It began as a very simply comment that Matt Rexroad has likely done thousands of times, he updated his Facebook status as he would sometimes update his blog, rexroad.com, with a comment about the political world. And for those that believe that Matt Rexroad is nothing more than a cut and dried Conservative Republican, the Matt Rexroad I have gotten to know over the last four years has a considerable amount of gray.
So when I saw his Facebook status, as he is indeed a “Facebook friend,” I laughed and thought nothing of it, it was Matt Rexroad being Matt Rexroad. He wrote, “Matt Rexroad understands that it works with Republican voters… but if Sarah Palin endorsed me I would be too embarrassed to tell anyone.”
The next thing I know, I saw articles in the Washington Post and Huffington Post, and now pretty much everywhere about the GOP Strategist who was dissing Sarah Palin.
To make matters worse, Carly Fiorina has hired Meridian Pacific, the company that Mr. Rexroad is a managing partner of, to run her campaign. The Washington Post reported, “While Rexroad doesn’t work on that account, the Fiorina campaign paid Meridian Pacific $31,509.88 for consulting and travel in the first quarter of 2010.”
Unlike many people in the political business, Mr. Rexroad stood by his post and also stuck up for his colleagues working for Fiorina.
He told the Washington Post, “I hope it’s not a big deal!” he laughed. “I support Carly and I’ll be voting for her, and I think she’s going to win. But from my point of view, I don’t know how you quit as the governor of your state and get taken seriously. I have a client this cycle who tells me I should keep this to myself, but it’s my opinion. Look at Ross Perot — he was rock star for a while, and then after a while people said, hey, he’s kind of crazy.”
He continued, “It’s good politics to stand there with Palin, but I think there are a lot of other, more accomplished people who voters should take their views from. John McCain has this enormous record and long career, and he’s accomplished so much more than her, if we’re looking for people who’ve endorsed Carly that voters should take their guidance from.”
In an update to their story, John Peschong, one of the Meridian Pacific consultants working for Ms. Fiorina told the Washington Post:
“Matt Rexroad is my business partner, but when it comes to Sarah Palin he has no idea what he is talking about and is wrong in his assessment of her and the value she brings to campaigns. I have known Sarah Palin and her family for years in my roles as the Republican National Committee’s Western States Political Director and as Western States Campaign Manager for McCain-Palin and have the highest regard for her. She is a true conservative and great Republican leader who cares deeply about the direction our country is headed. Matt is not in any way involved in Carly Fiorina’s campaign, and even if he was, it is clear that his advice would have gone completely ignored. Carly is honored to have Governor Palin’s endorsement and we look forward to continuing to make sure Republican voters know who she is supporting in this election.”
Obviously Mr. Peschong is both accurate and at the same time covering himself from further damage. However, there is a good amount of truth to what Mr. Rexroad has said, it just does not play well in conservative Republican circles. Sarah Palin has been a non-stop media story it seems since her ill-fated run as John McCain’s running mate. She showed herself to be less-than-versed in politics, political issues, and a self-promoter willing to resign from the Governorship of her state to gain more exposure in the states.
Washington Post blogger David Weigel who broke the national version of this story, commented that Mr. Rexroad’s view of Palin is indicative of a larger schism between those who are the established GOP leadership and Palin’s rise as the face of the activist wing of the party.
Writes Mr. Weigel, “Rexroad’s somewhat heretical take on Palin gets at the disconnect that a lot of Republican strategists feel between the former governor’s political influence and her role as a serious figure. At the Southern Republican Leadership Conference, Palin got, by far, the best reception of any possible 2012 candidate who took the stage. But she came in third in the straw poll, and plenty of Republicans told reporters that they hesitated to back her because they didn’t think she could handle the job of president yet.”
