I Guess I Am An Elitist...

[Czernobog]

Okay, so this fund-raising video has come out of Bruce Braley talking in Iowa:


I'm sorry, I don't see this as similar to Romney's "47% comment". Look, Braley was making a very specific reference. He wasn't saying that Grassley didn't have what it takes to represent Iowans. He very specifically made reference to the chair of the Judiciary committee, and, rightly in my opinion, asked who the people thought would do a better job in that position - a lawyer (you know, someone who has made a career out of, and actually knows a little bit about the judicial system...), or a farmer (you know...the guy that has spent his adult life digging around in the dirt...)? Gee...that seems like kind of a no-brainer to me.

And I think the fact that so many Iowans took the question so personally, and took it as a slam says a lot about just how thin-skinned Americans have become. I mean, let's put this in the other direction. If we were discussing who should be the Director of the Department of Agriculture, and the question was asked, who would you want heading that department? A farmer (you know, the guy who has spent his entire life digging in the dirt, and knows a little bit about the difficulties facing this nation's farmers), or a lawyer (You know, the guy that wouldn't know a tiller from a tractor), should the lawyer be offended by the farmer pointing out the reality?!?! Sorry. Not so much...

 

[Rikurzhen]

You hire talent and expertise, you don't need to embody that talent and expertise. People elect politicians for their judgment. This fool thinks he's being elected for his expertise and that shows he has poor critical thinking skills in addition to poor judgment.

Go with the farmer.

 

[Czernobog]

You hire talent and expertise, you don't need to embody that talent and expertise. People elect politicians for their judgment. This fool thinks he's being elected for his expertise and that shows he has poor critical thinking skills in addition to poor judgment.

Go with the farmer.

To the Bold: I'm sorry, that's only part of the equation. Or, it should be, anyway. The fact that it isn't is why we have representative who think "Evolution is a lie straight from the pit of Hell" sitting on the fucking Science, and technology committee!!! No one who demonstrates not only an ignorance about, but a disdain for, science has any business sitting on the science committee. I'm sorry, but its about time we start electing representatives who actually know a little something about the things they are going to be doing as they represent us.

 

[Rikurzhen]

The more I think about that pitch video the stupider it seems. Washington is filled to overflowing with lawyers, expertise of all kinds, so this guys pitches his supporters with the line that they need to send a lawyer to DC, a small town Iowa lawyer. And this pitch is doubly stupid as a wide-release video - why do Iowans care about having this guy on the Judiciary Committee looking after the special interests of trail lawyers? This pitch should be made off-the-record in a smoke filled room.

So we have the Army Colonel who with an MPA and experience castrating pigs who is looking out for Iowans because she understands them and is one of them running against a DC insider who is promising a bunch of lawyers that he'll stand in the way of tort reform and look after their special interests.

Again, bad judgment on display.

 

[Rikurzhen]

To the Bold: I'm sorry, that's only part of the equation. Or, it should be, anyway. The fact that it isn't is why we have representative who think "Evolution is a lie straight from the pit of Hell" sitting on the fucking Science, and technology committee!!! No one who demonstrates not only an ignorance about, but a disdain for, science has any business sitting on the science committee. I'm sorry, but its about time we start electing representatives who actually know a little something about the things they are going to be doing as they represent us.

I've had years of studying genetics so I know a bit about evolution and I'll tell you this - there's no public policy that I can think of which is based on evolution, and there's nothing in law or policy which depends on understanding or even accepting human evolution, so what you're arguing is symbolism rather than substance. Frankly, liberal creationism is more of a danger in the corridors of power in DC than is religious creationism for idiots actually believe in liberal creationism and they use it as the basis for public policy.

 

[Statistikhengst]

It's only whacked-out Righties who take exception to this kind of commentary from Bruce Braley. You know, the same kind of whacked out Righties who cannot even spell words correctly on Tea Party placards.

 

[Czernobog]

The more I think about that pitch video the stupider it seems. Washington is filled to overflowing with lawyers, expertise of all kinds, so this guys pitches his supporters with the line that they need to send a lawyer to DC, a small town Iowa lawyer. And this pitch is doubly stupid as a wide-release video - why do Iowans care about having this guy on the Judiciary Committee looking after the special interests of trail lawyers? This pitch should be made off-the-record in a smoke filled room.

