US Senator Tim Johnson was in McLauglin, SD yesterday

[existentialist]

Senator Tim Johnson was in McLaughlin, South Dakota yesterday.

I was one of about 2 dozen people present at a meeting where the primary topic of discussion was the "Dakota Peacekeeper" project that has temporarily placed additional police officers on the Standing Rock Reservation.

Having observed and conversed with Tim Johnson in this setting I can say that he is still clearly highly intelligent. His comprehension, and his ability to pay attention to several people in a complex discussion was impressive.

That stated he clearly suffers difficulty in expressing himself. Actually he can do just fine at that also IF he has time to think. There lies the rub. In an intense face to face debate he would come off badly.

This has got me thinking.

First, I think the discussion was more productive because there were relatively few people there. The pace of the discussion was more relaxed, and people really were thinking to try to find solutions rather than to score political points. This was good. It was also atypical of political discourse.

Does this put South Dakota at a disadvantage if we elect Johnson? Well, if it does it speaks poorly for the political climate in this country. That's a problem, political discourse has become so petty.


Conversely, Barack Obama is expected to have a similar advantage in the debates with McCain. We certainly hope so. It could be argued that Obama would have an advantage over McCain in a group discussion format too--he's basically smarter and better informed.

Johnson's disability IS being argued against him. Do we dare argue McCain's disability?

I think so if we do so politely. OK, some fringe people who are already seen to be on the fringe might be able to risk a few impolite comments so long as they are not taken to speak for Democrats as a whole (which the wingnuts will make them out to do) and so long as what is said is clearly true.

How has it gotten to the point where Republicans can argue that people of lesser intelligence are better qualified because they aren't "elitist"? How can they have the gall to be making that kind of arguments and the press and public let them get away with it?

The late Senator Roman Hruska (Nebraska) once famously defended a mediocre Nixon Supreme Ct. nominee saying that "Mediocre people need representation too." He was ridiculed for the statement.

Now it has come to the point where Republicans are actually campaigning on the idea that their candidate is better qualified because he is not as intelligent or as informed????????

There must be a way to expose this argument for the absurdity that it is.

This line of argument might (unfairly) hurt Tim Johnson--which worries me, but it is already being used against Tim Johnson, and the same argument applies with force weight, and fairness against McCain.

There must be a way to bring this into the public discourse in a productive way.

[GoesTo11]

1. Are people of lesser intelligence better qualified?

It's not obvious that this is what the country believes.

I think a poll would probably come out 50-50 on this question. Not on DU, but in the US overall. People who aren't that intelligent may not get what the big deal is. But they know when someone is like them, and that's good. And they like when a man knows what he believes and is comfortable in his skin.

How can we tell? 2004 - the data was already in on * and people voted for him anyway.

[liberalhistorian]

2. If you were saying something negative,

I assure you that my husband is a staunch, proud Democrat with every fiber of his being. There is nothing wrong with raising legitimate issues in a civil, productive manner.

[GoesTo11]

3. Not negative at all.

I think you read something into my post that I didn't intend. Certainly no intent to diss the OP. Sorry for any (temporarily I hope) hurt feelings.

The OP made the point that we might somehow introduce McCain's declining mental abilities as a campaign issue, and made the statement about how ridiculous it is to think that people of lesser intelligence are qualified. I meant to express my dismay that this might not work as a campaign issue in this country - even though it certainly ought to be a legitimate issue.

[liberalhistorian]

4. I apologize, I only saw the "delete"

at first. Usually, that means people have posted something negative in haste and then deleted it after further thought. Sorry.

I do think, though, that you misunderstood his "lesser intelligence" statement. What he meant was that there's a common misconception that those considered of "lesser intelligence" are unqualified, when that is elitist thinking. That might not have been as clear as it could have been.

[Suich]

5. Bookmarked for tomorrow...

interesting point, wicasa.