So where does that leave Mr. Rexroad? Obviously this is not the kind of attention a firm wants, especially when one of their own clients is involved. We will have to wait to see the fall out.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Despite our many disagreements, this makes me have a LOT more respect for Max Rexroad. The emperor is not only naked, she’s ugly! Thanks, Max, for saying it like it is!
[i]”No one ever went broke under-estimating the stupidity of the American Public.” [/i] [b]— H.L. Mencken [/b]
Much success in American politics, left and right, is won by appealing to idiots without being an actual idiot, unless your dad was president and he has your same first and last name. The problem with Mrs. Palin is that while idiots love her, everyone understands that she is one of them. Pointing that out, however, is impolitic, when you are busy trying to win over the idiots who love her.
Rich Rifkin-Years ago I worked as a roustabout. I learned a most useful phrase from the carnies, “shilling the rubes.” It is the very essence of modern American politics and business.
“Much success in American politics, left and right, is won by appealing to idiots without being an actual idiot” and “shilling the rubes”
Is that how Obama got elected?
DMG: “He wrote, “Matt Rexroad understands that it works with Republican voters… but if Sarah Palin endorsed me I would be too embarrassed to tell anyone.”
Smart politicians don’t “diss” other politicians, but should stick to arguing the issues. There is too much mudslinging in politics these days. If you disagree with Sarah Palin, fine, then state why. But what is the point of, in effect, “smearing” her with below the belt comments, no matter what your political persuasion. Voters are tired of this sort of nonsense and “political theater”… Just stick to the issues.
Sarah Palin has been a non-stop media story it seems since her ill-fated run as John McCain’s running mate.
She showed herself to be less-than-versed in politics, political issues, and a self-promoter willing to resign from the Governorship of her state to gain more exposure in the states.
This is because left-leaning media needs a right wing straw man to draw attention away from the job Obama isn’t doing. So they pick Sarah Palin and build her up and give her lots of attention, even though she isn’t even running for anything. The democrats are in charge of everything now, but they need to continue to pretend that they aren’t and are fighting on behalf of the little guy to take down the right wing establishment, hoping the public will forget that they themselves right now are the establishment. Thus they need to “stand up” to Sarah Palin even though like you said, she is a virtual nobody.
As far as Sarah Palin being not well-versed in politics, that is true, and the same went for Obama, yet he became President.
Matt loses credibility when he buddies up with the likes of Jeff Reisig. I know they are both republicans and it may be that is the only reason, but Reisig is a festering sore to public service and anyone, including Matt, that stands by him only shows a lack of integrity.
Kane607: “This is because left-leaning media needs a right wing straw man to draw attention away from the job Obama isn’t doing. So they pick Sarah Palin and build her up and give her lots of attention, even though she isn’t even running for anything.”
I think this is exactly right! As a voter, I’m NOT interested in what Sarah Palin is doing, I’m more interested in what the INCUMBENTS IN OFFICE ARE OR AREN’T DOING…
Palin has made herself a spectacle, had she simply gone back to Alaska and resumed her governor duties, the media would have ceased reporting on her. Instead she has tried to seize on it and failed miserably, drawing more and not less criticism while showing absolutely no growth in her critical shortcomings.
In terms of not being interested, it seems like she will run for President, so it seems that you should care for both.
Kane607
Great post and dead on. I for one hope Sarah Palin doesn’t win the Republican nomination as I feel that will lead to another 4 years of having to endure Obama.
Its one thing for Palin to endorse Fiorina but anther for Fiorina to endorse Palin. I just saw Marty West at the Farmers market who told me Rochelle has a Sarah Palin bumper sticker on her car. I wonder if it was just Palin or McCain/Palin? I wonder if Matt still has a McCain sticker on his car or was it a McCain/Palin sticker? Politics makes strange bedfellows.
Oh no, someone told you Rochelle has a Sarah Palin bumper sticker on her car. Say it’s not so. Should her car get keyed for that? Does one of the other candidates possibly have an Obama sticker on their bumper? Should we hold that against that candidate since Obama’s good job rating is down to 45% now. Get a life people!