So we have the Army Colonel who with an MPA and experience castrating pigs who is looking out for Iowans because she understands them and is one of them running against a DC insider who is promising a bunch of lawyers that he'll stand in the way of tort reform and look after their special interests.

Again, bad judgment on display.

Okay...that might be a better argument. My point still remains that anyone who saw this as a slight against farmers, obviously didn't understand the words coming out of this guy's mouth. I refer to the hypothetical in my OP.

 

[Czernobog]

To the Bold: I'm sorry, that's only part of the equation. Or, it should be, anyway. The fact that it isn't is why we have representative who think "Evolution is a lie straight from the pit of Hell" sitting on the fucking Science, and technology committee!!! No one who demonstrates not only an ignorance about, but a disdain for, science has any business sitting on the science committee. I'm sorry, but its about time we start electing representatives who actually know a little something about the things they are going to be doing as they represent us.

I've had years of studying genetics so I know a bit about evolution and I'll tell you this - there's no public policy that I can think of which is based on evolution, and there's nothing in law or policy which depends on understanding or even accepting human evolution, so what you're arguing is symbolism rather than substance. Frankly, liberal creationism is more of a danger in the corridors of power in DC than is religious creationism for idiots actually believe in liberal creationism and they use it as the basis for public policy.

Except he didn't just confine his comments to evolution - he expanded it to all science. I'm sorry, no one who thinks that science "comes from the pit of Hell" has any business sitting on the committee whose job it is to determine public policy on science.

 

[Czernobog]

It's only whacked-out Righties who take exception to this kind of commentary from Bruce Braley. You know, the same kind of whacked out Righties who cannot even spell words correctly on Tea Party placards.

Uh...I don't know about that...you should see some of the comments coming out of both sides in Iowa over this. And, he is now trailing Ernst, and she is killing him in rural areas. Let's face it most of Iowa is "rural", so if you're losing "rural Iowa", you're losing Iowa.

 

[Statistikhengst]

It's only whacked-out Righties who take exception to this kind of commentary from Bruce Braley. You know, the same kind of whacked out Righties who cannot even spell words correctly on Tea Party placards.

Uh...I don't know about that...you should see some of the comments coming out of both sides in Iowa over this. And, he is now trailing Ernst, and she is killing him in rural areas. Let's face it most of Iowa is "rural", so if you're losing "rural Iowa", you're losing Iowa.

This is factually true. It's election season and the rough and tumble is already long in action. So, none of this surprises me. The GOP is very likely going to take the Senate with 51 seats in the fall, and IA is part of that equation.

 

[Rikurzhen]

The more I think about that pitch video the stupider it seems. Washington is filled to overflowing with lawyers, expertise of all kinds, so this guys pitches his supporters with the line that they need to send a lawyer to DC, a small town Iowa lawyer. And this pitch is doubly stupid as a wide-release video - why do Iowans care about having this guy on the Judiciary Committee looking after the special interests of trail lawyers? This pitch should be made off-the-record in a smoke filled room.

So we have the Army Colonel who with an MPA and experience castrating pigs who is looking out for Iowans because she understands them and is one of them running against a DC insider who is promising a bunch of lawyers that he'll stand in the way of tort reform and look after their special interests.

Again, bad judgment on display.

Okay...that might be a better argument. My point still remains that anyone who saw this as a slight against farmers, obviously didn't understand the words coming out of this guy's mouth. I refer to the hypothetical in my OP.

To the slight against farmers, we've seen in a number of races the politicians who've given up the pretense of actually living in the state they represent. A lot of voters don't like the idea of their politician being a representative of DC to the state rather than the reverse. That's what Braley is running into. The elitist persona at a time when the elites are shown to be both corrupt and inept - no one looks to DC and thinks it's filled with honest people doing brilliant work - so for him to try to sell his insider status is an affront to people, he's not better than them. Now I have a vague memory of some video of his where he mocked the pig farmer and Iowans months ago and IIRC that didn't go down well, so if my memory is correct (and I'm not sure it is) that event will also set the tone for this response this video is getting.

There's no upside to being elite when the elite are corrupt and inept. The NASA guys from the 60s were the right kind of elite - the engineers and astronauts. They delivered the goods. You see the difference. That kind of elite gives currency to a person's reputation. Braley just looks like a crook on the make in this video.

