts about Republicans then they are about Democrats. - Half Sigma


The MSM doesn't have an agenda here. It's actually harder to find dirt on Democrats because many of them come from coastal areas like NYC or SF where people are aware of the status game and go to great effort to have impeccable credentials. Bill Clinton was the rare exception but that was mostly due to his poor sexual impulse control stemming from a prole background.

"Biology is not a hard science, the fact that it's 50%+ women gives it away."

Biology is a perfectly good science and it's one of the few real college courses women flourish in.

Women also do well in medical school and accounting.

"I am pretty sure that most would pick Mitt Romney, because he’s the smartest guy in the race."

Think again. Ron Paul is at least as smart.

Perry's 2.22 GPA the preceded the age of rampant grade inflation and he probably didn't commit himself as much to school work as he could have with projects outside of college.

From what I've seen of him in interviews, I'd guess his IQ is in the 115-125 range, i.e., middle class smart fraction territory and perfectly good enough to be POTUS.

And POTUS doesn't have to be a genius.

The founding fathers set up the United States to be run by wealthy business owners on a day to day basis, not government.

So if Perry simply gets government out of the way of micromanaging our lives the country would prosper.

Nixon himself liked to point out one of the reasons he enjoyed foreign policy so much was because America is designed to run by itself, basically, so there was nothing for him to do but try his intellect at foreign affairs.

Why would Perry bother getting high grades? It's not like he was trying to get into Harvard Law. Most likely he went to the average local college, partied hard as a social person would, and went on to a successful career in politics.

It's as if we were grading people on the narrative qualities of stories people made up when playing with their toys as a child. Lots of talented people would do poorly, because they didn't give the matter any serious thought.

Perry majoring in Animal Science and growing up on a farm is cool. It's an interesting background that makes him unique.

However, Perry's major problem is that he is SOFT on illegal immigration, and after Bush and McCain, that is an untenable position in the Republican Party. You can't be a conservative if you support us turning into Mexico, and Perry apparently does. Romney's record on immigration is spotty but BETTER than Perry's. Romney opposed in state tuition for illegals in Mass; Perry supported it in Texas.

This blog has a lot of great insight but this is one of those times that New York myopia strikes. I don't go out of my way to find out about Perry but he strikes me as a dumb guy. That's just my gut feeling because I haven't seen him debate or anything really.

That said we really can't go by his GPA or major. As others have said this guy isn't from New York and so the social ladder that he was climbing had different rungs. A high GPA humanities degree might have been less useful to him than a medium GPA light science degree was. Apparently he is doing ok. In addition to being a strong contender for president he's governor of Texas, perhaps the most important state of the 21st century (CA was the key to the 20th, NY the 19th, and MA/VA the 18th).

As for smartest candidate, I think that is pretty clear. Ron Paul probably too smart to be elected. He's a two issue (fed, war) nerd. He's written a dozen books, none of which have his picture on them. His social awkwardness and lack of conformity put him above the high-conformity IQ peak in the 130s.

Romney has the strong combination of above average (but not too high) intelligence and social awareness. It makes him more mellow. He can be focused on winning without getting too impassioned. Notice how in every debate he does just enough to have a presence but he tries to stay out of the fray? People are already familiar with him from last time and he doesn't want people to get too tired of him, so he paces himself. He's playing hard to get. He allows other candidates to come to the forefront and wear each other out.

Perry is definitely not as smart as Obama, but who cares? He's smart enough and probably didn't bother to work hard for good grades.

My inital GPA was shit as well, but I have an IQ of 125.

More importantly, Perry is very charismatic and is absolutely electable. I like Romney as well, but he does not have the charm of Perry. Note also that Perry's charisma makes personal attacks on him as extreme fall short since he in person just seem like a trustworthy and nice guy.

He can beat Obama!

Look at the guy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbrptI2x5GA&feature=related

Who can anyone say he is not electable? Get real.

