Campaign 2012: A pathetic collection of losers

If ignorance is truly bliss then America should be the happiest country on the planet.

The one-time land of the free and home of the brave has morphed into the land of the ignorant and home of the misinformed.

America today is a nation of fools, brain-dead lemmings lulled into massive ignorance fueled by Internet-based misinformation, political party propaganda and lame conspiracy theories.

Then these victims of too much brain drain wander into voting booths in primary elections and general election to make uninformed decisions that affect the future of the country.

No wonder the place that should be called the United Mistakes of America is in such a mess.

One only has to read too many of the comments sections on web sites, including Capitol Hill Blue, follow the mindless threads on too many on-line forums and listen to the blather on the so-called “news channels” to realize that shallowness now trumps depth, hyperbole sits in for truth and hysteria replaces reason in today’s political environment.

While there are smart, informed voters out there and some of them offer reasoned dialog in political debates, the atmosphere by and large is poisoned by the malcontents, the screamers and the nutcases who have co-opted the political system and led this nation into the extreme fringes on both the right and the left.

What all this madness produces is an upcoming election in November pitting a monumental failure current serving as President against an empty suit that no one really knows.

But what other choices did we have?  The Republican Party could not field one one credible candidate for office.  Every candidate, without exception, is a miserable failure.  In this primary season we had a tail chasing ex-food executive, a serial adulterer who also served as Speaker of the House, a series of right-wing flakes and a former racist publisher and conspiracy theorist masquerading as a obstetrician and Congressman.

No wonder Mitt Romney gets the GOP nomination.  He’s the dog with the least fleas.

If the Republicans could have found a real candidate for office – and that’s a big “if” considering the makeup of the party of the elephant – the Presidency could have been theirs.

Barack Obama deserves a whipping at the polls. As a candidate, he talked a good game. As a President he is a colossal failure.  Not since Jimmy Carter has the Democratic Party produced a president so unfit for the job.

But, like George W. Bush in 2004, Obama may win re-election because no real alternative exists.   Mitt Romney’s political directions change with the poll of the day.  The Etch-a-Sketch candidate is a blank slate who has changed positions more often than Newt Gingrich has swapped wives.

What else can you expect from a political system that produces Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul and Joe the Plumber.

Instead of the “best of the best,” we have to settle for the “least worst of the worst.”

We have a slate of unqualified candidates who depend on an uninformed, gullible electorate to win an election.

Little wonder the country is screwed.

In a democracy, it is said, voters get the government they deserve.

Sad, but true.

When America entered World War II, Winston Churchill described the American military as “the unqualified leading the untrained into the unknown for the ungrateful.”

In today’s political environment, we can change that to “the unqualified leading the uninvolved into unknown for the uninformed.”

I wish I had an answer.  Somewhere out there, one may exist but I fear the decline has gone too far.  We may never find the road back because our system is no longer capable of producing a leader who can lead the way.

Copyright 2012 Capitol Hill Blue

Enhanced by Zemanta

17 Responses to "Campaign 2012: A pathetic collection of losers"

  1. Danny Adams  April 27, 2012 at 2:24 pm

    “No wonder Mitt Romney gets the GOP nomination. He’s the dog with the least fleas.”

    The alternate theory is that he appears to be the least insane.

  2. Danny Adams  April 27, 2012 at 2:25 pm

    P.S.

    “But, like George W. Bush in 1996…”

    I’m guessing you mean 2004 here.

    • Doug Thompson  April 28, 2012 at 7:16 am

      Yup. Sorry. Brain fade. It happens a lot at my age. :(

  3. woody188  April 27, 2012 at 4:30 pm

    Yup, they are all insane. The Republican frontrunner believes a man was told by angels where to find some gold plates and used a rock in a hat to “see” the words written in the plates and translate them into English.

    The current President equates peace with invasion, human rights with assassination, and considers himself a Constitutional scholar while writing orders in direct conflict with that document.

    All insane. What does that say about us that put up with them?

    • Almandine  April 27, 2012 at 6:27 pm

      Well, here’s one suggestion…

      http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=33585

      • woody188  April 30, 2012 at 10:44 am

        “The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out … without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” – H.L. Mencken

        I was unaware of this Mencken quote until reading your link. :smile:

  4. thomas bonsell  April 27, 2012 at 9:15 pm

    Doug:

    While Barack Obama has been a disappointment to many of us, to call him a “monumental failure” is just a bit much. He is no incarnation of FDR, of course, but rescuing us from another possible depression is hardly monumental failure.

    Remember the economy was losing 9% of its value annually and 800,000 jobs a month just before Obama’s inauguration. It is now adding jobs and GDP value.

    Let’s compare another “failure” with what some people think is our “greatest president.”

    The “unfit” Jimmy Carter produced more than 10 million new jobs in his one term. The saintly Ronnie Reagan and George Bush the Daddy produced 18 million, or 6 million per term. “Failure” Carter did 67% better than Reagan-Bush on job creation.

