Who are the five Smartest and Dumbest Democrats and Republicans?
Here are my lists. What are yours?:
Democrats
Smartest:
1. Joe Lieberman. He realizes the importance of Iraq in the scheme of things. No other Democrat is smart enough to figure this out.
2. Bill Richardson. He is so intelligent he could be a Republican, and he’s the only Democrat besides Lieberman I could vote for president.
3. Barack Obama. He is clever to spout enough liberal nonsense to get elected, but maintains some connection to reality.
4. Zel Miller. He is smart enough to know what is good for our country, and willing to stand up for it.
5. Hillary Clinton. Though she is an idiot on politics, and is a socialist and everything bad about the Democratic Party that exists, I have to admit that the woman is brilliant, like her husband.
Dumbest:
1. Nancy Palosi. She doesn’t have a brain cell amongst all the air in her head.
2. Ted Kennedy. All his brain matter is in his crotch and his drinking hand.
3. John Kerry. His brain voted for John being able to think before it voted against it.
4. Al Gore. Gore has been breathing too much carbon dioxide.
5. Jimmy Carter. When they announced “brains” Jimmy thought they said “trains” and he missed his.
Republicans
Smartest:
1. George Bush. He remains the only leader in America who really gets the Middle East.
2. Carl Rove. Not only a brilliant campaign strategist, he gets America.
3. Colin Powell. His strategy would have won the Iraq war for us.
4. Condoleeza Rice. She is one of the most intelligent women in America.
5. Jeb Bush. He is as smart as his brother, and he can talk too.
Dumbest:
1. George Bush. His inability to communicate has hurt his presidency, and the nation. His immigration policies are a disaster. He has run the war in Iraq poorly. He is the dumbest brilliant man I have ever seen.
2. Donald Rumsfield. His strategy of a streamlined fighting force in Iraq, disbanding the Iraqi army, leaving weapons caches unguarded and so on, led to the mess we now have in Iraq.
3. George Allen. He has macaca’d himself out of the presidency.
4. John McCain. Two weeks ago I would have made him one of the smartest Republicans. He’s blown any chance at a Republican nomination now, however, by echoing Democratic criticisms of the Iraq war. The issue is timing. He needs the nomination first before he strikes out on his own. Piling on against George Bush will not win him the nomination, and, therefore, is stupid. Before this, he had a chance of becoming our next president. Now, he is on the dumbest list.
5. Tom DeLay. Why did Mr. DeLay think he could get away with criminal wrongdoing and remain in the House, and at the leadership position? He was dumb to misbehave. He was dumb to stay after he was discovered misbehaving. And he was dumb to underestimate the American public, and especially his Republican constituents. We threw the dumb bum out.
5 comments:
I dig the premise of the list-and since I don't follow the political comings and goings of politicians, I can't contribute like you requested BUT I can say that I agree with a lot of your choices on both sides (and the fact that you have something nice to say about Hillary AND Bill *gasp*). I also agree that Karl Rove is a genius, but what he "gets" is that a good sizable chunk of the American populace won't think for themselves and believe everything the government (and Fox "news") says.
However, the one thing that stood out to me about your lists is that all the negative things you had to say about the republicans is based on their politics. Everything negative you have to say about the democrats is based on their personalities. In other words, you're saying (as I read between the lines) that the republicans listed are dumb because of what they've said or done, but democrats listed are just dumb- period- no reason or LOGIC (your new buzz word) they're just dumb. Sounds a bit O'reillyish to me....
Ok, I will probably be the first democrat to say that Bush is not as dumb as everyone thinks, but I certainly wouldn't go as far as listing him as the smartest Republican, that's just absurd.
Ok, I will probably be the first democrat to say that Bush is not as dumb as everyone thinks, but I certainly wouldn't go as far as listing him as the smartest Republican, that's just absurd.
Bush was elected the most powerful man in America, twice. Did we elect a retard? No. More likely, people like you are not bright enough to see how bright he is.
paz,
However, the one thing that stood out to me about your lists is that all the negative things you had to say about the republicans is based on their politics. Everything negative you have to say about the democrats is based on their personalities. In other words, you're saying (as I read between the lines) that the republicans listed are dumb because of what they've said or done, but democrats listed are just dumb- period- no reason or LOGIC (your new buzz word) they're just dumb. Sounds a bit O'reillyish to me....
