« Frozen vegetables |
| Jobs and the 1930s vs. the 2010s »
According to Lawrence Auster, “Republicans are the stupid party, who keep repeating slogans without thinking about their meaning and their consequences.”
I am hopeful that a President Romney can bring some intelligence back to the party.
September 28, 2011 | Permalink
I also support Mitt Romney for President but it won't change the fact that Republicans are on average, stupider (IQ wise) then Democrats.
Wong Chow Mein |
September 28, 2011 at 01:01 PM
Republicans are united in what they hate. Emotion not intellect. Why do think Romney can change it? As Ted Kennedy said of Romney, "He is not pro-choice, he is multiple choice." Romney will bend with the wind, not shape the wind.
September 28, 2011 at 01:09 PM
Romney is now winning in Iowa. Iowa! National Journal reported that the Romney campaign engineered Cain’s Florida straw poll victory to break Perry. For the record, I told my family that I knew Obama would be president before he announced that he would run for 2008, and I believed Romney would be president next. America wanted to black up, and now we are blacked out.
September 28, 2011 at 01:16 PM
Talk about stupid - this idiot wants to suspend Congressional elections: http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/28/new-audio-nc-governor-struck-serious-tone-on-suspending-congressional-elections/
Oh, wait. She's a Democrat!
Black Death |
September 28, 2011 at 01:18 PM
Romney is the only candidate that compares to Obama in terms of IQ and general charisma.
September 28, 2011 at 01:37 PM
I've paid little attention to the Republicans campaigning. Are they really going around saying Obama has no experience? Or rather, are they saying "see what happens when you elect someone with no experience"?
In any case, yeah sure, he's got "experience" now, and look how that's working out. Besides which, what does experience matter if you are a devout believer in a twisted, failed, corrupt ideology, as is The Won? Lucky for us he's as inept as he is, or he'd be doing even more damage.
September 28, 2011 at 01:58 PM
I think that was a subtle joke about Cantor for VP.
Whitey Whiteman III |
September 28, 2011 at 02:15 PM
"Romney is the only candidate that compares to Obama in terms of IQ and general charisma. "
No way that Obama's IQ is within 20 points of Romney's.
September 28, 2011 at 02:27 PM
Agreed, Romney's IQ is the saving grace for Republicans. He should make Chris Christie his Vice President...could he be stopped?
Jefferson Raskin |
September 28, 2011 at 02:57 PM
Wong Chow Mein,
This is largely branding. Average IQ is comparable between the parties. And Bush was actually smarter then Kerry. His yokle personality was an election schtik, in fact the entire "regular guy" image republicans go for is marketing. Some republicans like Sarah Palin are morons, but I can find moron democrats too.
September 28, 2011 at 02:58 PM
Jon Huntsman is also a Republican candidate with a high IQ, we can deduce this from his fluency in Mandarin Chinese, graduating from University of Pennsylvania with a BA in international politics and being a Eagle Scout.
Why is no one talking about him? Is he too "blue blood" to win?
September 28, 2011 at 03:43 PM
One average, Republicans are *not* lower Average IQ than Democrats. They are identical in years of education for example, according to Exit Polls. Republicans earn more on average.
There exist 0 studies showing Democrats having higher IQ. Smart people rely on statistics and facts, not impressions from the media.
However, Conservatives (40% of the population) are lower IQ than liberals (20% of the population).
Cum Lade |
September 28, 2011 at 03:57 PM
Hope and Change
The Engineer |
September 28, 2011 at 04:00 PM
You guys are biased. The Republican field has 2 idiots, Perry and Bachman. Palin in not running.
The other candidates have high I.Q, even if you do not like them for other reasons.
Mitt Romeny we already covered.
Ron Paul is a doctor. Also, you need to be high I.Q to understand libertarian theory.
Hermain Cain is reasonably smart, he has a B.A in Mathematics and an M.A in Computer Science.