Sarah Palin is brilliant, an incredible, dynamic speaker who has exploited her celebrity to the tune of $12,000,000 and counting since leaving office. Its sad that she has chosen to ride the xenophobia that dominates the republican party instead of taking a singular conservative stance against profligacy piling the bricks of discontent on the backs of the tax paying middle class, the kind of populism that is her natural constituency. Matt is correct her support of anti-immigrant legislation in Arizona, that is the death knell for the Republican party going forward, is embarrassing.
It took about one day for the Dems to bring up the racial insensitivity of Rand Paul in Kentucky after his primary victory. Even if that stuff works for Paul in Kentucky bringing it up works against the GOP nationally and especially in the states that Obama took that Bush won, New Mexico, Nevada, Florida and Colorado. it also works against the GOP in California where Palin’s support for Fiorina may be a plus in the primary but will work against her in the general election if she wins the primary.
Racism worked for the Republicans for a generation after Lyndon Johnson supported the Civil Rights Act. Johnson even knew it and spoke about it at the time. Nixon knew it and used to win the Presidency and turn the south into a Republican bulwark for almost 50 years. But the future will be different and Matt Rexroad understands this fact. if the Republicans want to be viable as a national party going forward they don’t need people like Sarah Palin going around beating up on immigrants. Their citizen family members aren’t going to vote for you if you do. Palin’s politics only get you to 40%, you need more than that to win.
“Matt is correct her support of anti-immigrant legislation in Arizona, that is the death knell for the Republican party going forward, is embarrassing.”
You mean the Arizona Immagration Law that’s virtually the same as the Federal Immagration Law? As for it being the death knell of the GOP, think again my friend, most polls have it 60% to 70% of Americans in favor of the bill.
“If the Republicans want to be viable as a national party going forward they don’t need people like Sarah Palin going around beating up on immigrants.”
Ummmmm, Sarah’s not against immagrants, maybe “illegal” immagrants. Big difference. By the way, Mexico beats up on illegal immagrants too, just ask Pres. Calderon.
“Sarah Palin is brilliant, an incredible, dynamic speaker who has exploited her celebrity to the tune of $12,000,000 and counting since leaving office”
For once you’re right, but if you’re using her speaking fees as a slight do you chastise Clinton, Gore or Carter who also garner huge speaking fees? I’m sure Obama will make tons of cash after he leaves office too.
Mr. Toad, if you’re not out gossiping about who has Sarah Palin bumper stickers here’s a good read for you. I know it’s not the usual MSNBC or New York Times spin you’re probably used to but I feel you could broaden out a little:
“The Arizona Immigration Bill is ten pages long yet three…count ’em….three(!!!) high ranking Obama administration officials have admitted publicly that they haven’t read the bill even though they’ve all criticized it.
Here’s the thing. A lot of people are freaking out that these boobs haven’t read the bill. But I believe they’re saying they haven’t read the bill simply as a dodge to avoid answering questions as to what’s wrong with the bill.
Look at it. After Attorney General Eric Holder said in front of the country that he hadn’t read the bill wouldn’t you think the White House would’ve pointed out to its people that to avoid further embarrassing the administration they should all read the bill before speaking publicly about it. But far from administration officials downloading and reading the bill so as to avoid embarrassing the administration, saying that they hadn’t read the bill now seems to be an administration talking point.
Why?
This tactic keeps them from having to substantiate their claims that the bill is racist or anti-immigrant. It’s talk about the specifics of the bill that worries them and saying they haven’t read the bill leaves them free to spout off generalities about racism and anti-immigrant fervor and racial profiling.
The Obama administration knows that there’s nothing in the bill that they can get all worked up over as the Arizona bill is almost exactly the same as existing federal laws. The bill itself actually forbids racial profiling.
