Why Republicans Embrace Simpletons and How it Hurts America

[whysoserious]

[h=1]Why Republicans Embrace Simpletons and How it Hurts America[/h]
There are some hackish parts in here, but honestly, probably the funniest report I have ever read. My favorite is this:

Each hopeful successor to the Republican Dumbass Throne (the coveted RDT) has proven so cartoonishly dopey as to offend even the intelligence of diehard Iowa primary voters, easily the most unbending conservatives in the U.S.Things are now so bad on the dumbass front that, in a poll announced yesterday, Iowans are no longer interested in the current crop of Republican cretins. This includes Texas Governor Rick “Oops” Perry, who, in a colossal boneheaded moment in a live nationally televised debate, could not remember the third federal agency he would cut as president.

What a fact that is. It's amazing the each candidate chosen to run has shown themselves to be so immensely uneducated, that even the base turns away in disgust. This is the same base that thinks education is liberal; news is liberal; art, movies, and music are liberal; science is liberal; UHC is liberal; infrastructure development is liberal; etc.

This list also includes Michelle “Pray the Gay Away” Bachman, who believes that “Founding Fathers” like John Quincy Adams “worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States” (except J. Q. Adams died in 1848, long before “slavery was no more”).

And don't forget this one:

gasp-inducing ignorance of foreign policy basics (e.g., Sarah Palin not knowing that there is a North and South Korea, or her hysterical notion that Sputnik bankrupted the Soviet Union).

Oh, and let's not forget this:

And, yes, this also includes the endlessly entertaining Herman “I’m Not Supposed to Know Anything About Foreign Policy” Cain, whose inability to construct a coherent sentence on Libya and stated desire to prevent an already nuclear-armed China from “going nuclear” are now part of national dumbass folklore.

And I had never even heard this one:

And lets not forget the deeply annoying Rick "Sanctum" Santorum, who said publicly that former P.O.W. John McCain “didn’t understand advanced interrogation techniques.” A Republican dumbass hallmark: arrogance wed to ignorance.

John McCain doesn't understand advanced interrogation techniques? Wow. That's ****ing retarded.

Now, you might ask, why aren’t Republicans in love with Romney? After all, he’s been a successful businessman in the Republican mold, essentially downsizing companies to their bare essentials and then reselling them for profit. He has that vague, detached, tall Ken Doll vibe that Republicans idealized in Reagan. In addition, as a devout Mormon, he’s squeaky clean in the morals department. Dude doesn’t drink, smoke, do drugs, or drink hot caffeinated beverages. He’s more straight edge than the Crotty, and that’s saying something.

Good question, but we all know the answer. The author says it's that he is just "not seen as dumb enough", which I think is true, but only in the since as almost anything intelligent is marked "liberal" by the right wing.

So here we are, in 2011, and it appears the republicans will probably select Newt ****ing Gingrich as their horse to run against the incumbent Obama. That's how low conservatives and republicans across the nation have sunk.

 

[ksu_aviator]

Interesting. Of course this does nothing to support my claim that liberals try to talk down their opposition rather than debating them on the facts. [/sarcasm]

 

[whysoserious]

Like I said, some of it is definitely hacky and not up my alley. For instance, the part on Sarah Palin and the Korea's - a mental faux pas does not mean she doens't know the difference. There are plenty of actual Sarah Palin gaffs, so I am not sure why he chose that one.

 

[TheNextEra]

A main reason in 2004 that many Republicans gave for voting for Bush was that the Democrats didn't put anybody up that they felt would be better. Which ultimately led to Bush being in for another term.

Now, it seems the Republicans are making the same mistake the Democrats did in 2004 by putting up as front runners Gingrich and Romney for 2012.

My prediction, Obama will win a second term unfortunately.

History repeats itself for those that do not learn from it.

 

[nonpareil]

A main reason in 2004 that many Republicans gave for voting for Bush was that the Democrats didn't put anybody up that they felt would be better. Which ultimately led to Bush being in for another term.

Now, it seems the Republicans are making the same mistake the Democrats did in 2004 by putting up as front runners Gingrich and Romney for 2012.

My prediction, Obama will win a second term unfortunately.

History repeats itself for those that do not learn from it.

The main reason for the GOP 2004 win was that the Republican mounted a very successful character assassination campaign against Kerry using the swift-boat liars. Kerry for his own part, was not smart enough to kill the lies immediately and organise a counter-attack.

 

[TheNextEra]

The main reason for the GOP 2004 win was that the Republican mounted a very successful character assassination campaign against Kerry using the swift-boat liars. Kerry for his own part, was not smart enough to kill the lies immediately and organise a counter-attack.

While Kerry had issues with Swiftboaters, it was Kerry's own inability to convince the American people HOW he would do better. He simply kept saying he would do better and "Help is on the way".