"Biology is not a hard science, the fact that it's 50%+ women gives it away. It's all memorization."

I think that "hard science" means, simply, "science about objective facts" ("ciência exacta", like we say in Portuguese); does not mean that have to be particularly difficult.

"Biology is not a hard science, the fact that it's 50%+ women gives it away. It's all memorization."

Haha this is so true. "Look at the cute animals!!"

"And they majored in things like Business, Accounting, Finance and Political Science"

Seriously, you're calling these majors more difficult? Business majors have the second lowest SAT derived IQ of all majors (only education majors are lower), and poli sci is a joke. By most accounts, Perry spent most of college drinking beer and goofing off, and still managed to get a reasonably difficult degree in a science major. He's also been pretty successful since college.

By contrast, Obama, while very personable and obviously pretty good at going to school, has a record of stupidity and incompetence since he got a real job that would be difficult for anyone to match. The idea that he's more intelligent that Perry is crazy.

The last thing this country needs at a time like this is another Ivy League president.

"Perry's major problem is that he is SOFT on illegal immigration, and after Bush and McCain, that is an untenable position in the Republican Party. You can't be a conservative if you support us turning into Mexico, and Perry apparently does."

That means every candidate except Bachmann is "untenable".

Face the facts, the Republicans are not going to nominate someone who is not soft on illegal immigration.

Just to repeat, there is no evidence there has been grade inflation at Texas A&M.

Also, the curriculum was easier back then for all majors. He took math classes I had in 10th grade in college.

Big state schools have to let in way more people than a private college and therefore rely on flunking them out to get the numbers down. Because they aren't subsidize by the state and massive endowments they don't care about your tuition.

"I’d really like to know what Obama scored on the SAT and the LSAT."

The choice is between "average" and "significantly below average". If these were high scores, they would have been disclosed long ago as further evidence of his greatness. Some GOP candidate should publicly challenge Obama on opening his records.

"Biology is not a hard science, the fact that it's 50%+ women gives it away. It's all memorization."

Biology is probably easier to turn into a descriptive endeavor than physics or chemistry but still much of that knowledge in the first place was obtained by good experimental designs, and the experimental techniques are still useful today for generating new biological knowledge.

It wouldn't shock and offend me if biologists doing innovative experiments were mostly men (and there are a lot of chemists encroaching on biological territory today, too), but I haven't actually looked.

@J1

"Seriously, you're calling these majors more difficult? Business majors have the second lowest SAT derived IQ of all majors (only education majors are lower), and poli sci is a joke."

This assertion is ridiculous, that's like combining every civil, mechanical, software and chemical engineering into one group and taking the average to be applicable to all the majors or even worse taking all science majors and assuming that girls who major in psychology are equal in smarts to those in aerospace science.

There is a huge disparity between marketing, management, accounting, finance and international or interdisciplinary business majors. Last time I checked, the international business and interdisciplinary majors score near the top of every graduate standard examinations.

Also those who are "smart" will major in those (Accounting, Finance, IB and Political Science) and tend to continue their education to get MBAs, JDs or both.

Obama has a high IQ end of discussion. Estimate based on empirical evidence 130-150.

http://www.halfsigma.com/2009/04/a-comment-on-obamas-iq.html

"It wouldn't shock and offend me if biologists doing innovative experiments were mostly men (and there are a lot of chemists encroaching on biological territory today, too), but I haven't actually looked."

Most women strike me as able teach something like biology, but to actually contribute something new and revolutionary seems unlikely.

Am I the only one who thought HS's tongue was partway into his cheek? I'm not sure he's speaking for himself--he's saying why the media prefers Perry, not necessarily endorsing their conclusions.

"Obama has a high IQ end of discussion. Estimate based on empirical evidence 130-150"

Obama has at best a slightly above average IQ, end of discussion. Estimate based on observation of his demonstrated lack of competence.