Jon Huntsman has fairly high I.Q, educated in an Ivy League school, speaks Chinese.
Newt Ginrich is a terrible person, but he in particular has extremely high IQ. He has a PhD. He has written 23 books on various topics.
Unlike Obama, Ginrich actually routinely comes up with novel ideas of his own. If you Ginrich's debate performance next to Obamas performance at the debates 2007-2008, and disregard ideology, you have to be nuts to claim Obama appears to be smarter.
Cum Lade |
September 28, 2011 at 04:13 PM
Newt is a great talker, but not a great thinker. He writes books, but do people read them?
Obama is pretty careful about what he says and Romney is even better at that. That's a useful trait in a president and canidate, that Newt is totally incapable of,
Albert magnus |
September 28, 2011 at 04:43 PM
"Republicans are united in what they hate. Emotion not intellect."
You must mean the rank and file. Don't forget the cursed compassionate conservativism of Bush II and now perry.
September 28, 2011 at 05:49 PM
I've become pretty much a single-issue voter in federal elections. What is your stance on immigration control? That's all I care about.
On that issue, Romney appears to be better than any Republican contender except Bachman. But that's not saying a whole lot.
September 28, 2011 at 06:00 PM
"Jon Huntsman is also a Republican candidate with a high IQ, we can deduce this from his fluency in Mandarin Chinese, graduating from University of Pennsylvania with a BA in international politics and being a Eagle Scout.
Why is no one talking about him? Is he too "blue blood" to win?"
Huntsman is also a straight laced, clean cut, Mormon like Romney. He really cant offer anything much different from Romney. Plus he lacks any kind of charisma or gravitas.
Democrats got the Republicans beat in IQ if you measure only whites.
September 28, 2011 at 06:05 PM
Huntsman & Romney are both children of privilege, but Romney has certainly done more with what he had than Huntsman.
I don't buy the idea of Bachman being an idiot. She has a law degree in tax prep. I'd bet anything that her IQ was AT LEAST 110.
Palin? At least 100. The idea that she's a moron after fighting the Republicans in Alaska is laughable. Idiots don't overturn power structures.
But I'd also bet that Obamma's IQ is at least 120, but that's not enough to solve problems. He's wedded to an ideology that will not work, and he won't abandon it.
Half Canadian |
September 28, 2011 at 06:53 PM
Well it is a question of status competition -
white democrats compete with white republicans for status.
And all reliable data I have ever seen indicates that white democrats have higher iq than white republicans
And, the highest IQ people in Europe may be the people of Denmark. The people of Denmark had a party in power that worked hard to keep muslim immigrants out, and was quite effective at doing so.
The people of Denmark just booted out of power the party that was protecting them from muslim immigration and voted in a party that will deliver more muslim immigration.
So yes, liberal whites have higher IQ than conservative whites, but may be lacking in common sense, or lacking in an instinct for self preservation
September 28, 2011 at 07:18 PM
Here's something for all the smart Republicans who think conservatives are dumb:
Romney cannot win the general election. Conservatives will sit out.
September 28, 2011 at 08:09 PM
"Also, you need to be high to understand libertarian theory.
September 28, 2011 at 09:21 PM
Romney is careful about what he says because he will say whatever he has to that day to win. When Gingrich says something, I can assume he believes it.
[HS: Actually, Gingrich will say something he doesn't believe because he thinks it's interesting, while Romney will avoid saying anything too interesting in order to not turn away potential voters.]
September 28, 2011 at 10:12 PM
Let's see now:
Romney couldn't beat McCain.
McCain couldn't beat Obama.
Therefore Romney can beat Obama.
September 28, 2011 at 10:39 PM
"I also support Mitt Romney for President but it won't change the fact that Republicans are on average, stupider (IQ wise) then Democrats."
That's only if you compare white Democrats and white Republicans. Factor in the blacks, Mexicans, and Puerto Ricans, and the Democrats turn into the stupid party.
