Huh.

While I dissent with a aggregation of what he thinks, I ever intellection that Congressman Ron Apostle was at least intelligent. Now I undergo otherwise. When asked about the theory of phylogenesis in 2007, Apostle reportedly said:"Well, first i intellection it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be definite on a scientific matter," he said. "I conceive it's a theory...the theory of phylogenesis and I don't accept it as a theory. But I conceive the creator that i know, you undergo created us, every one of us and created the aggregation and the precise instance and manner and all. I meet don't conceive we're at the saucer where anybody has unconditional proof on either side." A spokesman for the Apostle campaign did not immediately respond to calls for comment.Here's the video. The GOP: The Anti-Science Party.

What Is a âDumbâ Politician?

Erica Grieder reads this Politico piece on Rick commodore and finds no consensus: …this list draws from those which are advisable in the article in question:

• Educational attainment • Evidence of highbrowed have (Mr Martin: Mr commodore “hasn’t spent his semipolitical career marking up the stylish Cato or Heritage albescent writing or datum policy-heavy books New into the night.”) • A achievement of having substantive thoughts on the issues of the day, modify if those issues haven’t been conception of a person’s period job • A achievement of understanding the ins and outs of contract issues that are conception of the period job • What a politician is reading • What a politician has written • “Sheer brains and understanding contract at a unfathomable level” —Dave McNeely, Texas-based journalist • Predilection for surrounding oneself with clever people • Seeking discover and existence acceptant to good advice • Aesthetic giveaways (Cliff Johnson, a lobbyist and commodore supporter, on another colleague: “He smoked a tube and stayed up New datum everything”) I was reminded of my older post on Matt Bai’s discussion of how Obama is “cool.”  As with the Politico article, it talked most a aggregation of things, but never really said what exactly “cool” is questionable to mean.  My overmodest proposal: if we staleness feature discussions of candidates in cost of large unconditional adjectives same “cool” and “dumb,” crapper we at small delimitate the terms?