[HS: Just because you hate him doesn't he doesn't have a 140 IQ. And it's a huge misunderstanding of the role of intelligence to say that because a politician hasn't, in your opinion, "accomplished" anything, it means he's not smart.]

The big issue is the economy, right? But have you noticed that no candidate, let alone the media, has said anything about reining in the environmentalists who've strangled energy production, and development more generally? (one job in 3 in U.S. is construction-related). All a big farce. These hippies are so ripe for ridicule, yet they just skate.

Slightly OT, but here's something interesting about GPA's and law school. At Boalt Hall, U.C. Berkeley's law school, up to 1967 anyone with a undergrad. average of "B" got accepted, regardless of test score. That means if you were practicing law in the '80's and '90's in California, as I was, you were meeting some dumb-ass judges.

of course he got a 2.22 gpa in animal science!!! The idiot doesn't "believe" in evolution. I can't even imagine why he would take that degree. Animal science to him equals god just made them appear derp! It's amazing he made it through at all.

"Seriously, you're calling these majors more difficult? Business majors have the second lowest SAT derived IQ of all majors (only education majors are lower), and poli sci is a joke. By most accounts, Perry spent most of college drinking beer and goofing off, and still managed to get a reasonably difficult degree in a science major. He's also been pretty successful since college. "

Well, they aren't too difficult compared to say, Chemical Engineering, but I would say they all require more work than Animal Science. And as far as Poli Sci being a joke, it wasn't if you made it to law school. I wouldn't really be that judgmental about Perry's degree in Animal Science if he had attended vet school afterwards, or even made decent grades in it. But let's face it: "Animal Science" isn't any more of a science than "Environmental Science (a useless major than wannabe hippies take)" is. Based on the classes listed on Perry's transcript, the curriculum was less rigorous back in his day too.

Now I'm not an elitist, and I don't fawn over Ivy League degrees for their prestige, but I would nonetheless expect better than a "D" in Principles of Microeconomics. It would be great to have a prospective President with a degree from a Southern State U. otherwise.

"If the mainstream journalists had to pick one Republican currently running for the presidential nomination to be the next president of the United States, I am pretty sure that most would pick Mitt Romney, because he’s the smartest guy in the race."--Siggie

Gingrich is by far the smartest guy in the race, and I would not dismiss his chances, either.

[HS: No, I think Romney is smarter. Newt, however, has a great deal more CREATIVITY. But is creativitiy valued by voters? I think not.]

"It’s too bad that the MSM is a lot better at unearthing embarrassing facts about Republicans then they are about Democrats. I’d really like to know what Obama scored on the SAT and the LSAT."--Siggie

Based on the work of Jack Cashill et al. regarding Zippy's incompetent writing ability, I'd guess that he got about a 1000 on the renormed SAT, which translates to an IQ of 106.

"That means every candidate except Bachmann is "untenable". "

No it doesn't JP. You cannot be a "conservative" and be as liberal as Perry on illegal immigration. Mitt Romney is more conservative. He opposed in state tuition for illegals in Mass and he opposed McCain's amnesty bill. Bachmann is also much more conservative but is probably unelectable. So you have a choice. Perry, turning America into Mexico, or Romney, smart, relatively good on immigration, and the best candidate against Obama.

"A lot of remedial science in there, B and C grades at that, that he should have picked up in HS."


Picked up in HS? Are you high? He went to a rural K-12 school. There were like 10 people in his graduating class. It was BF nowhere, not college prep.

[HS: No, I think Romney is smarter. Newt, however, has a great deal more CREATIVITY. But is creativitiy valued by voters? I think not.]

Siggie, the most brilliant people on Earth--the Gateses and Lisa Gerrards--are highly intelligent and creative. Think about all the greatest geniuses--Euler, Newton, Dante--all were both creative and intelligent.

"Just because you hate him doesn't he doesn't have a 140 IQ"

Either he does or he doesn't; my opinion of him is irrelevant.