Kerry's biggest problem was Kerry. Just as Gingrich's and Romney's biggest problem will be themselves.

 

[whysoserious]

While Kerry had issues with Swiftboaters, it was Kerry's own inability to convince the American people HOW he would do better. He simply kept saying he would do better and "Help is on the way".

Kerry's biggest problem was Kerry. Just as Gingrich's and Romney's biggest problem will be themselves.

I disagree in the sense that Kerry is in no way comparable to Gingrich (ie he isn't a piece of ****), and he isn't like Romney (ie he didn't repulse his own base). Kerry couldn't get the independent vote. I don't recall Kerry ever saying anything like, "screw these gays, we can't even say 'Merry Christmas'", and I don't recall him thinking that living near a foreign nation meant he was good with foreign relations.

No one is going to argue that John Kerry was a strong candidate but he wasn't a clown, which is all the conservative base seems to support. The loudest, idiot in the room.

 

[TheNextEra]

I disagree in the sense that Kerry is in no way comparable to Gingrich (ie he isn't a piece of ****), and he isn't like Romney (ie he didn't repulse his own base). Kerry couldn't get the independent vote. I don't recall Kerry ever saying anything like, "screw these gays, we can't even say 'Merry Christmas'", and I don't recall him thinking that living near a foreign nation meant he was good with foreign relations.

No one is going to argue that John Kerry was a strong candidate but he wasn't a clown, which is all the conservative base seems to support. The loudest, idiot in the room.

A lot of the military thought Kerry was a piece of s**t though, right or wrong on how you look at it. There were a lot of questionable things on the medals he received.

I didn't like him (not because of the military controversy), but because the guy couldn't answer a simple question of how. It was like a question was answered and there was a string on the back of him that said "I can do better" or "Help is on the way".

IMO Kerry was indeed a clown and I blame the Democrats for 4 more years of Bush for putting that clown up there.

 

[AdamT]

Kerry's main problem was that he's just a poor communicator. It's not that he didn't have good ideas -- he was just incapable of expressing them in short sound bites.

As far as the military not liking him, I always found it absurd that they would favor Bush, who's family pulled strings to get him out of serving in Vietnam, over Kerry, who was awarded a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts for his service in one of the most dangerous combat duities in the war.

 

[whysoserious]

I don't even see a comparison between Kerry and the current republican field. What is the fetish with idiocy?

Cain?
Bachmann?
Palin?
Perry?

 

[American]

Like I said, some of it is definitely hacky and not up my alley. For instance, the part on Sarah Palin and the Korea's - a mental faux pas does not mean she doens't know the difference. There are plenty of actual Sarah Palin gaffs, so I am not sure why he chose that one.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahah

 

[whysoserious]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahah

I am sorry that you are part of the group that hails unintelligence.

Maybe quit criticizing science, school, news, infrastructure, energy independence, and other things that experts have ruled on and I won't have such a problem with your party. Just because I am willing to critique the obvious problems with the republican party and conservative view point does not make me hack - like for instance on the Palin thing. There are many conservatives on this board who I can agree with, you aren't one of them because you are too extreme.

*Edit:

I actually have a challenge. I can't think of one field that experts agree on something that liberals don't take as truth. Can anyone think of one or two? And if so, can you match my list of things republicans disagree with experts on:

-Economics (Keynesian)
-Evolution
-AGW
-Sex Ed
-Education
-Energy Independence

I know some of you liberals can continue adding to that list too.

 

[Catawba]

[h=1]Why Republicans Embrace Simpletons and How it Hurts America[/h]
There are some hackish parts in here, but honestly, probably the funniest report I have ever read. My favorite is this:


What a fact that is. It's amazing the each candidate chosen to run has shown themselves to be so immensely uneducated, that even the base turns away in disgust. This is the same base that thinks education is liberal; news is liberal; art, movies, and music are liberal; science is liberal; UHC is liberal; infrastructure development is liberal; etc.



And don't forget this one:



Oh, and let's not forget this:



And I had never even heard this one:



John McCain doesn't understand advanced interrogation techniques? Wow. That's ****ing retarded.



Good question, but we all know the answer. The author says it's that he is just "not seen as dumb enough", which I think is true, but only in the since as almost anything intelligent is marked "liberal" by the right wing.

So here we are, in 2011, and it appears the republicans will probably select Newt ****ing Gingrich as their horse to run against the incumbent Obama. That's how low conservatives and republicans across the nation have sunk.[/FONT][/COLOR]

I think the GOP must be saving their big hitters till 2016 when they have a better chance of beating Obama.

 

[whysoserious]

I think the GOP must be saving their big hitters till 2016 when they have a better chance of beating Obama.