The real problem with Republicans is that they are the cowardly party. Every time they are accused of being "racist", no matter the issue, they inevitably retreat, shamefully grovel (a la Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally), and then say something incredibly stupid. Maybe Romney is different, although my own impression of the man is that he is essentially a mirror for whatever the average right-of-center view is.
Georgia Resident |
September 28, 2011 at 10:56 PM
Obama won because he was a blank slate. That's not the case now.
half canadian |
September 29, 2011 at 12:59 AM
Republicans are stupid. Back in 2001, Diversity hijacked a plane-full of democrats; slammed it into a skyscraper full of democrats; and did all of this in the middle of a democrat city. And what to the Republicans do? Send their constituency to fight and die on behalf of democrat civilians.
September 29, 2011 at 01:45 AM
Steve Sailer's blog has been "removed" from blogspot. One of his last posts was about how SPLC was looking for a new crusade now that gay marriage is gradually being imposed across the land.
"Blog has been removed
Sorry, the blog at isteve.blogspot.com has been removed. This address is not available for new blogs.
Did you expect to see your blog here? See: 'I can't find my blog on the Web, where is it?'"
[HS: I still see it.]
September 29, 2011 at 03:01 AM
"Democrats got the Republicans beat in IQ if you measure only whites."
Maybe if you count the Jews as white, but we'd beat the dogshit out of you in fisticuffs, if we weren't too busy banging (ex?)cheerleaders, the loves of your lives, and creating things of value.
Whitey Whiteman III |
September 29, 2011 at 03:08 AM
Dave, that's just silly. By your logic, since Ford beat Reagan and Carter beat Ford in 1976, that means Reagan couldn't beat Carter in 1980.
If Romney is the nominee, does anyone really think he'd lose to Obama with the economy as it is?
September 29, 2011 at 03:53 AM
Anyone who argues that liberals are smarter than conservatives is really only discussing whites. High school drop out voter overwhelmingly for Democrats. In addition, blacks vote 95% for Democrats. Hispanics vote 80% for Democrats.
However, liberals demonstrate all of the time that they are smart enough to not believe what they say in public. rich liberals send their children to private school and avoid blacks at all costs. However, white liberals are smart enough to avoid being called a racist for their consistently racist behavior.
Remember, the Boston public schools are less than to 10% white. The liberals are smart enough to avoid minorities but stupid enough to keep saying that conservative who avoid minorities are racist.
September 29, 2011 at 05:58 AM
"Huntsman is also a straight laced, clean cut, Mormon like Romney. He really can't offer anything much different from Romney."
If anything he's more liberal. More honest and more consistent than Romney in his political positions but more liberal.
Also, like Cain (who actually seems interesting), he hasn't paid his dues. Republicans never ever nominate outsiders - you need to be an established party insider who's already made a few runs at the Presidency to get nominated (or the son of a former President). Unfortunately this results in candidates like Dole and McCain, honorable stalwart party members with no new ideas and little chance of winning enthusiastic hearts and minds. Romney fits that bill for sure. Sometimes the GOP reminds me of the CPSU in the waning days of the USSR.
Peter A |
September 29, 2011 at 07:09 AM
The gullibility and short-sightedness of most republicans about free-market healthcare is the best way to offer healthcare is an indication of their lower IQ. I am referring to the non politicians. The average IQs of dems and repub politicians are about the same at around 115. Too many republicans and libertarians are too blinded by their ideology that they are unable to see how their ways of thinking are highly flawed. It also shows how sociopathic and selfish they are.
Drole Prole |
September 29, 2011 at 07:41 AM
Republicans and libertarians are too stupid to see that most Americans are getting gypped by the middle-men called health insurance companies. Suppose we had a nearly truly free market. Health insurance would still be around, and they'd still cherry pick their customers and still try to deny services. Health insurance companies would still lead to overpriced healthcare.