I think they probably read it but following the wisdom of Mark Twain, these people would rather be suspected of being fools rather than opening their mouths and proving it. But so important is the White House’s ability to accuse conservatives of racism and anti-immigrant that the Obama administration would rather be seen as lazy and incompetent than unable to accuse Republicans of racism.”
“there’s nothing in the bill that they can get all worked up over as the Arizona bill is almost exactly the same as existing federal laws.”
As it was originally written or after it was amended? Which parts of AZ’s law is not exactly like the Federal law?
“The bill itself actually forbids racial profiling.”
It does now. Do we know how Arizona officers are going to be trained to enforce this law? What exactly is going to constitute articulable suspicion?
Are people only going to be questioned by law enforcement regarding their citizen status only after they have been contacted by law enforcement for an infraction, commission of a unlawful act and so forth?
How does consensual contact factor into this? A law enforcement officer can legally contact or engage a person in conversation without articulable suspicion(ie no reason what so ever), in a public space or street. That person may decline, accept then subsequently end the contact, leave, etc, as long as the LEO has no articulable suspicion to detain the contacted individual.
So, if an Arizona LEO walks up to a person and lawfully contacts them(ie consensual contact), asks the contacted person if he/she can speak with said contacted individual and the contacted individuals responds by saying “que”…is that articulable suspicion? Can that person now be detained and investigated about their residing in the US lawfully?
If you want to read the whole text of the law, here it is:
[url]www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf[/url]
“I just saw Marty West at the Farmers market who told me Rochelle has a Sarah Palin bumper sticker on her car.”
Did you bother to check to see if Rochelle has a Sarah Palin sticker on her car – because she doesn’t.
I wasn’t condemning Palin for making $12,000,000 I was praising her and called her brilliant. I just think she is on the wrong side of the immigration issue and that serious Republicans from Matt Rexroad to Karl Rove who understand the demographics of winning elections see immigration bashing as a losing issue. After 187 passed the Republican party got wiped out in this state and after Tom Tancredo ran for president as a one trick anti-immigrant candidate the Republicans lost the Presidency and several states Bush had won by embracing latinos. Remember Pete Wilson ran for president in 2000 against Bush. Wilson opposed immigration starting his campaign at the statue of liberty with an anti-immigrant message. Bush announced his candidacy with a few lines in spanish included. you know the rest of the story. You may differentiate between legal and illegal immigrants but enough voting latinos don’t to make candidates who bash immigrants losers. If you want to lose elections keep blaming the immigrants instead of embracing them. Rexroad is right and the tea party movement won’t have much post primary electoral success if they veer away from economics into the politics of hate.
Thanks for checking her bumper for me.
Unfortunately you are not the first person Marty West has told this to. She has been telling people it all week. It is a lie. More on that in the morning.
DON SHOR: [i]”If you want to read the whole text of the law, here it is:”[/i]
In fact, the link Don gives is no longer the law. That was the Senate mark-up bill, and it largely was what Gov. Brewer signed. I used that version to write my column ([url]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_-iCrgpX1jNM/S9oL0TrhugI/AAAAAAAAAaw/sch7lxUkRJQ/s1600/Arizona+immigration.JPG[/url]) on SB1070. But a week later, HB2162 was passed and signed by Brewer, amending portions of SB1070.
So if you are interested in reading the actual text which is now the law in Arizona, read this reproduction of HB2162 ([url]http://www.galactanet.com/hb2162c.htm[/url]).
[i]”I just think she is on the wrong side of the immigration issue and that serious Republicans from Matt Rexroad to Karl Rove who understand the demographics of winning elections see immigration bashing as a losing issue.”[/i]
Instead, the GOP should push a Creationist agenda ([url]http://www.scientificblogging.com/adaptive_complexity/blog/what_it_republicans_and_creationism[/url]), like Sarah Palin advocates?