 

[Rikurzhen]

To the Bold: I'm sorry, that's only part of the equation. Or, it should be, anyway. The fact that it isn't is why we have representative who think "Evolution is a lie straight from the pit of Hell" sitting on the fucking Science, and technology committee!!! No one who demonstrates not only an ignorance about, but a disdain for, science has any business sitting on the science committee. I'm sorry, but its about time we start electing representatives who actually know a little something about the things they are going to be doing as they represent us.

I've had years of studying genetics so I know a bit about evolution and I'll tell you this - there's no public policy that I can think of which is based on evolution, and there's nothing in law or policy which depends on understanding or even accepting human evolution, so what you're arguing is symbolism rather than substance. Frankly, liberal creationism is more of a danger in the corridors of power in DC than is religious creationism for idiots actually believe in liberal creationism and they use it as the basis for public policy.

Except he didn't just confine his comments to evolution - he expanded it to all science. I'm sorry, no one who thinks that science "comes from the pit of Hell" has any business sitting on the committee whose job it is to determine public policy on science.

You understand that Iowa is not Georgia and that Broun isn't running in Georgia.

 

[Rikurzhen]

You hire talent and expertise, you don't need to embody that talent and expertise. People elect politicians for their judgment. This fool thinks he's being elected for his expertise and that shows he has poor critical thinking skills in addition to poor judgment.

Go with the farmer.

To the Bold: I'm sorry, that's only part of the equation. Or, it should be, anyway. The fact that it isn't is why we have representative who think "Evolution is a lie straight from the pit of Hell" sitting on the fucking Science, and technology committee!!! No one who demonstrates not only an ignorance about, but a disdain for, science has any business sitting on the science committee. I'm sorry, but its about time we start electing representatives who actually know a little something about the things they are going to be doing as they represent us.

One more go at this topic. Obama said he would bankrupt the coal industry. He said that to a bunch of liberal billionaires in San Francisco. He told them what they wanted to hear because they were fashionable environmentalists big on solar and wind. Where did Broun make his remark? At Liberty University. The man is a physician, so while not a trained scientist, he's had more exposure to science than most of his political colleagues, likely lawyers. If he has no business on that committee for what he said, then Obama has no business being President - a President shouldn't set out to bankrupt companies. For me to judge Broun I'd need to assess his voting record because I pay far more attention to what people do than to what they say but it's all moot anyway as he's not running this year.

 

[Czernobog]

To the Bold: I'm sorry, that's only part of the equation. Or, it should be, anyway. The fact that it isn't is why we have representative who think "Evolution is a lie straight from the pit of Hell" sitting on the fucking Science, and technology committee!!! No one who demonstrates not only an ignorance about, but a disdain for, science has any business sitting on the science committee. I'm sorry, but its about time we start electing representatives who actually know a little something about the things they are going to be doing as they represent us.

I've had years of studying genetics so I know a bit about evolution and I'll tell you this - there's no public policy that I can think of which is based on evolution, and there's nothing in law or policy which depends on understanding or even accepting human evolution, so what you're arguing is symbolism rather than substance. Frankly, liberal creationism is more of a danger in the corridors of power in DC than is religious creationism for idiots actually believe in liberal creationism and they use it as the basis for public policy.

Except he didn't just confine his comments to evolution - he expanded it to all science. I'm sorry, no one who thinks that science "comes from the pit of Hell" has any business sitting on the committee whose job it is to determine public policy on science.

You understand that Iowa is not Georgia and that Broun isn't running in Georgia.

The point is, its part of the same problem. We have become, as you have pointed out, more concerned with the "character' of our representatives, and how "pure" they are in their ideology than we are with their experience, abilities, and knowledge. And this is how we get morons like Broun on the Science committee, or Michele Fucking Bachmann on Intelligence...

 

[Czernobog]

You hire talent and expertise, you don't need to embody that talent and expertise. People elect politicians for their judgment. This fool thinks he's being elected for his expertise and that shows he has poor critical thinking skills in addition to poor judgment.

Go with the farmer.

