Yes, Republicans. Again.

Yes, he was a visionary.

And the current crop of Republicans running for President seem bound to demonstrate that.

We’ve seen one “favorite” fall by the wayside

And another appear

and his stances aren’t exactly … nice.

Former favorite Rick Perry decided to make a video, and it drew some reactions

and some others noticed something … odd … about Rick in the video

He tries hard, it’s just that well…

Mitt Romney keeps trying to come up with something that’ll click.

Not that I don’t have a suggestion for him

Unfortunately, there are going to be more debates,  we’ll be hearing more details of their plans, along with explanations.  Which will have a predictable response.


I’m sure that I’ll get worked up at some point, though.



Filed under Humor, Politics

13 responses to “Yes, Republicans. Again.

  1. vic78

    Fuk Yu was a sage on par with Socrates. His wisdom speaks to us today.

  2. Kudos for Isaac Asimov. I heard him lecture once and got to shake his hand when he was at Harvard. Incredible writer and thinker and a very charming and humorous speaker.

    Repugnants and some frustrati do seem to wallow in a mud pit of ignorance while reframing it as a rose bed. Clever diary as usual ♥

    • I got to hear him speak to my college class on science fiction – the professor was a friend of his – and he was just as good as you’d think he was from his writing. 😀

      One of the funny stories about him was his appearance at the very first Star Trek convention. He stood up, said “I was very fond of Star Trek, and thought it was a very good show.” and then launched into a talk about his newest book and other topics. None of which had anything to do with Star Trek. The convention organizers …. made him a regular speaker at their conventions. 😆 They knew what he was going to do, but he was so good a speaker that they didn’t care. He often said he loved Trek conventions, because his book sales went up after he’d been to one.

    • ArrogantDemon

      That same Asimov quote can indeed apply to our “friends” of the professional left, especially trying to equate their sheer ignorance to knowledge and running with it into a brick wall, but I must say, I must seek out the philosophy of the one you call Fuk Yu, I must quest to the library to see his translated words today

  3. Alan Scott


    Could please you give me the context of the Asimov quote? It is being used quite liberally , but I would like to know who exactly he was referring to and the issues it was depicting in his January 21, 1980 Newsweek column.

    I see you are using it to bash the GOP candidates and it is very popular on certain blogs. It is a good short slogan that seems to mean whatever the user needs it to mean .
    Thank you.

    • He was making an observation based on historical – and present reality. There’s been a constant refrain of that throughout American history. We can go back to the “Know Nothing” party, which sounds remarkably like today’s Republican Party, the Luddites, along with other anti-intellectual movements.

      Today’s Republicans – and in particular the current crop of Presidential candidates – are walking examples of it. Almost all of them advocate “Creation science” or “intelligent design.” It’s not science. Let me give you another Asimov quote about that: “Creationists make it sound as though a “theory” is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.” They all (except for Huntsman) uniformly deny that climate change exists. Reality check? Yes, it does. It’s the same crap that science went through (and still is) about evolution, and whether tobacco was dangerous. The evidence says it is. Now, scientists may – and do – argue over rates of change, severity of impacts, and methods, but they are not arguing over whether it exists. “Fossil fuels” are a finite resource. You won’t find anyone inside the oil or coal industries who won’t acknowledge that. Yet, if you listen to the Republicans, it’s simply a matter of drilling “more” or relaxing mining restrictions. First, it ignores the reality that it’s still a finite resource, and second, remaining stocks are increasingly expensive to exploit, so “cheap oil” or “cheap coal” is a thing of the past.

      Even besides that, you just have to look at the statements from various of these candidates or the conservative “pundits.” It’s remarkable how much lack of curiosity they have, let alone knowledge, about the world in general. They even trumpet their lack of knowledge as if it were something to be proud of. You had a candidate who didn’t know that China had nuclear weapons. You have another who can’t even name government departments he thinks are unnecessary. You have a third stating that the HPV vaccine causes mental retardation. It’s a constant litany of touting that they don’t need to know anything.

      So if I’m using it to bash GOP candidates, it’s because it’s apt to what the GOP has become. A very anti-intellectual party.

  4. Alan Scott


    I was trying to find out if Asimov was referring to anti evolution ideas or if his context was broader. I like to go back to original intent and was not able to get his column from 1980.

    Since I patrol many blogs, I am finding many who are using it very broadly, like you do to bash every GOP member. It fits with the usual mode of attack, to call Conservatives either crazy or stupid, or both.

    Finding examples of opposition party brain freezes is pretty easy and is not a sign of anti intellectualism. Telling a wheel chair bound Chuck Graham to stand up, or visiting 57 states is not as stupid as arguing ” cheap oil ” but it is a hell of a lot funnier.

    • Alan, I haven’t used it to attack every Republican or conservative, but it’s undeniable that the Republican Party, at least a majority of its elected or Party officials, are either pandering to the anti-intellectuals or actively in that category themselves. I’m not alone in pointing that out, for example, I doubt anyone would call David Frum a “liberal,” and he’s been quite vocal about it.

      This is a regular cycle, and yes, there are some Democrats who have brain freezes, and some that do outright stupid things. But those are more the exceptions, whereas in the Republican Party these days, it seems to be the rule.

  5. Crazy and stupid is, as crazy and stupid does. What we are seeing in the current crop of GOP candidates and many in congress is not a brain fart, but a concerted anti-intellectualism that is dangerous and unproductive imho. They may not really be stupid but it seems they think most of the American voters are.

    I actually don’t assign “conservatism” only to the GOP. Many who consider themselves Democrats also may consider themselves conservative, as well. All Democrats do not accept extremism from either left or right. I am a Democrat but I don’t like “crazy or stupid” no matter where it occurs.

    I hope I haven’t offended you as you seem to be a reasonable person and I am merely a guest on this blog. Norbrook doesn’t need me to defend him but I think you are being a bit harsh to say he is “attacking” the GOP. He has merely illustrated exactly what they themselves are saying, albeit in a humorous way.

  6. Alan Scott


    Thank you for the conversation. I too am a guest and have far more to be concerned about than you do.

    The Anti-intellectualism charge is merely another tactic. I’m sure you believe it but, you have to attack with something. If not that then something else. Crazy or stupid or both are always the general themes. I do appreciate humor in political jibes. In keeping with the holidays, it is better to give than to receive and you guys are most generous.

    • Alan, if anything, the anti-intellectualism is a facet of the Republican Party that worries me, more than it being a useful attack point. Yes, I’m poking fun at it, but there’s a serious problem underlying it. It’s the equivalent of trying to discuss the best methods to remove a tiger from a room, when one side is saying there is no tiger, regardless of the large striped feline currently standing on their back.

  7. Alan Scott


    The Anti-intellectualism should not be a problem from your viewpoint if either of the two most likely events occur. First, if President Obama wins reelection, no problem. If Mitt Romney wins the Presidency, I would think he is the least anti-intellectual in the GOP running. I am fully expecting Gingrich to blow up sooner or later.

    The real problem with Romney from my point of view is his pliability if he has a Democratic Congress.

    • Alan,
      Yes, actually it is still a problem from my viewpoint. The current crop of Republican candidates aren’t where they are because they’re isolated cases. Most of their statements are geared at pandering to what is now the Republican base, which means a continuing issue with various states. All I have to do is look at the economic damage done by them in Georgia and Alabama.