Why are Americans Allergic to Brains?

Asks CNN\'s Jack Cafferty, and it is a legitimate question!

U.S. allergic to brains in presidential politics?

FROM CNN’s Jack Cafferty:

In an election where the Republican candidate actually stands a chance against a weakened incumbent president, so far, a couple of intellectual lightweights are stealing the show.

Since Michele Bachmann won the Iowa straw poll and Rick Perry entered the race, these two have been sucking up most of the media’s attention for saying stupid things: Like Bachmann’s claim that as president she would bring gasoline down to $2 a gallon, or Perry’s highly inappropriate shot at Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke – saying his actions could be “treasonous.”

Meanwhile, some Republicans, including Karl Rove, suggest that the former half-term dropout governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, will join the race as well. Swell.

Palin’s people are pushing back against the speculation, saying that anyone who claims to know about her plans is misleading the American people. But Palin has certainly been acting like a candidate, what with that visit to Iowa during the straw poll and an Iowa-themed political video ahead of her Labor Day speech in Iowa.

If Palin runs, we’ll have another Mensa candidate to join Bachmann and Perry. There’s no doubt these three would consume the lion’s share of the media coverage.

At the other end of the intellectual spectrum, there’s Ron Paul, who placed a close second in the Iowa straw poll. He continues to talk sense – whether or not enough people are listening. And there’s Newt Gingrich – love him or hate him, he’s a very smart guy.

There’s also Jon Huntsman, who says candidates like Bachmann and Perry are too far to the right and have “zero substance.”

He may be right, but I venture to say none of those three has a prayer against Curly, Moe and Larry.

And that’s a sad commentary on the state of our politics.


Related Articles

9 thoughts on “Why are Americans Allergic to Brains?

  1. Perry, Bachmann and Palin. . .”Curly, Moe and Larry”. . .


    Right on the money, Mr. Cafferty!

    Moreover, given their enormous apparent popularity, and the extraordinary levels of excitement that they are generating, amongst Republicans, even if it turns out to be just “Curly” and “Moe” who run, Republicans are certainly demonstrating to the rest of the nation that they haven’t forgotten how to select extreme and unelectable candidates for President.

    Echoes of 1964. . .

  2. Zuma, Goldwater may have been unelectable, but he wasn’t King of the Stupid like this crew. Just sayin’.

  3. Goldwater was a genius compared to any of the three popular Republican candidates. Goldwater also became more of a liberal in his later years.

  4. Echoing Jan and Steven, yeah, Goldwater was basically Ron Paul (both ideologically and intellectually) in this equation, not the dimwits.

    1. I hear ya. However, that said, in mentioning Goldwater, I was focusing on the issues of extremism and electability.

      Goldwater wasn’t stupid, but he was extreme, he was unelectable and he was hugely popular amongst Republicans in 1964. [I still remember walking around with a AUH2O bumper sticker on my junior high school binder back then because my father was a dyed-in-the-wool Republican and loved Goldwater.]

      Having been an extraordinarily intelligent guy, and if he were still alive, I’m pretty sure that my dad would be pretty disgusted with the likes of “Curly”, “Moe” and “Larry”, just as I think that Goldwater would be. That today’s Republican Party so warmly and enthusiastically embraces them says a great deal about Republicans, and, to my way of thinking, portends a dismal future for the party.

      1. The current top three Republican candidates wouldn’t understand the AUH2O bumper sticker…

  5. NO, JCG, Ron Paul is a libtard in the sense that he claims to be a libertarian but then comes down anti-liberal on several issues. He is not consistent. But neither is Goldwater’s career.

    1. To clarify: I was arguing that within the Cafferty frame, not my own.

      I’d more or less agree with you.

  6. Why are Americans allegric to brains. Because many Americans are weak and refuse to admit that there are people smarter and better than them, because admitting such would mean they’d have to make an effort to improve.

    It’s a whole lot easier to sit on your fat, old ass and whine about “do-gooder elitsts” and knock them down instead of getting up and doing something to try to reach that level.

Comments are closed.