It's Hard to Take You Seriously

[Anonymous]

With a straight face you have defended the candidacies of Palin, Bachmann, Cain, and Perry, despite their obvious lack of basic knowledge about the Presidency/Vice Presidency and the subjects those jobs entail. Never in a million years would you find the Dems doing this. Remember Howard Dean? He brought the crazy on one speech (one speech!) and he was out. Al Sharpton couldn't with the District even when the major candidates did not enter the primary there.

We have a minimum standard. You apparently do not. You'd like to talk about candidates' knowledge and brain power the way hippie parents talk about "multiple intelligences" - like the "everybody is a winner" mentality. I'm here to tell you that not everyone is a winner, and some of your candidates are dumb as stumps. Can you develop a filter for that before you embarrass yourselves again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:With a straight face you have defended the candidacies of Palin, Bachmann, Cain, and Perry, despite their obvious lack of basic knowledge about the Presidency/Vice Presidency and the subjects those jobs entail. Never in a million years would you find the Dems doing this. Remember Howard Dean? He brought the crazy on one speech (one speech!) and he was out. Al Sharpton couldn't with the District even when the major candidates did not enter the primary there.

We have a minimum standard. You apparently do not. You'd like to talk about candidates' knowledge and brain power the way hippie parents talk about "multiple intelligences" - like the "everybody is a winner" mentality. I'm here to tell you that not everyone is a winner, and some of your candidates are dumb as stumps. Can you develop a filter for that before you embarrass yourselves again?

2 words: John Edwards

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With a straight face you have defended the candidacies of Palin, Bachmann, Cain, and Perry, despite their obvious lack of basic knowledge about the Presidency/Vice Presidency and the subjects those jobs entail. Never in a million years would you find the Dems doing this. Remember Howard Dean? He brought the crazy on one speech (one speech!) and he was out. Al Sharpton couldn't with the District even when the major candidates did not enter the primary there.

We have a minimum standard. You apparently do not. You'd like to talk about candidates' knowledge and brain power the way hippie parents talk about "multiple intelligences" - like the "everybody is a winner" mentality. I'm here to tell you that not everyone is a winner, and some of your candidates are dumb as stumps. Can you develop a filter for that before you embarrass yourselves again?

2 words: John Edwards

Heh. I think he may have been more qualified than Obama - he had served a full Senate term. Probably not as smart, and hopefully less moral.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With a straight face you have defended the candidacies of Palin, Bachmann, Cain, and Perry, despite their obvious lack of basic knowledge about the Presidency/Vice Presidency and the subjects those jobs entail. Never in a million years would you find the Dems doing this. Remember Howard Dean? He brought the crazy on one speech (one speech!) and he was out. Al Sharpton couldn't with the District even when the major candidates did not enter the primary there.

We have a minimum standard. You apparently do not. You'd like to talk about candidates' knowledge and brain power the way hippie parents talk about "multiple intelligences" - like the "everybody is a winner" mentality. I'm here to tell you that not everyone is a winner, and some of your candidates are dumb as stumps. Can you develop a filter for that before you embarrass yourselves again?

2 words: John Edwards

Edwards could talk about politics without embarrassing himself, which is the point of this post.

If you find fault with candidates who cheat on their wives while they have cancer, you might want to take another look at your current list of candidates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With a straight face you have defended the candidacies of Palin, Bachmann, Cain, and Perry, despite their obvious lack of basic knowledge about the Presidency/Vice Presidency and the subjects those jobs entail. Never in a million years would you find the Dems doing this. Remember Howard Dean? He brought the crazy on one speech (one speech!) and he was out. Al Sharpton couldn't with the District even when the major candidates did not enter the primary there.

We have a minimum standard. You apparently do not. You'd like to talk about candidates' knowledge and brain power the way hippie parents talk about "multiple intelligences" - like the "everybody is a winner" mentality. I'm here to tell you that not everyone is a winner, and some of your candidates are dumb as stumps. Can you develop a filter for that before you embarrass yourselves again?

2 words: John Edwards

Edwards could talk about politics without embarrassing himself, which is the point of this post.

If you find fault with candidates who cheat on their wives while they have cancer, you might want to take another look at your current list of candidates.