[i]”Sarah Palin is brilliant, an incredible, dynamic speaker …”[/i]
Must be a “liberal” definition of brilliant. She’s a dim bulb. Everyone knows it. Dan Quayle laughs at how stupid she is. She failed out of 5 colleges in 6 years. John-John Kennedy failed the bar exam in New York less often than she failed “Theory of Typing.” George W. Bush had to cheat his way through Yale and the Harvard Business School. She gave up because Matanuska-Susitna College was too much of a grind. And you say she is brilliant? Haw.
“Unfortunately you are not the first person Marty West has told this to..”
Remember when Mary West tried to “sell” the idea that Whitcombe would be contributing a sizable amount to the DJUSD if his CV project was approved with a Yes on X win. She was caught in this piece of “misinformation” and had to publicly acknowledge that the money she was speaking about was just the additional projected money coming from the State for the additional students that CV was projected to generate.
She is as dumb a bulb as was Ronald Reagan. Maybe she didn’t know what the Bush Doctrine was but intellect is not the only skill required for leadership. if Obama only had the intellect of Michael Dukakis he would not be President. It takes more today than sitting on your front porch and writing letters like Lincoln to become a leader and Sarah Palin has the same charismatic ability of both Obama and Reagan. She presents it with the charming bubba style of George W. Bush and if you discount her abilities by focusing on her lack of depth you clearly underestimate her talent. It is for good reason that she was a mayor, governor, vice-presidential candidate,and now, speaking tour sensation and Fox news contributor. It is for good reason that she has made $12,000,000 dollars, at last count, since leaving office. She can work a crowd like few in American political history. If you don’t think she is politically potent you must have missed the recent comments Obama made about her when asked. Presidents aren’t supposed to attack critics, as they say, in politics you don’t shoot down. But Palin’s audience is so large that it can’t be ignored.
The problem is that her position on immigration is a losing one for the GOP. It whips up the Republican base but it isn’t the kind of expansive platform that the GOP needs to win elections. It is the opposite of GOP positions on the sanctity of life, gun rights, low taxation, fiscal responsibility and religious piety. Those positions create a big tent that attract a majority. Anti-immigration positions divide the GOP and shrink the tent. if you want to make a bunch of money as Palin obviously does on the lecture circuit it is a great issue for filling you box office. If you are a serious political operative like Matt Rexroad and want to win an election for U.S Senate in California it is a ballot box killer.
Just look at the Republican primary for Governor. Poizner is down by 50 points so Whitman tries to move to the center on immigration. Poizner trumps her on anti-immigration playing to the base and gets a break with Goldman Sachs. Now its a horse race but Jerry Brown is actually the beneficiary of this fight in the polls and if Poizner wins it will 1998 all over again. Just when the GOP in California wants to show the face of Abel Maldonado as the face of the party anti-immigration in Arizona and Sarah Palin remind latino voters in California which side they are on.
The polls state otherwise:
A strong majority of Americans support Arizona’s controversial new immigration law and would back similar laws in their own states, a new McClatchy-Ipsos poll found.
Sixty-one percent of Americans — and 64 percent of registered voters — said they favored the law in a survey of 1,016 adults conducted May 6-9.
Strikingly, nearly half of Democrats like the law, under which local law enforcement officers are tasked with verifying people’s immigration status if they suspect them of being in the country illegally. While the Democratic Party generally is regarded as more sympathetic to illegal immigrants’ plights, 46 percent of Democrats said they favored the law for Arizona and 49 percent said they’d favor the law’s passage in their own states.
More than 8 in 10 Republicans and 54 percent of independents favor the law.
In addition, about 69 percent of Americans said they wouldn’t mind if police officers stopped them to ask for proof of their citizenship or legal rights to be in the country; about 29 percent would mind, considering it a violation of their rights; and about 3 percent were unsure.
Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/05/12/94050/most-americans-approve-of-arizonas.html#ixzz0olbjn3ly
Trouble is Rusty your confusing how people poll with how they vote. Something may be popular in a poll but those polled may vote on other concerns. By attacking the fastest growing demographic group in the nation you risk alienating that group for the long term. Xenophobia may win a election here or there, just ask Pete Wilson, but it is a long term loser for the GOP.
[i]”She is as dumb a bulb as was Ronald Reagan.”[/i]
Unlike Palin or Quayle or W., Reagan was an intelligent guy. By the time he won the presidency, he was old and his mind was obviously slipping. So if you only think of Reagan’s intellect as it was in his waning years in office, I can see how you might think he was not sharp.
But if you really know anything about Reagan, you would know that as a young man, he was fairly intelligent–and a good student, finishing first in his class in high school and in college, albeit a small midwestern college ([url]http://www.eureka.edu/[/url]), though not bad academically. He was never a very good actor. But he was self-made; and he impressed his colleagues enough to elect him to lead their guild for a number of years.
It’s really unfair to compare Reagan to dopes like Palin or Quayle. Yes, Reagan was not a genius. He was not an intellectual. His “philosophy” was fairly simple stuff. But he had (until he was old) a very quick wit, wrote all of his speeches (before becoming president) and his own jokes, and had an extraordinary talent of communicating effectively.
You totally miss my point about Reagan. My point was that underestimating him was a mistake just as it is with Palin.
[i]”You totally miss my point about Reagan. My point was that underestimating him was a mistake just as it is with Palin.”[/i]
Your comparing Reagan with Palin and saying Palin is “brilliant” is just wrong. She’s a dope. There is no there there with that lady. She has nothing to say. And she speaks poorly. She’s also a quitter, lazy and dishonest. She could not hack it as governor, so she ran for a big payday. I don’t think she has a single redeeming quality as a public servant.
Just like we underestimated Obama and now we’re stuck with him at least another 2 1/2 years.
She is not a public servant she is a rock star making 12 million plus a year but doing so irresponsibly beating the drum of anti-immigration to ring up the cash register while risking the future of the party she once represent.
represented
[quote]“I just saw Marty West at the Farmers market who told me Rochelle has a Sarah Palin bumper sticker on her car.” [/quote]
Rochelle Swanson’s home is about 100 yards from mine. For the record, I have never seen a Sarah Palin bumper sticker on any vehicle parked at her house.
Even if Rochelle did have a McCain/Palin bumper sticker on her car,
so what!!!!!
What if Rochelle had this Sarah Palin bumper sticker ([url]http://images2.cafepress.com/product/299433392v33_240x240_Front.jpg[/url]) on her car?
This is the greatest bumper sticker ([url]http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/21H1QA3X9QL._SL500_AA300_.jpg[/url]) I’ve ever seen.
This is one funny Obama bumper sticker:
http://www.zazzle.com/anti_obama_somewhere_in_kenya_a_village_is_missi_bumper_sticker-128125936921393233
RUSTY, that one doesn’t work. Agree with him or not, he was a great student, the editor of the Harvard Law Review, graduated in the top 5 in his class at Harvard Law School.
The reason why the greatest bumper sticker ever needs no explanation ([url]http://images2.cafepress.com/product/10747222v3_480x480_Front.jpg[/url]) is because the village idiot from Texas is most famous for saying things like:
* “Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream.” —
* “I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family.”
* “I hear there’s rumors on the Internets that we’re going to have a draft.”
* I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully.”
* “Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren’t able to practice their love with women all across this country.”
* “Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?”
* “Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.”
* “There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.”
I think that one works great.
Just a few of the Obama gaffes:
“Navy Corpse-Man Christian Brossard.”
“I’ve now been in 57 states — I think one left to go.
“No, no. I have been practicing…I bowled a 129. It’s like — it was like Special Olympics, or something.”
“The reforms we seek would bring greater competition, choice, savings and inefficiencies to our health care system.”
“UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? It’s the Post Office that’s always having problems.” –attempting to make the case for government-run healthcare, while simultaneously undercutting his own argument.
“Cinco de Cuatro”
“You’ll see a 3000% reduction in your healthcare bills”
Obama refuses to release his transcript from his undergraduate years.
Quotes from a former roommate who states that Obama’s performance improved after he stopped taking drugs (which Obama has admitted to openly). Since Obama did not graduate with honors, that means his GPA was between a 2.0 and a 3.3.
“Obama refuses to release his transcript from his undergraduate years.
Quotes from a former roommate who states that Obama’s performance improved after he stopped taking drugs (which Obama has admitted to openly). Since Obama did not graduate with honors, that means his GPA was between a 2.0 and a 3.3. “
Which is relevant to his achievements at HLS how?
How did he get into HLS with only a GPA of 3.3 or less?
“How did he get into HLS with only a GPA of 3.3 or less?”
Here’s an article from the NY Sun:
Obama’s Years at Columbia Are a Mystery
He Graduated Without Honors
By ROSS GOLDBERG, Special to the Sun | September 2, 2008
Senator Obama’s life story, from his humble roots, to his rise to Harvard Law School, to his passion as a community organizer in Chicago, has been at the center of his presidential campaign. But one chapter of the tale remains a blank — his education at Columbia College, a place he rarely speaks about and where few people seem to remember him.
Contributing to the mystery is the fact that nobody knows just how well Mr. Obama, unlike Senator McCain and most other major candidates for the past two elections, performed as a student.
The Obama campaign has refused to release his college transcript, despite an academic career that led him to Harvard Law School and, later, to a lecturing position at the University of Chicago. The shroud surrounding his experience at Columbia contrasts with that of other major party nominees since 2000, all whom have eventually released information about their college performance or seen it leaked to the public.
For better or worse, voters have taken an interest in candidates’ grades since 1999, when the New Yorker published President Bush’s transcript at Yale and disclosed that he was a C student. Mr. Bush had never portrayed himself as a brain, but many were surprised to learn the next year that his opponent, Vice President Gore, did not do much better at Harvard despite his intellectual image. When Senator Kerry’s transcript surfaced, reporters found that he actually had a slightly lower average at Yale than Mr. Bush did…
The Obama campaign declined to comment for this article and did not offer an explanation for why his transcript has not been released. But observers speculated that one reason might be the racially charged nature of the election. Mr. Obama has acknowledged benefiting from affirmative action in the past, and details about his academic performance might open him up to critics eager to accuse him, probably unfairly, of receiving a free ride, Mr. Kabaservice said…
In contrast with the rest of Mr. Obama’s life story, little is known about his college experience. He attended Occidental College in Los Angeles for two years before transferring to Columbia in 1981. The move receives only a mention in Mr. Obama’s 1995 memoir, “Dreams from My Father,” which instead devotes that chapter to his impressions of race and class struggles in New York.
An article in a Columbia University publication, Columbia College Today, reported that Mr. Obama has portrayed Columbia as a period of buckling down following a troubled adolescence. He did not socialize much, he has said, instead spending a lot of time in the library, “like a monk.” He has also stated that he was involved to some extent with the Black Students Organization.
Federal law limits the information that Columbia can release about Mr. Obama’s time there. A spokesman for the university, Brian Connolly, confirmed that Mr. Obama spent two years at Columbia College and graduated in 1983 with a major in political science. He did not receive honors, Mr. Connolly said, though specific information on his grades is sealed. A program from the 1983 graduation ceremony lists him as a graduate…
This otherwise commendable article fails to note numerous other questions about Mr. Obama’s academic record. Questions we have repeatedly raised.
For instance, we do not know for certain what Mr. Obama studied in his undergraduate days. He claims he majored in “international affairs,” which seems a bit unlikely for an undergraduate.
And, as the article states, his degree from Columbia is in political science — not international affairs.