To the Bold: I'm sorry, that's only part of the equation. Or, it should be, anyway. The fact that it isn't is why we have representative who think "Evolution is a lie straight from the pit of Hell" sitting on the fucking Science, and technology committee!!! No one who demonstrates not only an ignorance about, but a disdain for, science has any business sitting on the science committee. I'm sorry, but its about time we start electing representatives who actually know a little something about the things they are going to be doing as they represent us.

One more go at this topic. Obama said he would bankrupt the coal industry. He said that to a bunch of liberal billionaires in San Francisco. He told them what they wanted to hear because they were fashionable environmentalists big on solar and wind. Where did Broun make his remark? At Liberty University. The man is a physician, so while not a trained scientist, he's had more exposure to science than most of his political colleagues, likely lawyers. If he has no business on that committee for what he said, then Obama has no business being President - a President shouldn't set out to bankrupt companies. For me to judge Broun I'd need to assess his voting record because I pay far more attention to what people do than to what they say but it's all moot anyway as he's not running this year.

I think "no business being President" might be a bit of a stretch, but I agree with you. I remember that comment, and it was one of those things he said that made me cringe. I get that Obama wants to take us "green", but promising to decimate an industry isn't exactly the way to do that.

 

[Rikurzhen]

To the Bold: I'm sorry, that's only part of the equation. Or, it should be, anyway. The fact that it isn't is why we have representative who think "Evolution is a lie straight from the pit of Hell" sitting on the fucking Science, and technology committee!!! No one who demonstrates not only an ignorance about, but a disdain for, science has any business sitting on the science committee. I'm sorry, but its about time we start electing representatives who actually know a little something about the things they are going to be doing as they represent us.

I've had years of studying genetics so I know a bit about evolution and I'll tell you this - there's no public policy that I can think of which is based on evolution, and there's nothing in law or policy which depends on understanding or even accepting human evolution, so what you're arguing is symbolism rather than substance. Frankly, liberal creationism is more of a danger in the corridors of power in DC than is religious creationism for idiots actually believe in liberal creationism and they use it as the basis for public policy.

Except he didn't just confine his comments to evolution - he expanded it to all science. I'm sorry, no one who thinks that science "comes from the pit of Hell" has any business sitting on the committee whose job it is to determine public policy on science.

You understand that Iowa is not Georgia and that Broun isn't running in Georgia.

The point is, its part of the same problem. We have become, as you have pointed out, more concerned with the "character' of our representatives, and how "pure" they are in their ideology than we are with their experience, abilities, and knowledge. And this is how we get morons like Broun on the Science committee, or Michele Fucking Bachmann on Intelligence...

Character and purity of ideology are two different things. Voters vacillate on issues and ideology but when they see something like the Clinton blowjob scandal they don't trust the judgment of a man who will cheat on his wife and that speaks to character. We all understand that politicians can't please everyone but that doesn't mean that anyone will do, voters want someone who understands them, believes what they believe, values what they value, sees the world in the same way. Political ideology lays on top of that, it guides one's thinking by appealing to political axioms. This means that people fixated on policy are going to be paying attention to ideology. A voter who wants tax cuts cares only about ideology. A voter who wants someone they trust making varied decisions on unforeseen future events wants someone who resonates with them, they want to "like the cut of her jib."

 

[Rikurzhen]

To the Bold: I'm sorry, that's only part of the equation. Or, it should be, anyway. The fact that it isn't is why we have representative who think "Evolution is a lie straight from the pit of Hell" sitting on the fucking Science, and technology committee!!! No one who demonstrates not only an ignorance about, but a disdain for, science has any business sitting on the science committee. I'm sorry, but its about time we start electing representatives who actually know a little something about the things they are going to be doing as they represent us.

I've had years of studying genetics so I know a bit about evolution and I'll tell you this - there's no public policy that I can think of which is based on evolution, and there's nothing in law or policy which depends on understanding or even accepting human evolution, so what you're arguing is symbolism rather than substance. Frankly, liberal creationism is more of a danger in the corridors of power in DC than is religious creationism for idiots actually believe in liberal creationism and they use it as the basis for public policy.

Except he didn't just confine his comments to evolution - he expanded it to all science. I'm sorry, no one who thinks that science "comes from the pit of Hell" has any business sitting on the committee whose job it is to determine public policy on science.

You understand that Iowa is not Georgia and that Broun isn't running in Georgia.

