OT – GOP is being carried to the extreme

[patb]

[quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix]
Too many on the left seem to believe that anybody that doesn’t agree with them is not smart enough to know what is best for this country or even for oneself.[/quote]

Replace the “LEFT” with “RIGHT”. It goes both ways.[/quote]

Perhaps, you’re correct on this but I only see the media portraying one-side as dumb.

The past few elections we have been told the Harvard educated; Clinton, Kerry and Obama were geniuses but Bush, McCain and even going back a ways, Reagan were dummies.

What’s ironic about this is that Bush is the only president we’ve ever had with degrees from both Harvard and Yale. Yet he has been portrayed as a idiot more so than any president in my lifetime.

Personally I don’t know who has the highest IQ nor do I care. One doesn’t have to be a genius to be a good president. One has to be a leader. And one has to surround himself with smart capable folks.

Lastly, there is another difference. Most conservative initiatives have been those of traditional values. They aren’t trying to reshape this country but to preserve our traditions. That usually meant less government intrusion into our lives instead of more.[/quote]

Carter was a Nuclear Engineer. Smart as a whip, just couldn’t step back and
work the big picture.

Clinton was a rhodes scholar.

Kerry was quite bright, he was a polyglot and i’ve seen him speak.

Obama was on Law Review.

Bush Jr was an affirmative action baby. If he didn’t have his family he’d
have been some gas station clerk.

Bush Sr was a sharp guy until he went mental.

Reagan was an amiable dunce.

Ike was super bright, one of the best. Not an academic like his brother,
but a supreme planner, thinker, manager. He’d have run IBM or GE if he
hadn’t run the war.

Nixon was quite sharp, but just wasn’t able to separate the moral
aspects of his job.

LBJ wasn’t bright, but was intensely political and wanted to make a better society.

LBJ, Carter, Clinton, Obama, these were guys who made themselves.

Bush 1 and 2, McCain, These were scions of wealth and privelige.

as for conservative traditional values, where does Invading Iraq
fit in there.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=patb]
as for conservative traditional values, where does Invading Iraq
fit in there.[/quote]

Pat: I don’t think any person in their right mind would consider Dubya a conservative.

It terms of true “conservatism”, the closest the Republican Party has come in terms of a President has been Reagan and in terms of a candidate was Barry Goldwater. Reagan admittedly strayed, which is why I used the term “closest”.

You need to be careful about conflating conservatism with Republicanism, too. There are far too many conservatives out there, me included, that loathed Dubya and didn’t vote for McCain. I haven’t voted GOP since 1996, when I finally threw my hands up in disgust. It’s only gotten worse from there, as Dubya and Dubya redux clearly showed.

I have nothing against liberals, but I deplore Leftists.

As far as IQs go: I’m not sure I get that relative IQ has to do with anything. Using your description of Reagan as an amiable dunce and Carter as smart as a whip, what does that mean in terms of comparing their Presidencies? To an objective, non-partisan observer, it would appear that Reagan’s Presidency (both terms) was far more successful than Carter’s.

I would also opine that Carter, regardless of intellect, has exposed his true nature and character, as evidenced by his various nonsensical utterances since his departure from the White House.

Lastly, McCain was not a child of privilege (note the proper spelling). Both his father and grandfather were admirals in the US Navy, not captains of industry. Undoubtedly, this went a long way to pushing John forward in the Navy and through USNA, regardless of his middling academics and performance.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=patb]
as for conservative traditional values, where does Invading Iraq
fit in there.[/quote]

Pat: I don’t think any person in their right mind would consider Dubya a conservative.

It terms of true “conservatism”, the closest the Republican Party has come in terms of a President has been Reagan and in terms of a candidate was Barry Goldwater. Reagan admittedly strayed, which is why I used the term “closest”.

You need to be careful about conflating conservatism with Republicanism, too. There are far too many conservatives out there, me included, that loathed Dubya and didn’t vote for McCain. I haven’t voted GOP since 1996, when I finally threw my hands up in disgust. It’s only gotten worse from there, as Dubya and Dubya redux clearly showed.

I have nothing against liberals, but I deplore Leftists.

As far as IQs go: I’m not sure I get that relative IQ has to do with anything. Using your description of Reagan as an amiable dunce and Carter as smart as a whip, what does that mean in terms of comparing their Presidencies? To an objective, non-partisan observer, it would appear that Reagan’s Presidency (both terms) was far more successful than Carter’s.