Drole Prole |
September 29, 2011 at 07:44 AM
"Palin? At least 100. The idea that she's a moron after fighting the Republicans in Alaska is laughable"
She is city-mayor smart and almost smart enough to be governor of a small state, but above that, she would (to quote a well known saying) be promoted to the level of her incompetence.
September 29, 2011 at 08:35 AM
As a Republican, I can't not vote for someone who believes that the earth is 7000 years old and restrict rights of legitimate citizens (i.e. abortion and gay rights). There are only two candidates who fit that bill...Huntsman and Romney (who has flipped only to get the vote).
September 29, 2011 at 09:01 AM
So what is your current position on healthcare Sig? Are you still in favor of a single-payer type system like France, which is far superior to our highly costly gov't heavy system that provides crap service. Are you in favor of Romneycare/Obamacare?
Drole Prole |
September 29, 2011 at 09:06 AM
When people throw the term moron around, I assume it means at least an IQ below the mean. This clearly isn't applicable to Bachman, Palin, Biden, Kennedy, etc.
Would Palin be a good president? I think that her lack of connections would be her undoing. Cleaning up a small-state government (small in population) is one thing. The Fed may be too much.
Half Canadian |
September 29, 2011 at 10:38 AM
Repubs and abortion: they obviously don't like minorities but dont want them to get abortions. And then there's their position on the death penalty, which is again inconsistent.
Ernest scribbler |
September 29, 2011 at 11:02 AM
George writes "restrict rights of legitimate citizens (i.e. abortion and gay rights)."
I can only assume you're talking about "gay marriage". I personally find sodomy disgusting. But I don't dislike homos. I just don't want to have it shoved in my face. Nor do I think the gov should endorse it through "gay marriage".
Marriage is a religious sacrament. So obviously the gov shouldn't be involved in "establishing" it. I personally think the gov should treat marriage as just another civil contract. Why is it that so many homos whine about separation of church and state -- until they see a chance to use the state to promote religious entitlements for themselves? If homos were really consistent they would demand gov get out of the marriage business altogether.
September 29, 2011 at 06:59 PM
People don't seem to understand a critical factor about healthcare. The issue between Canadian or European style healthcare and American style healthcare is not how "free market" or "socialist" such a healthcare system is. The problem is that foreign healthcare systems free-ride off of the American pharmaceutical and medical device industry...the very equipment that makes modern medicine what it is. In addition, because Canada does not allow for private insurance and private hospitals, sick Canadians who can afford it come to the US to get their care...as do foreigners from all over the world.
How, then, can anyone make a straight-faced comparison between American healthcare systems and others when the other are so dependent on us to begin with.
I propose the following: 1) No foreigners are allowed to buy healthcare in the United States. Period; 2) All foreign sales of pharma and medical device products are sold by consignment through the US government. The government is required to get 90% of the American retail price and the proceeds are split between the Feds and the companies. No more threats from foreign governments about overriding patents or other nonsense.
And, no, I don't want single-payer system going to benefit Shaniqua.
September 29, 2011 at 08:02 PM
"Maybe if you count the Jews as white, but we'd beat the dogshit out of you in fisticuffs, if we weren't too busy banging (ex?)cheerleaders, the loves of your lives, and creating things of value."
Don't think there's enough Jewish Democrats as a percentage of the whole party to change the numbers that much. I also think Dems have more value creation jobs while Reps have more value transference jobs. HS would probably know the answer to that one. I'm a Republican by the way.
September 29, 2011 at 09:18 PM
We would benefit from a massive technocratic ratchet upwards. Governor Romney would contribute to that. Really, it's silly that we've departed from the Woodrow Wilson model of presidential prerequisites:
public administration expert -> research university president -> state governor -> us president.
When you're managing populations of 300 million, you really should have a very high threshhold quantitative social science competence. I don't think either Gov. Romney or President Obama meet that standard, but the two of them are moving us in the right direction.
Hopefully Anonymous |
October 02, 2011 at 11:40 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.