No seriously. A little competition keeps everybody on their toes, and right now, Obama's got none. I've already bemoaned how far right the center has drifted, at least as portrayed by our "liberal media," but let's face it, if they were liberal, people like Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, and Tim Pawlenty wouldn't even be mentioned in the same story as serious contenders that any real number of Americans might vote for.
The also-rans in this pool pretty much weeded themselves out at last night's debate, but what gets me is how do we continue to let people like Bachmann and Perry remain in this race? They’re fringe candidates at best. They are ULTRA-right. Does anyone actually believe any ULTRA candidate is electable? Why are they being coddled when Ron Paul – who, by the way, has thus far remained the ONLY candidate who has refused to sell his soul to the Party – is all but ignored?
I want to like John Huntsman. He at least appears to have some critical thinking ability, but I can't help but wonder if I only think that because we don't really know him yet, or because he hasn't garnered enough of his party's attention to be forced to accept their ridiculous anti-science, anti-American ideas just yet.
Romney has sold out. I used to like him too but now I'm not sure what he even believes anymore. He works to create a workable healthcare plan in Massachusetts, and then he says it can’t work anywhere else. He used to have a pretty logical approach to abortion, but he traded it for party support. But, hey, before we get too far into the scary parts of my head, let's discuss Perry and Bachmann some more.
I have pretty sound reasons for why I think they shouldn't be considered as even remote possibilities for president. And when I say that, I don't just mean because I don't like them...I don't just mean because they're Republicans. It's really because every time they talk, they cause me to question their critical thinking skills more and more. The crap they spew is just plain wrong. Not just wrong for a country as great as ours, not just "I disagree with it," but technically wrong, unsound, irrational wrong, "these-kids-will-flunk-the-Ohio-Graduation-Test" wrong. We’re not just talking campaign rhetoric here, empty promises, lies that play well on the news. We’re talking fundamental thinking ability. Do we really want to elect someone who lacks the ability to think?
Here are just a couple of examples: During last week’s debate, in response to questions about global warming, Perry said, "the science is not settled on this..." There's no way to spin it, there's no missing context. Perry is just flat out wrong. The science is settled. Human factors contributed to the phenomena. The only people who say otherwise don’t understand science, and the only people who listen to them are folks who have turned off their ability to think in order to hear what they want to hear from a politician on a campaign trail.
Here's what “the science community” as represented by the US National Academy of Sciences has to say about global warming: "Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities."
Is there anything about that statement that sounds even remotely unsettled? No. This is what the SCIENTISTS are saying, as a group. The only folks who dispute it are politicians who not only lack a scientific background, but who, apparently, aren’t even familiar with the concept of science, the scientific method, or who understand the most basic premise of seeking evidence and forming sound conclusions.
Perry and company often point out that this science, much like the science of evolution, is only "theory," much like Einstein's THEORY of relativity, on which our entire nuclear weapons and energy programs are based... or Newton's THEORY of gravitational forces, or Copernicus's THEORY that the Earth actually revolves around the sun, later supported by Galileo. Speaking of Galileo, when asked which scientists Perry has been listening to he couldn't name one (like Sarah Palin couldn't name a periodical she actually read), but he noted that Galileo was "outvoted for a spell too" when he first embraced heliocentrism. Again, Perry’s lack of critical thinking skills (or lack of an 8th grade education??), or at least his inability to construct a logical argument based on any historical reality becomes blatantly obvious. Galileo wasn't doubted or questioned by the scientific community at all. It was only a powerful, state-like church who questioned his heliocentric discoveries. Perry, standing in against the science of global warming or evolution is like Pope Urban VIII abandoning his friendship with Galileo and supporting the heresy proceedings against him. So... Perry is wrong on two counts in just one topic!
I know caving in to "the base" makes for good politics, but accepted scientific theory is not subject to political pandering. At least not among folks who can formulate a thought without it being spoon fed to them. On this, Perry is just plain wrong. And he's so wrong, so publicly and repeatedly, it makes me wonder how I'm supposed to trust that he's rational enough to man the nuclear arsenal, deploy our military, or spend the nation’s money. Critical thinking skills don't just suddenly flitter in and out of a person's head. He either has them or he doesn't, and based on his stated beliefs in this matter - a matter not subject to anyone's beliefs - he doesn't. So how is it he's still leading the polls? Is someone incapable of critical thought actually electable in 2012? Has the right allowed their hatred of President Obama to completely blind them to rational thought?
And then there's Michele Bachmann. We don't even need wade into the murky waters of science or faith, unless you count statistics as science. She opened up a whole new line of uncritical thinking in her response to President Obama's address last Thursday. As is generally the case, information she speaks as though it were fact, comes up lacking when compared with the world around her. http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/201101250021
First she blamed Obama and the Recovery and Reinvestment Act for the loss of over 10 million jobs. The problem with this is that close to 8 million of the 10 million jobs were lost BEFORE RRA was enacted.. meaning before Obama had been in office for 6 months… meaning as a result of W-era policy.
