Who are the GOP Intellectuals, if any?

[P F Tinmore]

Going back to Ronald Reagan, he was a "B" movie actor.

Then you had A lister, Arnold, probably an even better actor than Ron, but an alien, can't be president.

Then you have bathing suit runway walker Sarah Palin.

Then there is "nude centerfold magazine model", Scott Brown.

Don't forget "talk show host" and "comic" and "strummer", Mike Huckabee.

Now there is reality TV show star Donald Trump.

When I see GOP, I think of these as the "intellectual heavy hitters". If not them, then who?

Newt Gingrich: I can't stand him and he is extremely unlikable. I do not agree with much of what he says, but at least he can make a legitimate case for his views, and he is extremely knowledgeable on anything political.

Bill Bennet: This guy is no nonsense, but he has a sense of humor. He knows what he is talking about even when he is wrong. When I say "when he is wrong", I mean when I believe he is wrong. But like Newt, he can back up what he says and can make a cogent argument on most all issues.

Those would be the two off the top of my head without having to think very much.

Bill Bennet is a real intellectual. It makes me wonder, though, why he turned into a party hack.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Does intelligence really matter?

Bush is a dullard. Obama is brilliant. Both have the same policies. Both rotten presidents.

 

[editec]

Not that I doubt that there are scads of very intelligent people running the GOP, but ...

No partisan can be a true intellectual.​

Oh they can and often are VERY SMART but as to being a real intellectual?

No, they cannot be both partisan and truly an intellectual.

Being a real intellectual demands that one must be open to the facts and logic even when they lead one to conclusions that do not jibe with your favorite ideological theories.

One can conclude therefore that neither the GOP nor DNC are lead by real intellectuals.

In fact, if one is planning on taking a vow of intellectualism, one must eschew swearing alligiance to ANY organization that demands a loyality to a cause that will IGNORE the facts when they are inconvenient.

Intellectuals are generally disliked in political organizations precisely because one cannot count on them to go along with the general consensus of the group.

Being an intellectual demands of one an intellectual code of honesty that few people are willing to accept.

 

[Big Fitz]

Together, they make up an entire "half-wit".

Seriously, it's a good question. I guess David Brooks, George Will, Thomas Sowell, for starters might qualify as 'intellectual' conservatives, in some sense.

David Frum, Peggy Noonan, and Robert Samuelson added to journalists; Senators Tom Coburn, Dick Lugar, Rob Portman, Lindsey Graham. In the House, the only intellectual I can think of is Ron Paul.

Everyone on Maggie's list is a RINO, save for Ron Paul. Neocon (big government wilsonian expansionist) at worst. I disagree with 60%+ of what they say and write.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Being an intellectual demands of one an intellectual code of honesty that few people are willing to accept.

This. I've had to change my own stances on things like gun control, the electoral college, etc, when faced with the facts. Once you're unwilling to consider and reconsider your intellectual outlooks, you are no longer an intellectual.

I'm not sure if he's been mentioned yet, but I'd consider Limbaugh a GOP intellectual. Before you all LOL all over the place, the reason I say that is because Limbaugh is a pretty shrewd businessman and showman. He says and does outrageous things because it makes him wealthy and powerful. He's running one the most successful long cons in US political history... the only guy even close to playing on his level is Stephen Colbert.

 

[Nosmo King]

Soggy is such a Far RW reactionary fringer he wouldn't recognize a true RW Intellectual if they bitchslapped him in the face.


lol

No, I don't recognize what you consider an intellectual. Case in point, that pointy headed dunderhead residing at 1400 Pennsylvania Avenue that is plunging this country into third-world status at breakneck speed.

You missed the address by two blocks.

I guess that readin' and writin' stuff never really paid off for you too much.

 

[Big Fitz]

the only guy even close to playing on his level is Stephen Colbert.

You're comparing this flash in the pan to Rush? Wow. Just wow.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

the only guy even close to playing on his level is Stephen Colbert.

You're comparing this flash in the pan to Rush? Wow. Just wow.