I honestly find most Democrats so dumb that they're not worth commenting on. The exceptions are Zel Miller, Hillary and Bill Clinton, Bill Richardson, and a few others. I also don't have much respect for most Democrats, including their followers, present company excluded. Liberals seem like good people, well-intentioned, so how can they support such vacuous people? I find most of the party leadership at this time to be demagogues, my most hated species.
There are these kinds among Republicans, too, like Tom DeLay, but fewer than with Democrats.
Yes, logic is important to me. Again, present company exluded, I don't see much logical ability in the left wing, and that includes some of the "gods" of the left, like Noam Chomsky, the biggest psuedo-intellectual I've ever read or listened to. Give me William F. Buckley any day.
Statistics can lie quite easily, or haven't you noticed? Who gathered them? If a liberal does a study, I won't trust it. They have an agenda. You might say the same about a conservative, fine. I can even agree with you. If you want statistics, read the books of Larry Elder, or Thomas Sowell, two LOGICAL and reliable guys, who back up their rational ideas with plenty of statistics.
Compare this with the statistics of Al Gore, who's Inconvenient Truths exclude all scientists who disagree with his theories, a typical leftwing tactic.
Lynn wants facts to back up my assertions. Then, I'll get the facts. Then, you and she will agree or disagree with me regardless of the facts I dig up. That's why I appeal to logic. I can't convince you of something that deep in your heart you don't believe. I keep saying that liberalism is like a religion. You either believe it or you don't. Facts don't convince any liberal I've ever known, present company included, or, prove me wrong. Actually, I'm being unfair. You are quite reasonable. Most of your compadres, though, are not.
Anyway, if statistics will help me convince anyone, I'll use them. Otherwise, I just have to accept that it's a big world, and we all see it differently. I just want to make sure that the world knows there is an alternative to ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, Air America and Hollywood. Thank God for Fox, talk radio, and the blogosphere. At last, the truth has a chance to get out.
What are my statistics to back all this up? The elections are a statistic. Republicans have won most of them recently. You'll get your revenge this November. Be happy.
I'm sure you understand WHY factual data is a great component to an argument, BUT I also understand that any bit of data can be manipulated and altered to fit a desired end. What you're not realizing (again) is that BOTH sides do it effectively to bolster their argument. That's what politicians do!!! How much data was manipulated to justify the war in Iraq? Logic would indicate that it was a bad idea to go into Iraq in the first place without a viable plan (something you would admit yourself). Logic would say that if what you're doing isn't working, try something else (which isn't happening), but the data coming from the administration is that "things are getting better" and "the insurgency is in it's last throes" but logic would say that it's illogical to believe that due to the upsurge of violence plaguing parts of the country- so who's slanting the data now?
Do you disregard all of the information about global warming in Gore's movie (which I have yet to see- but my girl has been raving about for weeks) just because he didn't offer an opinion to counter his argument? From what I understand, he used a lot of scientific data to show how bad off the planet is right now. Would it take a Larry Elder or John McCain to convince you that the polar ice caps are melting? Is it wrong to have major concerns about the condition of the planet regardless of your political affiliation? Who made that a "liberal" concern anyway? Look, anyone who I've heard on TV who's taken up the opposing position (mainly on Fox"news") always argues that global warming is a symptom of a cyclical global climate OR that it would cost too much to do anything about -and these folks are NEVER scientists nor do they come with hard data to support their viewpoint- which brings me back to the original point of this particular comment. I think I speak for both "liberal" Lynne and "liberal" me (a term we both have said doesn't describe us) when I say that we would take your points (re: racism against whites, stupidity of dems, etc) into consideration much easier if there was some examples or data to back up your opinion. That's EXACTLY what we want in order to accept what you say as factual. By saying "statistics can be altered for political gain" to avoid giving statistics that may or may not be there to support your views only tells me that some of your "facts" are actually baseless opinions.
Oh, to answer your question, the country DID vote into office morons and we seem to do it EVERY ELECTION.
Post a Comment