Why Republicans Embrace Simpletons and How it Hurts America

[a351]

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


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




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



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



Yes, exactly!

I don't remember front-runner being mentioned as a qualifier.

 

[RadicalModerate]

I think the overall message here is worthy of debate; does America seem to prefer anti-intellectualism?

 

[whysoserious]

I don't remember front-runner being mentioned as a qualifier.

Well democrats can't very control every guy from entering, but we certainly don't revel in idiocy and allow them to lead the polls.

The only reasonable people in the republican primaries never seem to lead because republicans are clearly not interested in reason at this time.

 

[whysoserious]

Here is a republican powerhouse these days:



If it was written into the plot of a movie it wouldn't be believable.

 

[Catawba]

No one has taken on the challenge here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/2012-...etons-and-hurts-america-2.html#post1060012791

That is curious..............

 

[nonpareil]

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

Why is he perceived as a poor candidate? Because they were very successful with their anti-Kerry campaign. Sure certain portrayals were true - that he's long-winded and changes positions. Certain things were just silly - what's wrong with sailing? Certain things that turned independents off were lies: like the swift-boat liars. The biggest controversy for that election though, was the swift-boat liars, without them the election might be different. Bush shot himself in the foot plenty of times but his campaign never allowed that to become a factor. And part of that blame falls on Kerry for not putting up a good counter-attack.

 

[American]

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.

You are ridiculous hack, and your desperate trolling proves it.

 

[1Perry]

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:

Being smart and ethical are two different things. Sure, one can argue that someone truely smart wouldn't get themselves into the ethical messes they do but even at that, I'd place B. Clinton into the deep end of the pool.

 

[whysoserious]

You are ridiculous hack, and your desperate trolling proves it.

I haven't seen you say one thing against the argument. Why is the conservative base anti-intellectual?

Being smart and ethical are two different things. Sure, one can argue that someone truely smart wouldn't get themselves into the ethical messes they do but even at that, I'd place B. Clinton into the deep end of the pool.

Yeah, I wouldn't say Newt is dumb. He doesn't strike me as dumb, that's for sure - that's why I left him out of it.

Clinton had some ethical issues for sure.

 

[1Perry]

And his share of votes was?

In the end, likely as much as Bachmann.

 

[whysoserious]

I'll add another to the list:

-The ending of Don't Ask Don't Tell.

McCain even said he would vote to repeal it when the Joint Chiefs said to do so, but when that happened he changed his mind.

 

[cpwill]

[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]

wait. so the argument is that republicans are looking for the stupid candidate.... so they are going to choose Newt Gingrich, whose problem is not that he is incapable of coming up with ideas and then articulating them exceedingly well, but that he is incapable of ceasing to do so....

 

[whysoserious]

wait. so the argument is that republicans are looking for the stupid candidate.... so they are going to choose Newt Gingrich, whose problem is not that he is incapable of coming up with ideas and then articulating them exceedingly well, but that he is incapable of ceasing to do so....

For the record, again, I don't think Gingrich is stupid. I do, however, know that his 1280+ page ethics review will probably be a tough pill to swallow once the elections start. Even Ron Paul hates Gingrich:

New Ron Paul Ad Blasts Newt Gingrich for 'Serial Hypocrisy'
Gingrich makes Kerry's flip flops look silly.

Meanwhile, republicans have Romney just sitting there. A perfectly reasonable, Reaganesk candidate, but he can't get the vote because he's too ****ing reasonable. If Romney would just act like everyone else and say, "No UHC is bad and I shouldn't have done it in my state", "There is no global warming", "I want to cut every ****ing government agency ever", "gays are ruining this country", etc, he'd be elected in a heartbeat.

*Edit:

But no, that's not what the article is asserting. The article is asserting that he is getting the vote, not because of his ideas or actions, but because he fits the bill of what they want in a candidate. Someone willing to be extreme and willing to go against all reason and logic. How many republicans think Clinton tarnished his record by having affairs and lying, and yet Gingrich is leading the field?