I'm fully aware of the thread topic. There are all kinds of smart. Not just talking who can talk politics. Anyone who would get wrapped up in the ongoing lies John Edwards did, and engaging in deception with the National Enquirer "news persons" pulling the knob on one side of the hotel bathroom door and Edwards on the other side, is not meeting "minimum standards" for brains!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With a straight face you have defended the candidacies of Palin, Bachmann, Cain, and Perry, despite their obvious lack of basic knowledge about the Presidency/Vice Presidency and the subjects those jobs entail. Never in a million years would you find the Dems doing this. Remember Howard Dean? He brought the crazy on one speech (one speech!) and he was out. Al Sharpton couldn't with the District even when the major candidates did not enter the primary there.

We have a minimum standard. You apparently do not. You'd like to talk about candidates' knowledge and brain power the way hippie parents talk about "multiple intelligences" - like the "everybody is a winner" mentality. I'm here to tell you that not everyone is a winner, and some of your candidates are dumb as stumps. Can you develop a filter for that before you embarrass yourselves again?

2 words: John Edwards

Edwards could talk about politics without embarrassing himself, which is the point of this post.

If you find fault with candidates who cheat on their wives while they have cancer, you might want to take another look at your current list of candidates.

I'm fully aware of the thread topic. There are all kinds of smart. Not just talking who can talk politics. Anyone who would get wrapped up in the ongoing lies John Edwards did, and engaging in deception with the National Enquirer "news persons" pulling the knob on one side of the hotel bathroom door and Edwards on the other side, is not meeting "minimum standards" for brains!

Nice try but it's not Perry's "King john II" moment or his "I forgot what agency I want to cut" moment or Cains crazy brain reboot during his interview about Libya or Palin getting stumped on what newspapers she reads daily

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With a straight face you have defended the candidacies of Palin, Bachmann, Cain, and Perry, despite their obvious lack of basic knowledge about the Presidency/Vice Presidency and the subjects those jobs entail. Never in a million years would you find the Dems doing this. Remember Howard Dean? He brought the crazy on one speech (one speech!) and he was out. Al Sharpton couldn't with the District even when the major candidates did not enter the primary there.

We have a minimum standard. You apparently do not. You'd like to talk about candidates' knowledge and brain power the way hippie parents talk about "multiple intelligences" - like the "everybody is a winner" mentality. I'm here to tell you that not everyone is a winner, and some of your candidates are dumb as stumps. Can you develop a filter for that before you embarrass yourselves again?

2 words: John Edwards

Edwards could talk about politics without embarrassing himself, which is the point of this post.

If you find fault with candidates who cheat on their wives while they have cancer, you might want to take another look at your current list of candidates.

I'm fully aware of the thread topic. There are all kinds of smart. Not just talking who can talk politics. Anyone who would get wrapped up in the ongoing lies John Edwards did, and engaging in deception with the National Enquirer "news persons" pulling the knob on one side of the hotel bathroom door and Edwards on the other side, is not meeting "minimum standards" for brains!

Nice try but it's not Perry's "King john II" moment or his "I forgot what agency I want to cut" moment or Cains crazy brain reboot during his interview about Libya or Palin getting stumped on what newspapers she reads daily

Nice try?! As I said, there's all kinds of "smart." John Edwards' "smarts" have cost him his position in the community, political goals, respect of those who once admired him, basically his family, etc. That was my point. His candidacy did not meet the "minimum standard."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:With a straight face you have defended the candidacies of Palin, Bachmann, Cain, and Perry, despite their obvious lack of basic knowledge about the Presidency/Vice Presidency and the subjects those jobs entail. Never in a million years would you find the Dems doing this. Remember Howard Dean? He brought the crazy on one speech (one speech!) and he was out. Al Sharpton couldn't with the District even when the major candidates did not enter the primary there.

We have a minimum standard. You apparently do not. You'd like to talk about candidates' knowledge and brain power the way hippie parents talk about "multiple intelligences" - like the "everybody is a winner" mentality. I'm here to tell you that not everyone is a winner, and some of your candidates are dumb as stumps. Can you develop a filter for that before you embarrass yourselves again?

OP, you are missing the bigger point. Americans do not care about the "minimum standard". It's about how persuasive these candidates are to their sympathizers.