Moreover, we do not know why he was accepted into these schools in the first place. Obama himself has suggested he did not have the grades to meet their requirements.
By his own admission, Obama spent his final two years in high school skipping classes, playing basketball, doing cocaine and getting drunk.
Similarly, his admission to Harvard Law school is highly questionable. Where are his LSAT scores? And how does one graduate from Columbia without honors and yet get accepted at Harvard Law?
Lastly, his ascendency to the Presidency of the Harvard Law school would appear to have also been a case of blatant affirmative action, since the student Obama had only written one legal paper — and that was quite short and remarkably undistinguished.
So where are his grade transcripts? So where is the honest and open leadership that Mr. Obama has promised us?
Rusty
“This otherwise commendable article fails to note numerous other questions about Mr. Obama’s academic record. Questions we have repeatedly raised. “
We meaning…
“He claims he majored in “international affairs,” which seems a bit unlikely for an undergraduate.”
What? What is so unusual about focusing one’s studies on international affairs as an undergrad? I know a lot of people who majored in “international affairs” or something of that variety(ie International Relations.)
“And, as the article states, his degree from Columbia is in political science — not international affairs.”
What difference does it make, whether he studied political science or international affairs? You think Obama is being less than truthful about his choice of study? Why would he bother to lie about something so insignificant?
International relations is often considered a subset of political science at certain institutions. I believe it’s possible to receive a BA in political science with an emphasis on international affairs. Usually, IR is part of the political science department.
“Moreover, we do not know why he was accepted into these schools in the first place”
If not for his grades, maybe because he was a special little snowflake? How do you think he gained his acceptances into Occidental College and Columbia? His powerful connections? What means beyond his merits, experiences, race, adversity, personal statement, letters of recommendation, etc could he have used to sway any of these institutions into accepting him?
“Similarly, his admission to Harvard Law school is highly questionable.”
Based on Obama’s undergraduate gpa, for which you have speculated and your ignorance as to what law school admissions committee members consider and the weight in which certain considerations are given, throw in your pretense… I guess I can see how you could characterize his admissions into HLS as “highly questionable.”
“And how does one graduate from Columbia without honors and yet get accepted at Harvard Law?”
It’s very possible. Undergraduate gpa is but one, albeit a main one, factor for which adcoms base their decisions on.
“Lastly, his ascendency to the Presidency of the Harvard Law school would appear to have also been a case of blatant affirmative action, since the student Obama had only written one legal paper — and that was quite short and remarkably undistinguished”
Who has claimed Obama was the “President of the Harvard Law school”? Did you mean to refer to Obama’s being selected/elected as the president of the Harvard Law Review? Becoming a member of a school’s law review is merit based and everyone wants on. Being selected or elected as the president…maybe his peers picked him because he was black and considered nothing more.
How many people write and/or publish legal articles pre-law school? What’s more, who has the time to write legal papers during their first year of law school, not that it’s impossible though? Students can ‘write-on’ to gain membership to their school’s law review, which is a writing competition one must enter. Students can ‘grade-on’, which is based on first year grades.
ERM “How did he get into HLS with only a GPA of 3.3 or less?”
URM status and a 170+ LSAT.
Good point Superfluous, when I was a grad student at UC Davis, International relations was one of the biggest undergraduate departments we had in the political science department. It would not be unusual at all.
Yeah, definitely not odd at all.
Anyway, I decided to look up Obama’s bio and according to wikipedia and http://barackobamabiography.org/, Obama majored in “Political Science with specialization in International relations.”
At UCD, that would be a good percentage of the undergrads, at one time I probably knew what percentage, but it was far from unusual.
Agreed. It’s funny what some of these people(the “we” I assume rusty refers to) drum or dream up in an attempt to cast Obama as being, well, a lot of things. However, when a little research and common sense is applied, the conspiracies wane.
Interesting that Rexroad hasn’t mentioned this incident on his blog, so far.