You mean the democrats, obviously, since Obama can't run again. I guess, but the article makes an interesting point - they do seem to rejoice at unintelligence.

 

[1Perry]

I don't even see a comparison between Kerry and the current republican field. What is the fetish with idiocy?

Cain?
Bachmann?
Palin?
Perry?

Funny that. This is like those who insisted on comparing Obama with Palin as opposed to McCain to try and defend him. Gingrich and Romney are both very smart (and left off your list) but have taken positions the base doesn't support so they listen to the alternatives. Granted, many of them are swimming in the shallow end with the likes of Kerry and Gore.

 

[rocket88]

they do seem to rejoice at unintelligence.

They did take Joe the Plumber on tour to "share his wisdom" with America (in fact, a McCain campaign staffer used just those words in 2008). I don't understand it because there are so many intelligent conservatives. Why not one of them?

 

[Catawba]

You mean the democrats, obviously, since Obama can't run again. I guess, but the article makes an interesting point - they do seem to rejoice at unintelligence.

The GOP base has come to shun the "educated elite," as they tend to think liberally, as you pointed out very well with your challenge above.

 

[Parrish]

The Right wants the country fat, sick, educated at home and stupid, pregnant and barefoot, watching faux news and listening to hate-mongers on the radio and seeing it as "truth", and so bigoted and fearful of the Left that they won't realize that that they've been screwed.

 

[StillBallin75]

The main reason for the GOP 2004 win was that the Republican mounted a very successful character assassination campaign against Kerry using the swift-boat liars. Kerry for his own part, was not smart enough to kill the lies immediately and organise a counter-attack.

To be fair, aside from the swift-boat controversy, Kerry was a very unimpressive Presidential candidate anyways and constantly shot himself in the foot.

 

[StillBallin75]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahah

This from the dude who wants to curse Canada with high gas prices because they were against a stupid war?

 

[a351]

Al Sharpton. That will be all.

 

[whysoserious]

Funny that. This is like those who insisted on comparing Obama with Palin as opposed to McCain to try and defend him. Gingrich and Romney are both very smart (and left off your list) but have taken positions the base doesn't support so they listen to the alternatives. Granted, many of them are swimming in the shallow end with the likes of Kerry and Gore.

I consider Romney to be like Kerry - in that his base isn't necessarily riled up by him and he probably won't garnish much of the independent vote. Gingrich? Sure:

Newt

Jan. 17, 1997 — [Committee attorney Jim] Cole and lawyers for Gingrich agree that the speaker’s punishment should be a reprimand plus a $300,000 penalty to reimburse the ethics committee for time wasted due to his inconsistent statements. The panel holds a public hearing into Gingrich’s violations, then votes 7-1 in favor of the judgment.
Jan. 21, 1997 — The House votes 395-28 in favor of ethics committee’s recommended punishment for Gingrich — a reprimand plus a $300,000 penalty, which allows him to remain as House speaker.

395-28. That's bipartisan hatred of Newt in 1997. You would think a party that is running on government responsibility would try to not elect the least ethical person on the board.

Revisiting Newt Gingrich's 1997 Ethics Investigation

In one instance, a restaurant-industry advocacy group gave Gingrich's college course $25,000. One of Gingrich's political fundraisers solicited the money and said in a memo that the group might contribute if Gingrich would teach ideas that it favored.

The chairman of the group was chain-restaurant owner Norman Brinker. Brinker was later featured in a flattering video used by Gingrich in his course to talk about business innovation: "Whether it's his beloved game of polo or his magical success in business, Norman Brinker simply does not know how to lose."

Back in 1988, as a minority-party backbencher, Gingrich filed ethics charges against Democratic House Speaker Jim Wright.

His muscular rhetoric sounds familiar: "Having Jim Wright third in line to be president, and having the power of the speakership in Jim Wright's hands, is very, very dangerous to the processes we're used to in this country."

Just as in Gingrich's own case, the original allegations didn't stick against Wright. But the ethics committee found other problems.

But unlike Gingrich, Wright chose to resign before the committee reached a final verdict.

Emphasis mine. Even Newt thinks it's dangerous to have such unethical individuals in power.

Al Sharpton. That will be all.

Al Sharpton was ever a front runner for the democratic nomination in what year?

They did take Joe the Plumber on tour to "share his wisdom" with America (in fact, a McCain campaign staffer used just those words in 2008). I don't understand it because there are so many intelligent conservatives. Why not one of them?

Yes, exactly!

 

[Catawba]

Al Sharpton. That will be all.

When did Al throw his hat in the presidential ring???

 

[a351]

When did Al throw his hat in the presidential ring???

04 I believe

 

[whysoserious]

04 I believe

And his share of votes was?