The point is, its part of the same problem. We have become, as you have pointed out, more concerned with the "character' of our representatives, and how "pure" they are in their ideology than we are with their experience, abilities, and knowledge. And this is how we get morons like Broun on the Science committee, or Michele Fucking Bachmann on Intelligence...

I'm doubling up on lots of comments, I suppose I shouldn't post so quickly.

Broun and Bachmann. I'm not going to get into a there are idiots on the Democratic side too battle because it's irrelevant to the issue. People elect someone to represent them and we don't have religious tests for office in this country and that should include the religion of liberalism too. You don't have to agree with Bround and Bachmann but they represent districts where those messages or viewpoints found appeal. That's the end of it. The governance of DC should represent the people as they are, warts and virtues, it's not up to DC and guys like you to redesign the people to your tastes. The government reflects the people, the people don't reflect the government.

 

[Czernobog]

To the Bold: I'm sorry, that's only part of the equation. Or, it should be, anyway. The fact that it isn't is why we have representative who think "Evolution is a lie straight from the pit of Hell" sitting on the fucking Science, and technology committee!!! No one who demonstrates not only an ignorance about, but a disdain for, science has any business sitting on the science committee. I'm sorry, but its about time we start electing representatives who actually know a little something about the things they are going to be doing as they represent us.

I've had years of studying genetics so I know a bit about evolution and I'll tell you this - there's no public policy that I can think of which is based on evolution, and there's nothing in law or policy which depends on understanding or even accepting human evolution, so what you're arguing is symbolism rather than substance. Frankly, liberal creationism is more of a danger in the corridors of power in DC than is religious creationism for idiots actually believe in liberal creationism and they use it as the basis for public policy.

Except he didn't just confine his comments to evolution - he expanded it to all science. I'm sorry, no one who thinks that science "comes from the pit of Hell" has any business sitting on the committee whose job it is to determine public policy on science.

You understand that Iowa is not Georgia and that Broun isn't running in Georgia.

The point is, its part of the same problem. We have become, as you have pointed out, more concerned with the "character' of our representatives, and how "pure" they are in their ideology than we are with their experience, abilities, and knowledge. And this is how we get morons like Broun on the Science committee, or Michele Fucking Bachmann on Intelligence...

Character and purity of ideology are two different things. Voters vacillate on issues and ideology but when they see something like the Clinton blowjob scandal they don't trust the judgment of a man who will cheat on his wife and that speaks to character. We all understand that politicians can't please everyone but that doesn't mean that anyone will do, voters want someone who understands them, believes what they believe, values what they value, sees the world in the same way. Political ideology lays on top of that, it guides one's thinking by appealing to political axioms. This means that people fixated on policy are going to be paying attention to ideology. A voter who wants tax cuts cares only about ideology. A voter who wants someone they trust making varied decisions on unforeseen future events wants someone who resonates with them, they want to "like the cut of her jib."

I agree this is how we choose our representatives. And you'll notice you didn't include the very things that I said should inform our decisions - experience, ability, and knowledge. We just don't care if our representatives are dumb as a box of rocks (c.f. Michele Fucking Bachmann), just so long as they think the "right thoughts", and behave in the right way. Sorry...I think that's a problem...

 

[Rikurzhen]

I agree this is how we choose our representatives. And you'll notice you didn't include the very things that I said should inform our decisions - experience, ability, and knowledge. We just don't care if our representatives are dumb as a box of rocks (c.f. Michele Fucking Bachmann), just so long as they think the "right thoughts", and behave in the right way. Sorry...I think that's a problem...

I don't agree. I don't see better governance from old DC hands than I do from newcomers. Governor Palin was hands down a better governor than experienced Governor Murkowski or Governor Knowles.

We're sending politicians to DC because of their judgment. Sometimes we send them because of their demonstrated experience. Ability? To do what? Ability in their non-political career? Sure, that could be a signal. Ability to play the corrupt game in DC? I suppose that can appeal to some voters. Knowledge? Knowledge needs to be processed through a black box to come out as a decision. It's the black box that is crucial - how will the politician assess the knowledge? The knowledge can come from staff specialists, we don't need Obama-like experts on everything to be the politician.

 

[rightwinger]

If someone had said an experienced farmer was better suited to serve on a farming committee than a lawyer was...is that elitist?