I would also opine that Carter, regardless of intellect, has exposed his true nature and character, as evidenced by his various nonsensical utterances since his departure from the White House.

Lastly, McCain was not a child of privilege (note the proper spelling). Both his father and grandfather were admirals in the US Navy, not captains of industry. Undoubtedly, this went a long way to pushing John forward in the Navy and through USNA, regardless of his middling academics and performance.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=patb]
as for conservative traditional values, where does Invading Iraq
fit in there.[/quote]

Pat: I don’t think any person in their right mind would consider Dubya a conservative.

It terms of true “conservatism”, the closest the Republican Party has come in terms of a President has been Reagan and in terms of a candidate was Barry Goldwater. Reagan admittedly strayed, which is why I used the term “closest”.

You need to be careful about conflating conservatism with Republicanism, too. There are far too many conservatives out there, me included, that loathed Dubya and didn’t vote for McCain. I haven’t voted GOP since 1996, when I finally threw my hands up in disgust. It’s only gotten worse from there, as Dubya and Dubya redux clearly showed.

I have nothing against liberals, but I deplore Leftists.

As far as IQs go: I’m not sure I get that relative IQ has to do with anything. Using your description of Reagan as an amiable dunce and Carter as smart as a whip, what does that mean in terms of comparing their Presidencies? To an objective, non-partisan observer, it would appear that Reagan’s Presidency (both terms) was far more successful than Carter’s.

I would also opine that Carter, regardless of intellect, has exposed his true nature and character, as evidenced by his various nonsensical utterances since his departure from the White House.

Lastly, McCain was not a child of privilege (note the proper spelling). Both his father and grandfather were admirals in the US Navy, not captains of industry. Undoubtedly, this went a long way to pushing John forward in the Navy and through USNA, regardless of his middling academics and performance.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=patb]
as for conservative traditional values, where does Invading Iraq
fit in there.[/quote]

Pat: I don’t think any person in their right mind would consider Dubya a conservative.

It terms of true “conservatism”, the closest the Republican Party has come in terms of a President has been Reagan and in terms of a candidate was Barry Goldwater. Reagan admittedly strayed, which is why I used the term “closest”.

You need to be careful about conflating conservatism with Republicanism, too. There are far too many conservatives out there, me included, that loathed Dubya and didn’t vote for McCain. I haven’t voted GOP since 1996, when I finally threw my hands up in disgust. It’s only gotten worse from there, as Dubya and Dubya redux clearly showed.

I have nothing against liberals, but I deplore Leftists.

As far as IQs go: I’m not sure I get that relative IQ has to do with anything. Using your description of Reagan as an amiable dunce and Carter as smart as a whip, what does that mean in terms of comparing their Presidencies? To an objective, non-partisan observer, it would appear that Reagan’s Presidency (both terms) was far more successful than Carter’s.

I would also opine that Carter, regardless of intellect, has exposed his true nature and character, as evidenced by his various nonsensical utterances since his departure from the White House.

Lastly, McCain was not a child of privilege (note the proper spelling). Both his father and grandfather were admirals in the US Navy, not captains of industry. Undoubtedly, this went a long way to pushing John forward in the Navy and through USNA, regardless of his middling academics and performance.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=patb]
as for conservative traditional values, where does Invading Iraq
fit in there.[/quote]

Pat: I don’t think any person in their right mind would consider Dubya a conservative.

It terms of true “conservatism”, the closest the Republican Party has come in terms of a President has been Reagan and in terms of a candidate was Barry Goldwater. Reagan admittedly strayed, which is why I used the term “closest”.

You need to be careful about conflating conservatism with Republicanism, too. There are far too many conservatives out there, me included, that loathed Dubya and didn’t vote for McCain. I haven’t voted GOP since 1996, when I finally threw my hands up in disgust. It’s only gotten worse from there, as Dubya and Dubya redux clearly showed.

I have nothing against liberals, but I deplore Leftists.

As far as IQs go: I’m not sure I get that relative IQ has to do with anything. Using your description of Reagan as an amiable dunce and Carter as smart as a whip, what does that mean in terms of comparing their Presidencies? To an objective, non-partisan observer, it would appear that Reagan’s Presidency (both terms) was far more successful than Carter’s.