    The debt as a percentage to GDP hit 32.5% under Carter, the lowest since World war II. Reagan-Bush raised that to more than 68%; the beginning of our debt crisis.

    Poverty under Carter was 11.4%; the lowest in history. Reagan-Bush raised it to 15.1% that they turned over to Clinton, who lowered it to 11.3%, now the lowest in history before Bush the Dodo got it up past 15% again.

    (Brief aside here. Republicans tell us that people are in poverty because they are lazy, layabouts who lack motivation, drive, initiative and other good qualities. So what is it about the GOP that makes millions of Americans lay layabouts, etc., etc.?)

    Carter’s foreign policy emphasized compassion, human rights and social justice. Reagan promoted and funded death squads and mass murder, all in the name of “anticommunism”. And his Latin American henchmen were determined to rid the world of Marxist scholars, even those in diapers.

    Carter told us where we were headed if we didn’t do something to find alternative sources of energy. Reagan killed his search. So when we go to pay $10-12 a gallon for gasoline, thank the successful Reagan.

    So give me a left-wing failure over a successful rightie any and every time.

    • Almandine  April 28, 2012 at 10:57 am

      Another case of liars, damn liars, and statisticians?

      Reagan “created” 16 million jobs alone… Carter only 10 million. (Not that either one of them ever issued a paycheck.)

      Poverty under Bush 43 did NOT reach 15% and it was NOT lowest under Carter.

      Lowest poverty rate was in 1973 under Nixon.

      It now takes $2.52 of govt debt to achieve $1 GDP.

      As of March 31st, 2012, the Debt to GDP ratio was 100.8%.

      Yeah, luv those lefties.

  5. Wes  April 28, 2012 at 8:10 pm

    Where does the necessary turn-around start?

    With the Media, providing honest, informative news so that we have an idea of what’s going on?

    With Politicians, developing and refining their leadership skills so they’re worth voting for?

    With Business, to stop looking at their profit margin and instead consider what is best for their customer?

    When we the People are fed garbage for News, forced to choose between incompetent Politicians, with the Political Agenda fueled by corporate interests, this is the result: a great big steaming pile of bull crap.

    We need to look out for each other. By putting ourselves first, we as a nation are finishing dead last.

    • Almandine  April 29, 2012 at 10:50 am

      The point, Wes, is that business profits rise the better the business meets the needs of its customers. Poor products and poor service lead customers elsewhere… at least in an open market.

  6. Jon  April 28, 2012 at 11:44 pm

    I would argue against the idea that it’s all “Internet-based” misinformation.

    I claim the Internet actually makes information of all stripes easier to find, cross-check, and confirm (or debunk).

    You will get more wackos (on both ends) merely by spreading the bell curve, but it was the “mainstream” TV, radio, and paper news that seriously fell down on this job, and it’s up to the Internet to pick up the pieces.

    Jon

    • Jon  April 28, 2012 at 11:50 pm

      For example, the not-quite-definitive site Wikipedia: On poverty rates: in this file shows, well, that the poverty rate under Nixon at its lowest point and the rate under Carter at its lowest point are basically indistinguishable.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_poverty_rate_timeline.gif

      Especially considering the error bars in that sort of measurement. Finding that information, biased as it may be, took me a mere moment. Twenty years ago, that would have been quite a research project.

      So there’s one for the Internet.

      J.

      • Almandine  April 29, 2012 at 10:45 am

        Maybe this Wiki chart provides a better view:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Poverty1973toPresent.jpg

        A look at other (govt) sources shows the 1973 rate to be 11.1%, the 1978 rate to be 11.4% and the 1980 rate (the last year of Carter’s full term) to be 13%. One would not expect error bars, since the numbers represent the “population” of those in poverty in the US and not a “sample” of the population used to predict the overall population rate.

        The point, of course, was not the absolute value of these numbers, but the multiple, blatant use of distortion by which Bonsell hoped to make his political point. And THAT is the type of purposeful misinformation all too prevalent on the internet today. It will get worse.

        • Jon  April 30, 2012 at 12:38 am

          Still pretty close to statistically identical.

          And yes, there *are* error bars on the census. I also note that graph seems cherry-picked to start in 1973 – Did you make it?

          J.

          • Jon  April 30, 2012 at 12:43 am

            It’s also worth noting that, up until 1973, Nixon had a wonderful tool to use against unemployment – The draft. This caused a huge incentive for people to otherwise find “war essential” work or remain full-time students.

            Carter didn’t have that neat little trick for sucking otherwise employable people out of the job market.

            J.

          • Almandine  April 30, 2012 at 8:59 am

            Nope – found it on wiki… but, as your link shows, poverty was higher before 1973.

  7. Almandine  April 30, 2012 at 9:05 am

    Many variables go into such stats, and probably the biggest one vis-a-vis Carter’s time was stagflation. You know, that old malaise-driven Crisis of Confidence. Looking back… it too was bound up in energy policy and its negative effects on employment.

    No wonder the comparisons with BHO.

Comments are closed.