Kantor said:
There's a growing culture of anti-intellectualism in the Republican party. The Republican base prefer someone who comes across as friendly to someone who is genuinely intelligent and geared for the job. They seem to find intelligence threatening. Mitt Romney is about the closest thing to a semi-competent candidate the Republicans have, but he's a sleaze and changes his mind about pretty much everything every couple of weeks, because he realises that he has to appeal to three different groups of people:
He does well amongst the first (and IMO most sensible) group because Ron Paul is a little bit crazy, but he has to go into the uncomfortable territory of the other two groups if he wants to stand a chance of winning. On pure intelligence, Ron Paul should get the nomination, but the last two groups despise him. |
Good analysis.
The perfect balance between the RP factions is hard to achieve, I acknowledge that, but it is in this respect I think they (the party with their selection of candidate) also fail. Mitt Romney is sleazy beyond words. He oozes falseness and as soon as I see him I just want to punch him because he comes off as such a false person and I almost despise any educated person who considers voting for such a lizard.
No, it's a bad strategy to pick candidates that are as sleazy, clichéd and conventional as Mitt Romney. Especially when he is put against Barack Obama.
I dislike the Democrats and liberal politics and worldview but I want Obama to win against anyone besides Ron Paul.