Based on the link above, your case that he's so brilliant rests on the fact that he was admitted to Harvard and got good grades. At Harvard, he benefitted from being both a legacy and an affirmative action slot. As for grades, the case for that rests on the risible claim that "grading is largely blind". I'm not a graduate of HLS, but I'm pretty sure they don't use auto-graded multiple choice tests, and if they don't, the professor knows whose work he's reading.

You've indicated yourself that you'd like to see his SAT and LSAT scores. If he releases his SAT and LSAT scores, I'll concede the IQ derived from those sources. Will you?

"HS: No, I think Romney is smarter."

Romney is definitely the most intelligent candidate, either GOP or Dem. Romney's probably even smarter than the great Southern-fried horndog, Bubba Clinton.

I'd peg him around an 150 or better IQ, and I consider myself rather good at guessing people's IQs just based on their reaction times and speech patterns even without seeing any test scores from them.

Perry is probably 115-125.

As far as personality goes, I relate more to Romney's aloof, bottom line, Northeast businessman persona more than I do to Perry's cowboy image but I probably agree with Perry on individual issues (other than immigration) more than I do with Romney.

"The choice is between "average" and "significantly below average"."

I'm leaning towards an IQ of 85, or around those parts, for our beloved Zero.

"HS: Just because you hate him doesn't he doesn't have a 140 IQ."

Oh give it up.

You know Obama has a rock bottom low African IQ.

Look at any speech the "O" gives and it's obvious Obama is a drooling idiot, "Uh, duuhhh, Uh, Change, Duuhh, Telemprompter, uhhhhh".

He's not even an intelligent liar. He just repeats the same lies without adjusting his argument. Obama's lies are just painful to listen to, even for growing numbers of Democrats.

Clinton, by contrast, was a superb liar. In fact, he was a truly beautiful liar who brought lying to an art form. It was a pleasure watching Clinton lie. No wonder women found him irresistible.

It isn't racist to acknowledge that black people have a significantly lower average IQ. It isn't racist to suggest that people only call Obama smart because they (rightly) don't expect much from a black person. However it is racist to say that he has an IQ of 85 or a "rock bottom African IQ".

We can argue about where he falls on the scale and realistically we'll never have any real evidence because we won't see test scores and we won't see his genuine interactions with new situations. 85 though? Not a chance.

I think that it is important for us to be able to talk about race in an objective fashion. We know that it is possible to call black people less intelligent than white people without being racist but most people don't realize that. There are some on the fence, and perhaps they are reading this blog. I wouldn't be surprised if there are black people reading this blog. Of all the races they seem to be the most sympathetic to HBD views.

Most women strike me as able teach something like biology, but to actually contribute something new and revolutionary seems unlikely.

There is of course the usual gender skew in biology, just like in all sciences. But to pretend that no woman contributed "something new and revolutionary" is stupid and very ignorant. Look them up: Barbara McClintock, Lynn Margulis, Christiane Nusslein-Volhard, Dorothy Hodgkin, Eva Jablonka, Elizabeth Blackburn. Each of them contributed something very fundamental to our understanding of life.

I read Obama as someone in the 120-130 IQ range, probably on the lower end of that---i.e., in the same range as most major politicians in the US including the last Bush and Kerry. If he had higher than that, I'm sure that clear evidence of such would have leaked through deniable channels. As it is his past is almost entirely a black box, particularly his academic years.
I agree with the previous commenter---Bill Clinton WAS a much better liar. He I read as being 3 sigma (somewhere in the 140-150 range) with a nearly flawless emulation of a neurotypical that I personally find somewhat enviable.

"But to pretend that no woman contributed "something new and revolutionary" is stupid and very ignorant."

I said that it was unlikely for a woman to contribute something to biology, not that it was impossible. Yes, obviously, there are some woman out there who have contributed something. However, what's the ratio of men's accomplishments to woman's in recent history? Not to discount intelligent women who do a good job of representing their sex but it seems intelligent men, especially in the sciences, outnumber intelligent women. To clarify, I'm not saying that the men in the sciences are more intelligent but that on a whole the ratio of men to women is one-sided.