Notice I said "even close to his level". Hannity, Savage, O'Reilly, Malkin, Coulter, etc are mostly thugs or fairly transparent opportunists. Ditto on the left with Olbermann, etc.

Stewart is playing a completely different game than either Colbert or Limbaugh. He's more the court jester, a role he's playing brilliantly. In fact he's playing it so well that he's picked up more credibility than his favorite targets: the media and the politicians.

Limbaugh and Colbert are both whip smart and are both playing their target audiences to the hilt. You get a sense of the real Limbaugh when a really fringe "Dittohead" makes it past Sneardly and Limbaugh has to walk the guy back from really ridiculous statements. But even with that, both guys know that they can make ridiculous statements and not only escape punishment, but actually profit from it.

 

[Big Fitz]

Stewart is playing a completely different game than either Colbert or Limbaugh. He's more the court jester, a role he's playing brilliantly. In fact he's playing it so well that he's picked up more credibility than his favorite targets: the media and the politicians.

I'd contest that. I don't find him remotely funny as much as I do profoundly irritating. But not as irritating as his fans.

Limbaugh and Colbert are both whip smart and are both playing their target audiences to the hilt. You get a sense of the real Limbaugh when a really fringe "Dittohead" makes it past Sneardly and Limbaugh has to walk the guy back from really ridiculous statements. But even with that, both guys know that they can make ridiculous statements and not only escape punishment, but actually profit from it.

I really don't know what Rush Limbaugh you're listening too, but you obviously get a totally different take from the show than I do. Rush does an excellent job of handling kooks from both sides of the argument. Colbert plays at being the kook trying to appear sane, and will continue to be successful at this act as long as the parody remains entertaining. Rush on the other hand is entertaining not as an end, but as a method of delivering his message. Colbert, the buffoonery IS the message, and face it, shit chucking monkeys have only a limited appeal and lifespan.

 

[editec]

Being an intellectual demands of one an intellectual code of honesty that few people are willing to accept.

This. I've had to change my own stances on things like gun control, the electoral college, etc, when faced with the facts. Once you're unwilling to consider and reconsider your intellectual outlooks, you are no longer an intellectual.

I'm not sure if he's been mentioned yet, but I'd consider Limbaugh a GOP intellectual. Before you all LOL all over the place, the reason I say that is because Limbaugh is a pretty shrewd businessman and showman. He says and does outrageous things because it makes him wealthy and powerful. He's running one the most successful long cons in US political history... the only guy even close to playing on his level is Stephen Colbert.

Rush is no doubt a smart guy but he's no intellectual.

Smart is not the same as intellectual.

Intellectualism is a CALLING, not a just another word for being smart.

At least that the definition of it that I operate with.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

We were told that Obama is an intellectual. Look how colossally dumb he's turned out to be.

When I hear the left talk about intellectuals, I just laugh.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Stewart is playing a completely different game than either Colbert or Limbaugh. He's more the court jester, a role he's playing brilliantly. In fact he's playing it so well that he's picked up more credibility than his favorite targets: the media and the politicians.

I'd contest that. I don't find him remotely funny as much as I do profoundly irritating. But not as irritating as his fans.

A lot of folks miss the point with Stewart. That includes some of his fans. Stewart is generally annoyed by the sheer level of BS out there from both the Media and the Politicians, on both sides of the fence. Stewart's humor only works if you too appreciate just how ridiculous CNN, Fox, MSNBC, the DNC, and the GOP truly are. I think I've seen Stewart tell maybe one funny joke that wasn't tied to current events in my life, and I've never seen Stewart actually be funny in film. All his movie roles suck.

The guy is a great one to watch when he personally gets interviewed, and he's probably one of the better interviewers out there. The Daily Show is aboslutely hillarious during the first watch because you're on the same page as it, but if you go back and watch old clips, they don't stand up well. It's not a sketch comedy show, it's commentary. Hillarious commentary.