 

[cpwill]

For the record, again, I don't think Gingrich is stupid. I do, however, know that his 1280+ page ethics review will probably be a tough pill to swallow once the elections start. Even Ron Paul hates Gingrich:

New Ron Paul Ad Blasts Newt Gingrich for 'Serial Hypocrisy'
Gingrich makes Kerry's flip flops look silly.

Meanwhile, republicans have Romney just sitting there. A perfectly reasonable, Reaganesk candidate, but he can't get the vote because he's too ****ing reasonable. If Romney would just act like everyone else and say, "No UHC is bad and I shouldn't have done it in my state", "There is no global warming", "I want to cut every ****ing government agency ever", "gays are ruining this country", etc, he'd be elected in a heartbeat.

*Edit:

But no, that's not what the article is asserting. The article is asserting that he is getting the vote, not because of his ideas or actions, but because he fits the bill of what they want in a candidate. Someone willing to be extreme and willing to go against all reason and logic.

Romney is no Reagan. He also isn't a conservative - he just plays one on TV. That is why his polling tops out in the mid 20's; because only that percentage of the party is willing to actively support such a person. Gingrich is a narcissistic motor mouth who is conservative, but only as a by-product.

and the article seems to be defining "reason and logic" in terms of "liberalism". bit of a poor argument, there.

 

[TurtleDude]

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.

the average pro football player suffers more physical damage every sunday than Kerry did getting his three band aid purple hearts-minor scratches he used to bail out of a hazardous job he never wanted to do in the first place.

 

[whysoserious]

Romney is no Reagan. He also isn't a conservative - he just plays one on TV. That is why his polling tops out in the mid 20's; because only that percentage of the party is willing to actively support such a person. Gingrich is a narcissistic motor mouth who is conservative, but only as a by-product.

and the article seems to be defining "reason and logic" in terms of "liberalism". bit of a poor argument, there.

What makes Gingrich a conservative? Is it his concerns on global warming? Though he did propose a death penalty for drug smugglers. Or is it how he accepted large sums from Freddie Mac. Was it when he said he would have instituted a no-fly zone over Libya? Or was it when he said he would have never intervened with Libya? Was it when he criticized right-wing social engineering or left-wing social engineering? How about when he said the ethics committee in the '90s was partisan and received a "pants on fire" from Politifact? Or what about when he co-sponsored a bill in '05 to reform Freddie Mac and then opposed the bill later? Is it the three marriages and adultery that make him republican (it must be since it is unethical when democrats do it)? Or of course even being fined $300,000 for ethics violations - is that conservative?

Which of those is the part that makes him a conservative?

 

[Dickieboy]

No one has taken on the challenge here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/2012-...etons-and-hurts-america-2.html#post1060012791

That is curious..............

I would consider participating in this challenge once it is proven that 'experts agree' on the topics posted.

 

[whysoserious]

I would consider participating in this challenge once it is proven that 'experts agree' on the topics posted.

Fine.

Economics:

n Spring 2003, a survey of 1000 economists was conducted using a randomly generated membership list from the American Economics Association. The survey contained questions about 18 policy issues, voting behavior, and several background variables. The response was 264 (nonblank) surveys. The responses show that most economists are supporters of safety regulations, gun control, redistribution, public schooling, and anti-discrimination laws. They are evenly mixed on personal choice issues, military action, and the minimum wage. Most economists oppose tighter immigration controls, government ownership of enterprise and tariffs. In voting, the Democratic:Republican ratio is 2.5:1. These results are compared to those of previous surveys of economists. We itemize a series of important questions raised by these results.

-Evolution: Do I need to do this one?

-AGW: Do I need to do this one?

-Sex Ed: Do I need to do this one? Everyone knows about the conservative fight against sex ed (they wanted to teach abstinence only)

-Energy Independence: Do I need to prove this one as well? Liberals are the ones pushing for the funding of solar power, wind, nuclear, etc.

