Rainjack, please TRY to focus here.
BTW, I’m not sure why on earth you have the impression that I haven’t been around enough to remember the Bush I or Reagan years, but I take it as a sincere form of flattery. I’m always told I look young for my age. I try to work out, eat right . . . ya’ know. 
– Dan Quayle is an unequivocal moron. So much so that the moron label stuck, and when he thought – for about 12 seconds – of running for President himself in 1996, he was able to round up the support of all of about 3 people in the party. THAT’S what I was talking about with Quayle. No one would support him because he was a moron and the whole country knew he was a moron. The same is now true of Sarah Palin. As for Quayle being a conservative, that’s another issue entirely, and he very well was a conservative – unfortunately he was of the preachiest of preachy breed of conservative, as he’s the moron who first started talking most loudly about “family values” in politics. Fucking moron.
– You cannot HONESTLY sit there and in all seriousness try to tell me that even YOU think that Sarah Palin is not only NOT a moron, but of the ideal intellectual capability that we would require of someone to be PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. You’re sitting there saying “She is NOT a moron! She is NOT a moron!” Meanwhile you’re being presented with verbatim quotes, video clips and debates in which SHE PROVED WITHOUT A DOUBT THAT she’s a FUCKING MORON!!
Don’t just sit there shouting “She’s not a moron!” SHOW me something that PROVES that she’s somehow intelligent – and not just intelligent, but intelligent enough to be PRESIDENT (i.e. of ideal intelligence)!
SHOW me something that proves that her illustrating, in answer to Katie Couric’s very straight question, that she has NO comprehension of, or articulating abilities regarding, the economic/credit crisis was some sort of abomination and that, deep down inside . . . she really, REALLY DOES understand it, inside and out!!
PROVE to me me that she was really thinking something else when she said that the VP “runs the Senate!”
SHOW me that deep down inside, she really, REALLY understood what was going on with Georgia, Russia, South Ossetia and Abkahzia!! She’s just “bad on the spot?” She got a little “flustered?” OH, maybe she wrote an article or editorial on it somewhere, and she really DOES have the understanding in her head! All you have to do is SHOW ME!! Surely it’s written SOMEwhere . . . !
SHOW me that she’s not dumb enough to think that abstinence-only sex ed is the best solution to prevent unwanted pregnancies and STDs when . . . wait, you can’t because – it’s not, and she DOES, and her 17-year-old daughter is now knocked up because she’s probably never even seen a condom! Hmm!!
PROVE ME WRONG, Rainjack.
Now, before you start, DON’T go off on a tangent saying, “Well, Obama isn’t any better because of X/Y/Z.” That’s NOT the debate here. The debate is: Is SARAH PALIN of the intellectual caliber to be qualified to be POTUS, or isn’t she?
As for the Republicans having a “40-year track record of winning elections,” well, I believe it is you whose math is fuzzy. 
I won’t even do you the favor of recalculating that for you.
I’m not going to argue with someone who denies that George W. Bush, the guy whose administration signle-handedly ruined the world is not a fucking moron. We could go on for years on end about that and you’d never relent. But that rest of the country, and the rest of the world, seem to be in my corner on that one.
As for the country, it IS changing – DEMOGRAPHICALLY. Which the redneck wing of the Republican party ought to be REALLY scared of. Whites will soon be the minority, the hispanic population is VASTLY expanding (about 2/3 of whom just voted for Obama) and non-white immigrants of many different stripes are expanding their footprint here. This is no longer the same largely white, largely redneck, “God-fearin’” country it was in 1980.
The biggest political change of the past several decades just took place and yet you still can’t see it. Huh. Problems for that ole’ party? You betcha! (Wink!)
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Damici wrote:
As for recent morons nominated (or gotten into office) by the Repubs:
– VP Dan Quayle (who, as I mentioned earlier, then had NO shot at being nominated for President after that because he was a moron).
He was Bush’s running mate. We did not nominate him. He was not a moron. In fact, he was quite intelligent - and a staunch conservative. Bush was going to lose the Presidency as soon as he went back on his word about not raising taxes. His running mate had no play in the outcome of the election.
In fact - Bush-Qualye won IN SPITE OF Benson’s ass raping Quayle in the VP Debate.
– Bob Dole – couldn’t articulate his way out of a cardboard box.
Non-sequitur. No one was going to beat Clinton, and everyone knew it.
– W. – nothing further needs to be said about the Quintessential Moron.
But unmoronic enough to beat the best the left could put up against him. Twice. His only failing was to abandon the conservatives and allow the congress to spend like a bunch of drunk crack whores. Not a moron.
– Sarah Palin – Give me a while to find some YouTube clips of her. Unbelievable that she was nominated to be VP. Just breathtaking. McCain got what he deserved because of it.
Moron? No fucking way. Unprepared? Undoubtedly. She will be back. Much to the dislike of those who think giving good soundbites makes a capable leader.
– I wouldn’t call John McCain a moron at all, but he was no intellectual or communicative standout either, as I illustrated earlier. The Republicans need to do a LOT better than that. And, as I mentioned, he lost.
He is the biggest moron of anyone you have listed. Nowhere near a conservative. Anti-1st amendment, and pretty much a huge moderate pussy.
See, this is not about scorecards from 35 years ago. This is about the here and now. What - don’t - you - understand - regarding what just happened??
Then you need to rethink what you said in your last post. The Republicans have a 40 year track record of winning presidential elections. Just because you were not old enough to piss in a commode during all but the Bush years is hardly a reason to discount them.
The country is rapidly changing. This ain’t the Reagan era, like it or not.
Rapidly changing? How so? Because there was a 10% swing in the vote from 4 years ago?
Reagan winning 49 of 50 states was a rapid change. The Republicans taking control in 1994 was a rapid swing. This was the country being tired of Bush.
Like I said - your rhetoric is misplaced.
The only reason we are not still in the Reagan ear is because the republicans are no longer conservative. They have no vision. And they can’t fucking stand by their word.
But you would have to have been alive back then to know what I am talking about.
[/quote]