I really don't know what Rush Limbaugh you're listening too, but you obviously get a totally different take from the show than I do. Rush does an excellent job of handling kooks from both sides of the argument. Colbert plays at being the kook trying to appear sane, and will continue to be successful at this act as long as the parody remains entertaining. Rush on the other hand is entertaining not as an end, but as a method of delivering his message. Colbert, the buffoonery IS the message, and face it, shit chucking monkeys have only a limited appeal and lifespan.

Limbaugh thrives on the outrage, and will say and do stuff to intentionally provoke that. I'm specifically thinking of his song parodies that are waaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyy over the top often. Limbaugh's game is more challenging than Colbert's because Limbaugh lets callers on. Sneardly does a pretty solid job filtering out the Right Wing Wackos, but it's when they do get past him that you get to see the fact that Rush himself isn't nearly as extreme as the stuff he's saying.

Part of the genius of Colbert is that while he's playing the game in a "safer" way than Limbaugh, he's also done a very good job avoiding the easy path, which would be a single note parody. Instead he is incorporating a more layered approach. Colbert has found ways to lampoon hollywood, DC, Wikipedia, Religion, Democrats, etc. If we didn't have is past as a Daily Show consultant to clue us in to the "real" Colbert, I suspect that it'd be a lot harder to pick out what was real and what was showmanshp on his part. He's built up a pretty amazing stage personality.

Limbaugh of course is the better of the two as he's been at this for a while and still manages to hoodwink the sheeple that think he's actually serious about the stuff he's saying. But Colbert's the only other guy that can come close to his level of showmanship.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Rush is no doubt a smart guy but he's no intellectual.

Smart is not the same as intellectual.

Intellectualism is a CALLING, not a just another word for being smart.

At least that the definition of it that I operate with.

I understand. The reason I'd use intellectual to describe Limbaugh, Colbert, and Stewart is because you have to really be up on what's going on, and what people think of it, to be able to do what those three do.

The Court Jester (Stewart) is typically the smartest guy in the room. He has to be, or instead of making his targets look foolish he'll only succeed in making himself look foolish. I know as a teacher the truly annoying thing isn't that the class clown is so stupid, but that he's so painfully smart.

The satirist (Limbaugh, Colbert) faces the same challenge as the Court Jester, but with the additional challenge that they have to accurately convince folks that they are comparible to the group they're trying to parody. Meaning like the Court Jester, you have to be up on what's going on, but unlike the Jester, you have to also be up on what people think about that if you're going to be able to push people's buttons.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Colbert annoys the crap outta me.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I used to love Bill Maher.. what the hell happened to him? He went 100% unhinged douche.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Colbert annoys the crap outta me.

Personally, I'm less of a fan of Colbert's since his absolutely terrible Christmas special. I can appreciate what he does now on an intellectual level, but that Special simply shattered the illusion around his character for me. Part of good satire is making it hard for the audience to know when you're serious and when you're exaggerating, and after that special....

Like I said, he still works on an intellectual level for me, but I've stopped finding him nearly as funny as I used to. I have my doubts his career will last as long as Rush's. Rush has found that perfect sweet spot where he can live for decades and he doesn't really do much of anything to expose the real game he's playing.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I used to love Bill Maher.. what the hell happened to him? He went 100% unhinged douche.

I'd say it was Bush, but I don't know. A lot of the guys that were fairly entertaining and fun on the left when unhinged when Bush came into office, and went really nuts when he won re-election. I generally laugh off the whole BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) thing that Right Wing Radio tosses out there, but there are a few guys that really lost it.

You've seen that on the Right too. A few of the Right wing guys are heading for la-la land at high speed. I recall listening to Beck when I was driving through Oklahoma in 2004 and he was hillarious. His whole EvilConservative.com thing (which isn't even live anymore) was awesome. Once he went onto CNN though his tone changed, and now that Obama is President he's just gone off the deep end.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I used to love Bill Maher.. what the hell happened to him? He went 100% unhinged douche.

I'd say it was Bush, but I don't know. A lot of the guys that were fairly entertaining and fun on the left when unhinged when Bush came into office, and went really nuts when he won re-election. I generally laugh off the whole BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) thing that Right Wing Radio tosses out there, but there are a few guys that really lost it.