I would also opine that Carter, regardless of intellect, has exposed his true nature and character, as evidenced by his various nonsensical utterances since his departure from the White House.

Lastly, McCain was not a child of privilege (note the proper spelling). Both his father and grandfather were admirals in the US Navy, not captains of industry. Undoubtedly, this went a long way to pushing John forward in the Navy and through USNA, regardless of his middling academics and performance.

[Zeitgeist]

David Brooks, the New York Times, “No, it’s not about race”: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/opinion/18brooks.html

“My impression is that race is largely beside the point. There are other, equally important strains in American history that are far more germane to the current conflicts.”

“The ideas is that free labor is the essence of Americanism. Hard-working ordinary people, who create wealth in material ways, are the moral backbone of the country.”

But race like Godwin’s law almost invariably shuts down any cogent conversation.

[Zeitgeist]

David Brooks, the New York Times, “No, it’s not about race”: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/opinion/18brooks.html

“My impression is that race is largely beside the point. There are other, equally important strains in American history that are far more germane to the current conflicts.”

“The ideas is that free labor is the essence of Americanism. Hard-working ordinary people, who create wealth in material ways, are the moral backbone of the country.”

But race like Godwin’s law almost invariably shuts down any cogent conversation.

[Zeitgeist]

David Brooks, the New York Times, “No, it’s not about race”: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/opinion/18brooks.html

“My impression is that race is largely beside the point. There are other, equally important strains in American history that are far more germane to the current conflicts.”

“The ideas is that free labor is the essence of Americanism. Hard-working ordinary people, who create wealth in material ways, are the moral backbone of the country.”

But race like Godwin’s law almost invariably shuts down any cogent conversation.

[Zeitgeist]

David Brooks, the New York Times, “No, it’s not about race”: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/opinion/18brooks.html

“My impression is that race is largely beside the point. There are other, equally important strains in American history that are far more germane to the current conflicts.”

“The ideas is that free labor is the essence of Americanism. Hard-working ordinary people, who create wealth in material ways, are the moral backbone of the country.”

But race like Godwin’s law almost invariably shuts down any cogent conversation.

[Zeitgeist]

David Brooks, the New York Times, “No, it’s not about race”: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/opinion/18brooks.html

“My impression is that race is largely beside the point. There are other, equally important strains in American history that are far more germane to the current conflicts.”

“The ideas is that free labor is the essence of Americanism. Hard-working ordinary people, who create wealth in material ways, are the moral backbone of the country.”

But race like Godwin’s law almost invariably shuts down any cogent conversation.

[Zeitgeist]

David Brooks, the New York Times, “No, it’s not about race”: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/opinion/18brooks.html

“My impression is that race is largely beside the point. There are other, equally important strains in American history that are far more germane to the current conflicts.”

“The ideas is that free labor is the essence of Americanism. Hard-working ordinary people, who create wealth in material ways, are the moral backbone of the country.”

But race like Godwin’s law almost invariably shuts down any cogent conversation.

[Zeitgeist]

David Brooks, the New York Times, “No, it’s not about race”: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/opinion/18brooks.html

“My impression is that race is largely beside the point. There are other, equally important strains in American history that are far more germane to the current conflicts.”

“The ideas is that free labor is the essence of Americanism. Hard-working ordinary people, who create wealth in material ways, are the moral backbone of the country.”

But race like Godwin’s law almost invariably shuts down any cogent conversation.

[Zeitgeist]

David Brooks, the New York Times, “No, it’s not about race”: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/opinion/18brooks.html

“My impression is that race is largely beside the point. There are other, equally important strains in American history that are far more germane to the current conflicts.”

“The ideas is that free labor is the essence of Americanism. Hard-working ordinary people, who create wealth in material ways, are the moral backbone of the country.”

But race like Godwin’s law almost invariably shuts down any cogent conversation.

[Zeitgeist]

David Brooks, the New York Times, “No, it’s not about race”: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/opinion/18brooks.html

“My impression is that race is largely beside the point. There are other, equally important strains in American history that are far more germane to the current conflicts.”

“The ideas is that free labor is the essence of Americanism. Hard-working ordinary people, who create wealth in material ways, are the moral backbone of the country.”

But race like Godwin’s law almost invariably shuts down any cogent conversation.

[Author]

Posts