-DADT:

Pentagon officials will announce Friday that the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the armed services can be lifted without harming militaryreadiness, a step that is likely to end the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy in September, Defense Department officials said.

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Adm. Michael G. Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are recommending to President Obama that he proceed with final repeal of the policy that has been in place for nearly two decades, the officials said.

I am surprised I need to do this since most of them are notoriously "liberal" - whatever that means.

 

[poweRob]

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.

Kerry's problem was he ran a campaign 3 years after 9/11 on the premise, "I'm George Bush but tougher." If you are trying to supplant someone, pretending or actually being like them isn't the right thing to do.

 

[Rosie1]

That article was too funny! Is it Maher that calls Iowa Republicans "Children of the Corn?"

 

[American]

What makes Gingrich a conservative? Is it his concerns on global warming? Though he did propose a death penalty for drug smugglers. Or is it how he accepted large sums from Freddie Mac. Was it when he said he would have instituted a no-fly zone over Libya? Or was it when he said he would have never intervened with Libya? Was it when he criticized right-wing social engineering or left-wing social engineering? How about when he said the ethics committee in the '90s was partisan and received a "pants on fire" from Politifact? Or what about when he co-sponsored a bill in '05 to reform Freddie Mac and then opposed the bill later? Is it the three marriages and adultery that make him republican (it must be since it is unethical when democrats do it)? Or of course even being fined $300,000 for ethics violations - is that conservative?

Which of those is the part that makes him a conservative?

Compared to Obama he's religious right. What do you think you are actually proving here, except that he's still 100 x more honest than your community organizer. You can use Rev Wright for a character witness.

 

[cpwill]

What makes Gingrich a conservative? Is it his concerns on global warming? Though he did propose a death penalty for drug smugglers. Or is it how he accepted large sums from Freddie Mac. Was it when he said he would have instituted a no-fly zone over Libya? Or was it when he said he would have never intervened with Libya? Was it when he criticized right-wing social engineering or left-wing social engineering? How about when he said the ethics committee in the '90s was partisan and received a "pants on fire" from Politifact? Or what about when he co-sponsored a bill in '05 to reform Freddie Mac and then opposed the bill later? Is it the three marriages and adultery that make him republican (it must be since it is unethical when democrats do it)? Or of course even being fined $300,000 for ethics violations - is that conservative?

Which of those is the part that makes him a conservative?

oh, certainly I would never claim the man is consistent in his particulars, nor would I argue that conservatism is central to his personality or ideology; i argued it's a by product of his self-regard, which is his defining feature. hence the serial marriages and adultery.

but the man does instinctively tilt in favor of western culture, market solutions, and a forward leaning foreign policy. Romney.... much less so.

 

[whysoserious]

oh, certainly I would never claim the man is consistent in his particulars, nor would I argue that conservatism is central to his personality or ideology; i argued it's a by product of his self-regard, which is his defining feature. hence the serial marriages and adultery.

but the man does instinctively tilt in favor of western culture, market solutions, and a forward leaning foreign policy. Romney.... much less so.

Are you planning to vote for him?

Gingrich is not my favorite, obviously, but I'd say he is second on the list. Romney then Gingrich I believe for me.

 

[cpwill]

I don't know. I would say that at this point I would be willing to accept him over Obama. I have already decided not to vote for Romney, but rather to vote third party in order to keep him worried about a revolt on his right. With Gingrich, however, such a tactic would not work, as it would simply elevate his opinion of himself as some kind of inevitable American Philosopher King, who Wisely Struck The Middle Path etc.

 

[Dickieboy]

Fine.

Nothing you posted qualifies as 'experts agree'. The economics point is close but the excerpt you use states 'most' of the 264 that responded of the 1000 that were surveyed. Hardly 'most'. I couldn't find any reference to 'experts' in the DADT clip.

Try again.

As to energy independence, both sides desire independence but propose different solutions but I'm sure you know this. It would be interesting if you could find a source that supports that conservatives do not agree with nuclear power as you insinuate.