As noted on this thread, the GOP likes to trot out “small government” propaganda while carrying water for the “values voters” big-government faction. It’s hardly surprising that actual small-government believers would resent being treated as suckers, and would respond by making a mockery of their little game.
As I watched the Republican ‘debate’, all I could do was wonder - ‘is this the best America has to offer for the office of President’. If this clown show represents the cream of the crop then the country is in real trouble. The Republicans should clean off the slate and offer us some real candidates.
Crane
No, but just the way the primaries are rigged in favor of the hardcore partisan and lunatic fringe + unlimited monies for attack ads, means not many folks who could/would do a good job are actually dumb enough (or have big enough egos) to WANT it.
My point is that if she doesn’t do the work of running for office, people will lose interest in her, and her cash flow will dry up. The work-to-cashflow ratio may work for her now, but by this time next year, she may have next to no cashflow to speak of.
[shrug] Show me a country with a better class of politicians.
I’m pretty certain there’s no other developed country where evolution deniers can be plausible candidates for the highest elected offices.
Most countries have much bigger problems with institutional corruption and such than us, but it’s hard to beat America’s politicians for pure stupid.
We’re number one! We’re number one!
It’s actually much worse than you are saying: this merely impliles that Americans are unusually tolerant, genial, generous people. In fact, what we are is small-minded imbeciles, or at least that’s the wagon that Republicans have hitched themselves to: to be a Republican nomnee for President in this time means you MUST affirmatively assert that you deny evolution. That is SOME serious lack of integrity, especially since (I hope) every Republican candidate is smart enough to grasp the basics of evolution, and secretly accept it in his heart.
Well, maybe not Palin.
Nor Bachmann.
uh, not Herman, neither.
Okay, I hope SOME Pubbies are that smart.
That’s a bit much. Last time around, out of the 10 candidates only Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo and Mike Huckabee were willing to admit their stupidity. McCain won the nomination and did not.
I’m not sure which of the current candidates would do so, other than Bachmann and Perry (has the question been asked in any of this year’s debates?)
It’s pretty funny to me that the first time the Republicans find themselves capable of saying “Yes,” they say it in Hebrew, and to a schvartzer*.
I wouldn’t be astonished to find that becoming a staple of his moronic campaign rhetoric, too. “They call us the party of No, but my name means Yes, in Hebrew, and I say ‘Yes!’ to America, yes to jobs, yes to simplicity in tax codes, yes to abortion–uh, maybe that last one, not so much, let me get back to you on that…”
- polite word for “black person” in Yiddish, nothing derogatory.
Whose name is that?
Let’s be fair. Brownback wrote a clarification letter for the N.Y. Times, giving a slightly different opinion to its readers than he gave to his less intellectual audience:
(Personally, this grudging reference to “microevolution … within a species” left me amazed he bothered to submit this “retraction” at all. :smack: )
Beats me. Cain means spear in Hebrew, and Herman is derived from Germanic languages.
OK, what he’s saying is that yes in Hebrew is “ken” which is pronounced similarly to Cain. High marks as a pun.
I thought Cain was the founder of Godfather’s pizza. Now people are telling me that no, he simply took over the chain and then slashed the workforce to improve the bottom line. If that’s the case (if you don’t mind confirming that for me, 'dope), not only do I have to retract some of the nice things I said about him but I have to add that in terms of professional behavior, this makes him pretty much exactly the same as Mitt Romney.
I still think Cain is the most charismatic guy in the field. But- meh. Not as genuine as I thought.
As for Romney, tell me if this position is a case of religious discrimination or simple common sense: The fact that this dude believes such wildly false claims about American history renders him disqualified for President. It is the same way a person whose religion claimed 2+2=5 would be disqualified from nuclear engineering- sorry, you need to be on board with certain facts to get the job.
The really interesting thing about this field is that one of them has to win. What a silly caucus this year!
Even if Romney does believe everything in the Book of Mormon literally, that’s a portion of American history of very low relevance to anything that’s significant to politics. That the Latter-Day Saints were persecuted in the east and went west to establish their own community in Utah is of some small historical significance. Whether or not they actually made this move according to inspiration from the Angel Moroni is pretty much moot. And whether Jesus came to pre-Columbian America is no more relevant than whether he came to pre-Columbian Israel.
Is it possible to contrive a circumstance in which a Mormon President, in an effort not to ‘blow their cover’ as buying into counter-Mormon evidence, as a consequence screws up terribly?
Mormon Doctrine states that God established the Constitution of the United States in order to found the LDS religion.
That’s a novel frame of reference for a US President.
Crane
But does Romney even believe that?
Replace “to found the LDS religion” with “wage war with Gog and Magog in preparation for the Final Days” and you have a zany doctrine that a recent President actually believed.
Many of these guys, if campaigning to direct a book club, would be laughed off the stage. Instead they’re serious contenders for the U.S. Presidency. :smack:
Cain, Gingrich and Romney are sharing the margin of error for leadership in the polls. Perry has predictably self-destructed. Bachman has flat lined and the others are road kill.
Tonight’s debate topic is National Security and Foriegn Policy. Cain is clueless on both. Romney is marginally better. Experience may pay off for Gingrich tonight. This could be an optimum opportunity for Gingrich to take the lead.
Crane
Whoever said that obviously has been doing too much LDS.