Not Intellectually Curious Enough?

I’m not exactly sure what that means, but Lisa Murkowski claims that it is a quality whose lack disqualifies Sarah Palin from the presidency.

Lisa Murkowki told CBS News' Katie Couric today that she would not support Sarah Palin for president because Palin lacks the "leadership qualities" and "intellectual curiosity" to craft great policy.

"You know, she was my governor for two years, for just about two years there, and I don't think that she enjoyed governing," Murkowski said. "I don't think she liked to get down into the policy." The Alaska senator added that she prefers a candidate who "goes to bed at night and wakes up in the morning thinking about how we're going to deal with" important issues.

I know Murkowski is a pariah in conservative GOP / Tea Party circles right now, but she may have a point.  Palin occasionally addresses a policy point, but it usually a short blurb on facebook or twitter.  I have yet to see any in-depth policy positions from her. 

That lack isn’t in itself disqualifying; she isn’t actually running for any office yet, but as a “kingmaker” and the de facto spokesperson for the Tea Party wing of the GOP I would like to see some sort of solid articulated position on issues.  That lack at this point indicates to me that she is trying to follow the Obama model of success based on celebrity vs. substance.  In my mind that is disqualifying.

Note:  In general I like Sarah Palin, and if she does start articulating a solid set of policies I would be willing to support her (the highly coveted Chad endorsement).  The other thing I would like to see is some updated jokes.  Mama Grizzly and pit bull jokes can only last so long.

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

Speaking of intellectually curious, this kind of got my goat yesterday;  Ace was posting on that simplistic NY Times budget calculator and the following were seen in the comments:

“After they eliminate ALL other unconstitutional agencies then they can look at SS and Medicare.”

…

“Why don't we bring the spending back as much as possible to that proposed by the US Constitution.  We'd have to repeal an ammendment and change the Interstate Commerce clause, but I know of no better time to start doing it than now, what with the national political climate the way it is. “

I’m just curious, have you guys actually read the constitution (the commenters there, not the readers here)?  No specific executive branch office or department, other than President, and Vice-President, are mentioned by name in the constitution.  Are they all unconstitutional? No, the departments are established by legislative act, as the constitution intended. Secondly, show me one place in the constitution where budget priorities are set.  Is it like “National Treasure”, the Freemasons secretly embedded a budgeted road map on the back of the constitution and only those with the right combination of colored lenses and tin-foil hats can read it.  Thirdly,  if you are changing the constitution, then you are not returning to it.  You are changing it more to your liking.  That’s fine that’s what the amendment process is for but be honest about it, and if you are going to start bitching about what the constitution says then at least actually know what it says. 

I know what these guys are trying to argue, that the government has usurped power that was supposed to be reserved to the states.  That maybe a valid argument, but the points they are putting forward in support of it are not.