You can cry “how much longer will be blame W” all you want, but the recession began in Dec. 2007 – directly on the heels of eight straight years of spend and spend plus unfunded war W policy. Since that time, the first hint of job growth didn’t come until December of 2009 (per BLS data) right after guess what happened? That’s right, the RRA – an Obama move. Stimulus spending. And it worked, until the just say no congress prevented expanding it.
But hey, this is about Michele Bachmann. Another of her claims is, “In the end, unless we fully repeal Obama Care, a nation that currently enjoys the world's best healthcare may be forced to rely on government-run coverage that will have a devastating impact on our national debt for generations to come.” That’s what she said. What the Affordable Healthcare Law actually says is that there is none/ will be no government run care. (Perhaps Ms. Bachmann should read what she wants to repeal). What she calls Obama Care simply requires all Americans to carry health insurance, or pay their share of what health insurance costs the rest of us to cover them when they don’t buy insurance. Kind of like we do with auto insurance. Do you have government run auto insurance? Me neither. And guess what, the insurance in the Affordable Healthcare Act is provided by private companies to pay for medical care provided by private, non-government providers. So, either Ms. Bachmann really doesn’t understand the policy she’s condemning as part of her platform, she’s comfortable misrepresenting it in order to forward her status, or she’s an idiot who thinks we’re all idiots too. She got a couple other significant facts about the Affordable Healthcare Act wrong as well – the legality of selling insurance across state lines…I could go on, but I believe we’ve made our point.
Fact is, I was disappointed in the Affordable Healthcare Law precisely because it does NOT call for government run healthcare. Some of the most effective, affordable healthcare in the country is government run. Just ask our current military who enjoy Tri-Care, or our veterans who qualify for VA care. Both boast the highest customer and employee satisfaction of any major provider, and both have kept costs around 2/3 of what you or I pay for healthcare in the free market. I personally feel the lack of public healthcare in the world’s richest, most innovative nation is kind of embarrassing. I can’t believe more Americans aren’t also embarrassed by that. I digress. Back to Ms. Bachmann…
When she says the “world’s best healthcare,” one can only assume she means the world’s most expensive healthcare, since that’s the only category wherein the U.S. leads the rest of the world. We don’t live longer, we don’t have fewer terminal diseases, accidents – especially medical accidents!, etc. and so on. We’re 24th in life expectancy, behind the notably safe haven, Israel, according the World Health Organization’s latest rankings. Overall, we’re 37th, behind such powerhouses as Malta, Ireland, and Oman… and 33 other countries, most of whom have that dreaded “socialized medicine” stuff… including Norway, which also boasts the most entrepreneurs as a percentage of population. How could this be? Well, entrepreneurs in Norway say it’s because they don’t stay tied to dead-end, unproductive jobs in order to keep from going bankrupt worrying about their healthcare costs. They take chances, start up new businesses. What a concept. So, “best healthcare?” Unless she’s talking strictly about our government programs, she’s just plain wrong. 37th isn’t best. 24th isn’t best. Like her friend, Gov. Perry, wrong on several aspects of just one topic.
One more for good measure before we wrap this up: corporate tax rates. Ms. Bachmann not only blamed Obama for this, but claims (wrongly, duh) that he wants to make it worse. Here’s what she said: “America will have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.” Turns out, not so much. Germany, the soundest economy in Europe right now, has higher corporate tax rates than America, as do several other industrialized European countries. Know who doesn’t? Greece. See how low corporate tax rates are working for them? (kidding… I don’t have a problem with lower corporate tax rates as long as corporations actually pay taxes). On that note, here’s what he said (and by “he” I mean President Obama) “I'm asking Democrats and Republicans to simplify the system. Get rid of the loopholes. Level the playing field. And use the savings to lower the corporate tax rate for the first time in 25 years- without adding to our deficit.” Hmmm… lower the rate for the first time in 25 years, eh? So that puts us back through 8 years of W (our corporate rates must have been cool then), 8 years of Clinton (can’t believe our rates were cool then according to Ms. Bachmann, and even 9 years back into HW and Pappy Reagan. So Obama is the first president since REAGAN to propose LOWERING the corporate tax rate? And what was it that Ms. Bachmann (and lots of folks on Fox said again?) Oh yeah, it was “America will have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.” I’m not even sure what to say about her interpretation of this except to say, she’s wrong. Plain wrong.
So if keeping track of simple facts is a quality you want in your next president, and if you’d like him or her to be able to put together a solid, logical, evidence-based premise or idea, then please join me in pressuring the Republicans to pay a little more attention to John Huntsman… or pull Colin Powell or Jack Kemp out of retirement… or something.
The candidates they’ve tossed out so far make me suspect there’s some Left Wing Conspiracy afoot that has the Democrats secretly choosing Republican candidates to ensure another Obama victory! (which, for the record, wouldn't be all that bad now that he seems to have found his er, um, his drive again)
Luth
Out