"the most brilliant people on Earth--the Gateses and Lisa Gerrards--are highly intelligent and creative."

Lisa Gerrard is one of the most brilliant people on Earth? What is the evidence for that?

"You cannot be a "conservative" and be as liberal as Perry on illegal immigration. Mitt Romney is more conservative. He opposed in state tuition for illegals in Mass and he opposed McCain's amnesty bill. Bachmann is also much more conservative but is probably unelectable. So you have a choice. Perry, turning America into Mexico, or Romney, smart, relatively good on immigration, and the best candidate against Obama."

NumbersUSA gives Romney and Perry the same grade on immigration: D minus. That means they are equally liberal on immigration, and Romney is going to turn America into Mexico (or perhaps into India or China) just as fast as Perry is.

Romney is more liberal than Perry on other issues. Advantage: Perry.

I think Obama is pretty smart, probably smarter than either Clinton or Bush.

Graduating magna cum laude from the Harvard Law is no joke.

Obama somehow figured out a way to use all of his political handicaps (being black, no family connections to politics) to his advantage.

Also it does take a certain level of integrity to give up the BIGLAW salary (where he did two summer internships) to work with poor black people in Chicago.

"That person might have been Michele Bachmann, because she seems rather Palin-like, and she’d certainly lose to Obama because of her lack of gravitas." -HS

"I thought she did well with the time they gave her. The inquisitors were condescending to her which was to be expected. She demonstrated the necessary gravitas, which was less obvious in earlier debates."-JP

Gravitas is in the eye of the beholder.

"Romney is smarter"

No man who goes on TV to talk about a 59-point program has clue about how get elected. He lacks smarts; has no ability to understand how to campaign; and, from his record, no understanding of how to govern a free people.

"Also it does take a certain level of integrity to give up the BIGLAW salary (where he did two summer internships) to work with poor black people in Chicago."

How about laziness combined with really smart folks reading the pathetic crap you write and being stunned at how bad it is? That is a real ego killer for a narcissist. Working with losers in the hood, he was like a god in comparison. A shining half white knight in AA armor.

"How about laziness combined with really smart folks reading the pathetic crap you write and being stunned at how bad it is?"

He wouldn't have made it as President of the Law Review at Harvard, if he was stupid or lazy.

He might have a certain type of do-gooder ego, associated with working in the ghetto.

But it certainly pales in comparison to the level of ego and narcissism of a yuppie BIGLAW attorney.

"NumbersUSA gives Romney and Perry the same grade on immigration: D minus. That means they are equally liberal on immigration, and Romney is going to turn America into Mexico (or perhaps into India or China) just as fast as Perry is.

Romney is more liberal than Perry on other issues. Advantage: Perry."

I don't know about who grades them, but I do know from watching the debate last night that Romney supports a border fence, employer sanctions, and opposed in state tuition for illegal aliens. Perry supported in state tuition for illegal aliens and opposes a border fence. He at one point went to Mexico and bragged about his support of the DREAM act. Romney is MUCH better than Perry on immigration.

what is Romney more liberal than Perry on? That he doesn't want to abolish social security? Ok, run on that in a general election, Perry. I'm sure it will do great.

If Romney gets the nomination, we'll get a better sense of Obama's IQ, when we see him debate someone really smart when he has a difficult record to defend. Even though presidential debates are largely scripted and highly controlled, they still require candidates to think on their feet about complex issues, which seems like a very g loaded task.

'I'm not a graduate of HLS, but I'm pretty sure they don't use auto-graded multiple choice tests, and if they don't, the professor knows whose work he's reading.'

Yes, because law professors are familiar with the handwriting of each of their hundreds of students? What a silly comment.

The comments to this entry are closed.