1. Some time spent in a consequential position in the federal government (~ten years, give or take).

2. Some time spent as a public executive (~seven years, give or take).

3. A stint in Congress (~four years, give or take).

4. An elongated period of time working in trades other than politics (~ a dozen years).

5. A stint in the military.

6. An orderly domestic life.

7. Entry into political life (as a professional) on the cusp of middle age and accession to the Presidency on the cusp of old age.

Franklin Roosevelt is the only one of our more able chief executives who did not meet a majority of these criteria. (He did meet the first two). Sarah Palin meets only one or two criteria and Barack Obama one or two (of lesser importance), so I would submit both are not at this time suited to the office. Of course, one occupies the office and the other occupies the febrile brain of Dr. Andrew Sullivan.

Mrs. Clinton and Bill Richardson were the only Democratic candidates last year who met a majority of these criteria. I believe all of the Republican aspirants did meet a majority of them.

It is of value that people can argue and articulate precisely why the adhere to the positions they do. The principal reason for that is that it aids them in standing their ground. While we are at it, I do not think that Daniel Patrick Moynihan or Anthony Kennedy were lacking in forensic skills.

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/12/crazed-palin-hater-throws-tomato-at-governor-palin-hits-a-cop-instead/

I really like Mike Huckabee. He strikes me more as a pro-life populist Democrat than he does a Republican a lot of the time, except say on issues of foreign policy where I think he strolls along the party platform because it is an area that he has no expertise because of his specific political experience.

If Palin isn’t qualified is Huckabee? I really like the guy as a person and he’s a skilled politician. He doesn’t seem intellectually lazy but he’s no intellectual either. He’s great on abortion but I don’t trust him on economic matters.

On the other hand, Romney may have been the smartest candidate last year but he lacked a backbone. I’d trust him as an adviser but not as president. Wish we could combine Romney’s brain, Huckabee’s heart, Palin’s looks, Obama’s speaking abilities, and Biden’s religion.

Sigh. It was not to be.

I’ve sounded off on this before, so I may as well do it again. When I compare how Mike Huckabee – who I would be hard-pressed to call an “intellectual” – articulated the pro-life position during the campaign to the way Palin did, there really is no comparison. Huckabee eloquently presented the case for life, not only for the unborn but all of the vulnerable members of society.

The best Palin could come up with, that I saw, was “I would choose life.” I never heard her make an objective, accessible case for life based in theology or common sense. That’s not a defense of the pro-life position. It’s equivalent, in my view, to saying, “I’m pro-life, therefore it is a good position.” Contrary to what many social conservatives seem to think, I do not believe she is a good representative of our views.

It just isn’t fair to compare her to George Washington or any other classical political figure who may have lacked an education. Aside from the fact that higher education really was less accessible in say, the 18th century, given even those circumstances the correspondence of farm boys and shop apprentices still seemed to rise above the level of what passes for literacy in modern America.

To rehash a line from the ’08 campaign, what I see going on is an attempt to put lipstick on a pig. And when I say she is intellectually lazy, that isn’t to say that she is totally lazy – a person can work hard in one area of life and be lazy in another. But I don’t think she takes the time that a person who seeks the highest office in the land ought to take to understand the issues, and her latest round of interviews on the conservative talk circuit – not the liberal, where they are trying to “get her” – demonstrated that even more. She evades questions, she dodges, she covers up her ignorance by falling back on empty platitudes. It isn’t fooling me and for the life of me I don’t understand why it fools any of you.

I think we who are pro-life, pro-marriage, and pro-family can do a lot better – MUST do a lot better. We MUST have a representative that can intelligently state our case, and we have dozens of possibilities on that score. Forget this silly charge of “intellectualism.” I don’t trust the official academic establishment and the professional intellectuals either, but “intellectual” is not the same as “articulate.”