Case and point, look at our last two presidents. Bush was "dumb as stump" and Obama lacked experience. But they got in because they energized their "base".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With a straight face you have defended the candidacies of Palin, Bachmann, Cain, and Perry, despite their obvious lack of basic knowledge about the Presidency/Vice Presidency and the subjects those jobs entail. Never in a million years would you find the Dems doing this. Remember Howard Dean? He brought the crazy on one speech (one speech!) and he was out. Al Sharpton couldn't with the District even when the major candidates did not enter the primary there.

We have a minimum standard. You apparently do not. You'd like to talk about candidates' knowledge and brain power the way hippie parents talk about "multiple intelligences" - like the "everybody is a winner" mentality. I'm here to tell you that not everyone is a winner, and some of your candidates are dumb as stumps. Can you develop a filter for that before you embarrass yourselves again?

2 words: John Edwards

Edwards could talk about politics without embarrassing himself, which is the point of this post.

If you find fault with candidates who cheat on their wives while they have cancer, you might want to take another look at your current list of candidates.

I'm fully aware of the thread topic. There are all kinds of smart. Not just talking who can talk politics. Anyone who would get wrapped up in the ongoing lies John Edwards did, and engaging in deception with the National Enquirer "news persons" pulling the knob on one side of the hotel bathroom door and Edwards on the other side, is not meeting "minimum standards" for brains!

Nice try but it's not Perry's "King john II" moment or his "I forgot what agency I want to cut" moment or Cains crazy brain reboot during his interview about Libya or Palin getting stumped on what newspapers she reads daily

Nice try?! As I said, there's all kinds of "smart." John Edwards' "smarts" have cost him his position in the community, political goals, respect of those who once admired him, basically his family, etc. That was my point. His candidacy did not meet the "minimum standard."

Oh I see, you are one of those "multiple intelligence" types. Look I'm not going to defend the guy, and neither would our party which is why he got dropped like a hot potato. And if you like, maybe you ought to reconsider Gingrich since he doesn't meet your standard.

But the point is not about any and all qualifications. It is about minimum intelligence - real SAT math/verbal can you comprehend the paragraph you just read intelligence - and whether you know facts that are basic to the office you are running for. Not tricky stuff like what is the state of our political relations with Cameroon, but can you correctly name the head of Korea, who just died and was all over the news?

[Anonymous]

The tooth fairy should be president. She seems to have an endless supply of money!!

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:The tooth fairy should be president. She seems to have an endless supply of money!!

She's faith-based!

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The tooth fairy should be president. She seems to have an endless supply of money!!

She's faith-based!

No! She's redistributing wealth from the most productive members of society to its laziest, most undeserving ones. It's an ineptocracy!

[Anonymous]

ehhh, stupid post. none of those candidates ever had a realistic shot at the GOP nomination, and none could ever be elected president. Though Perry is a multi-term governor of one of the most powerful states in the union, so not sure he really belongs on this list, but I give you that his presidential campaign has been a trainwreck.

In my lifetime the GOP has ever nominated someone for President as unqualified as Obama.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ehhh, stupid post. none of those candidates ever had a realistic shot at the GOP nomination, and none could ever be elected president. Though Perry is a multi-term governor of one of the most powerful states in the union, so not sure he really belongs on this list, but I give you that his presidential campaign has been a trainwreck.

In my lifetime the GOP has ever nominated someone for President as unqualified as Obama.

MmmmhahaHAAHAAHAAA! Are you blind or do you suffer from amnesia?
Remember W?
An inept, drunk, ignorant, inarticulate, spoiled brat who got everything he got in life solely because his daddy is a billionaire former president and who effectively inherited the job?
The guy whose own former treasury secretary mocked his "glazed look" during briefings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ehhh, stupid post. none of those candidates ever had a realistic shot at the GOP nomination, and none could ever be elected president. Though Perry is a multi-term governor of one of the most powerful states in the union, so not sure he really belongs on this list, but I give you that his presidential campaign has been a trainwreck.

In my lifetime the GOP has ever nominated someone for President as unqualified as Obama.

MmmmhahaHAAHAAHAAA! Are you blind or do you suffer from amnesia?
Remember W?
An inept, drunk, ignorant, inarticulate, spoiled brat who got everything he got in life solely because his daddy is a billionaire former president and who effectively inherited the job?
The guy whose own former treasury secretary mocked his "glazed look" during briefings?

I really can't imagine feeling such hatred for someone holding political office as you seem to be expressing here. And just because someone owns up to an alcohol problem and stops drinking does not mean that person should be described as a drunk for the rest of his or her life.