You've seen that on the Right too. A few of the Right wing guys are heading for la-la land at high speed. I recall listening to Beck when I was driving through Oklahoma in 2004 and he was hillarious. His whole EvilConservative.com thing (which isn't even live anymore) was awesome. Once he went onto CNN though his tone changed, and now that Obama is President he's just gone off the deep end.

I like Beck's radio show, it's funny... his TV show is downright scary.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Considering the intellectuals pushed communism, darwinism, social darwinism, the "ubermench" that becamse Naziism and eugenics, pushed France into a bloody Revoltuion, pushed the Bolsheviks into a bloody Revolution, and on and on and on, I hope the GOP NEVER has any "intellectuals.

Considering what "intellectuals" on the left has given us, thanks, but no thanks. We don't need any more freaking idiots who think they are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo schmart!

 

[Big Fitz]

Stewart is playing a completely different game than either Colbert or Limbaugh. He's more the court jester, a role he's playing brilliantly. In fact he's playing it so well that he's picked up more credibility than his favorite targets: the media and the politicians.

I'd contest that. I don't find him remotely funny as much as I do profoundly irritating. But not as irritating as his fans.

A lot of folks miss the point with Stewart. That includes some of his fans. Stewart is generally annoyed by the sheer level of BS out there from both the Media and the Politicians, on both sides of the fence. Stewart's humor only works if you too appreciate just how ridiculous CNN, Fox, MSNBC, the DNC, and the GOP truly are. I think I've seen Stewart tell maybe one funny joke that wasn't tied to current events in my life, and I've never seen Stewart actually be funny in film. All his movie roles suck.

The guy is a great one to watch when he personally gets interviewed, and he's probably one of the better interviewers out there. The Daily Show is aboslutely hillarious during the first watch because you're on the same page as it, but if you go back and watch old clips, they don't stand up well. It's not a sketch comedy show, it's commentary. Hillarious commentary.

I really don't know what Rush Limbaugh you're listening too, but you obviously get a totally different take from the show than I do. Rush does an excellent job of handling kooks from both sides of the argument. Colbert plays at being the kook trying to appear sane, and will continue to be successful at this act as long as the parody remains entertaining. Rush on the other hand is entertaining not as an end, but as a method of delivering his message. Colbert, the buffoonery IS the message, and face it, shit chucking monkeys have only a limited appeal and lifespan.

Limbaugh thrives on the outrage, and will say and do stuff to intentionally provoke that. I'm specifically thinking of his song parodies that are waaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyy over the top often. Limbaugh's game is more challenging than Colbert's because Limbaugh lets callers on. Sneardly does a pretty solid job filtering out the Right Wing Wackos, but it's when they do get past him that you get to see the fact that Rush himself isn't nearly as extreme as the stuff he's saying.

Part of the genius of Colbert is that while he's playing the game in a "safer" way than Limbaugh, he's also done a very good job avoiding the easy path, which would be a single note parody. Instead he is incorporating a more layered approach. Colbert has found ways to lampoon hollywood, DC, Wikipedia, Religion, Democrats, etc. If we didn't have is past as a Daily Show consultant to clue us in to the "real" Colbert, I suspect that it'd be a lot harder to pick out what was real and what was showmanshp on his part. He's built up a pretty amazing stage personality.

Limbaugh of course is the better of the two as he's been at this for a while and still manages to hoodwink the sheeple that think he's actually serious about the stuff he's saying. But Colbert's the only other guy that can come close to his level of showmanship.

Well, I must say you're applying much more depth and cynicism to the actual cases. But that's your prerogative. This level of "intellectualization" reminds me of the King of the Hill episode where Bobby tries to 'refine' his craft as a comedian by getting coached by a french pantomime/clown coach which leaves him being a humorless dolt that is more self-amused than amusing.

As for Rush being a giant act... that is a common refrain from those who can't believe anyone could seriously disagree with their view of the world. It holds no validity.