Which Party is Stupid?

"The Forehead, Paul Begala, he's the kid that played the banjo on the bridge in the movie Deliverance." Rush Limbaugh

Relying simply on an embarrassing performance in a Republican presidential debate by Texas Governor Rick Perry (who incredibly lost his way trying to describe three departments of the government that he would eliminate), former Bill Clinton adviser Paul Begala wrote a column for Newsweek back in November 2011 that referred to the Republicans as "the stupid party."

Adhering closely to the liberal screed, Begala believes that politics require intellectuals and Republican politicians do not pass muster. Begala's wrote a book about George W. Bush that shows how easily this Texas goat roper hailing from Sugar Land, can look down his nose at Texas Republicans. His book is called "Is Our Children Learning" (a rehash, among other things, of the National Guard myth that Dan Rather later tried to convince us - with forged documents -  was true), but it unfortunately didn't make the New York Times list. The 'liberal intellectual" writes in Newsweek:
Whatever happened to conservative intellectuals? John Stuart Mill famously dismissed mid-19th-century British conservatives as the “stupid party.” But in the America of my youth, it wasn’t true. Conservatives looked up to intellectuals. William F. Buckley set the tone with his sesquipedalian erudition. George F. Will was a must-read, and my conservative classmates at the University of Texas in the Age of Reagan could all quote Milton Friedman.
No more. Today’s conservatives are more likely to mimic Rush Limbaugh than Buckley, and they probably know more of the work of Salma Hayek than Friedrich Hayek. To be sure, Will still commands respect, and intellectuals like David Frum [??] and Bill Kristol [??] carry the torch ably. But today’s Republican Party is more the party of Sarah Palin’s defiant know-nothingness than the brainy conservatism of Bill Bennett. The GOP is a party of ideologues, not ideas.
So-called conservative intellectual Bill Kristol at first enthusiastically approved of Sarah Palin, then decided she should not be the Republican candidate for 2012 because she resigned as a result of the all-out liberal attack on her was more than the people of Alaska should endure. Notice that  Begala's description of Palin (and Limbaugh) as a non-intellectual conforms to the liberal line - which in the end is where our faux conservative intellectual  Kristol always ends up. Frum, by the way, is touted as a conservative but he no longer even  pretends to be one.

Paul Begala's "pointy-headed" analysis (his word, not mine) includes reference to a Harvard Law Record study that shows one in every four of the president's appointees went to Harvard - but, of course so did our pointy-headed president, so I am missing just how such a circumstance makes someone an intellectual - or for that matter, why being an intellectual is important at all. Begala's friend and Yale graduate Hillary Clinton, has another view of  Barack and Harvard:
Now, we have nothing against Barack Obama – he’s a talented, sincere young man. And Harvard, we hear, is a pretty decent law school, if, you know, you want to write wills or that sort of basic thing.
"No wonder", Begala writes, "my party often appears intellectually arrogant". It seems that this intellectual dominance by liberals caused the Republican Party to turn "populist anti-intellectual" way back in the '50's and '60s.  Somehow he has told us, conservatives respected William Buckley, Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek back then but we were against intellect.  Okay, Forehead, I think Rush has you covered!

From his superior intellect, garnered in "Hook-'em Horns" country, he can see that Republicans are trying to sell "economic elitism" to a populist electorate and that our candidate for President did not know that man caused global warming. I guess that means that the economic cliff that Obama sent us to is a correct policy and that the junkscience of climate change should go unquestioned to salve the small minds of the communists inside the environmental movement. That must be what intellectualism is all about.

Kathleen Parker, a columnist for WaPo who has no regrets doing a talk show with the slime ball ex-governor known as Client No. 9  on CNN  but who had no new ideas so she went to Paul Begala's anti-GOP piece to borrow some of his thoughts. Parker once was considered to be a conservative until 2008, when she joined the liberal media's unfair criticism of Sarah Palin.  True to her new pseudo-conservative calling (Steve Colbert refers to  her as a "left-handed liberal'), Parker wrote "The Palinization of the GOP" - (as if she didn't help create that ugly word).

Yes, she agrees with the Forehead that the Religious Right and Climate Deniers in the Republican party have divided the core, have torn down Reagan's big tent and have refused to recognize that global warning science is settled.
Meanwhile, the big tent fashioned by Ronald Reagan has become bilious with the hot air of religious fervor. No one was more devout than the very-Catholic Buckley, but you didn’t see him convening revivals in the public square. Nor is it likely he would have embraced fundamentalist views that increasingly have forced the party into a corner where science and religion can’t coexist.
Scientific skepticism, the engine that propels intellectual inquiry, has morphed into skepticism of science fueled by religious certitude. In this strange world, it is heresy to express concern about, for example, climate change — or even to suggest that human behavior may be a contributing factor. Jon Huntsman committed blasphemy when he told ABC’s Jake Tapper that he trusts scientists on global warming.
What Huntsman next said, though refreshing and true, ensured that his poll numbers would remain in the basement: “When we take a position that isn’t willing to embrace evolution, when we take a position that basically runs counter to what 98 of 100 climate scientists have said, what the National Academy of Sciences has said about what is causing climate change and man’s contribution to it, I think we find ourselves on the wrong side of science and, therefore, in a losing position.”
Of course, plenty of Republicans agree with this appraisal, including other presidential candidates. They understand that the challenge is to figure out to what extent humans contribute and what humans can reasonably do without bankrupting the planet. Nevertheless, the Republican base requires that candidates tack away from science toward the theistic position — only God controls climate. More to the point, Rush Limbaugh says that climate change is a hoax and so it must be. Huntsman may as well be a Democrat. It takes courage to swim against the tide of know-nothingness that has become de rigueur among the anti-elite, anti-intellectual Republican base. 
Indeed Kathleen is but another liberal intellectual with a degree in Spanish Literature from Florida State.  So I know that her education must qualify her to speak expertly on the subjects of religion, politics and the pseudoscience that is global warming.  I think perhaps that she needs to do a little research in these areas - starting with Climategate.

The second piece of research she should do is to go to Netflix and watch the film: "Sarah Palin: The Undefeated". There is a whole lot she can learn about Palin's talents to lead and govern- as if honesty, integrity and a steadfast belief system are somehow not enough.