Why the GOP field is so weak

[AKteacher 101]

(CNN) -- As usual, Professor Paul Krugman's piece in the Monday morning New York Times is causing a great deal of chatter among the political types. Krugman points out just how inept the Republican field is. In some cases he takes a scalpel (and in others a machete) to surely the weakest field of presidential aspirants any party has offered in modern American history (see my earlier CNN column comparing this field to 1980). I believe I can explain why this field is so inept. In order to proffer this explanation I am going to utilize Professor Krugman's field of economics.

Hold on: I confess I've never taken an economics course and if you ask me the relationship between interest rates and bond prices I would have a Herman Cain Libya moment. I could probably get the right answer but it would take me a while. There are some laws of economics that I believe all economists (be they salt, fresh, or brackish water) would agree on. One of these is: The more valuable a thing, the more people will be interested in purchasing that thing. And as Professor Krugman points out in his piece, the 2012 Republican nomination was clearly considered by most observers to be a thing of value.

Even the most partisan Democrat -- me for example -- would concede that three months ago the Republicans had an excellent chance to win the presidency. So ask yourself: Why does this thing that appears to have so much value have so many low bidders? Why did people like Govs. Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, Haley Barbour, Jeb Bush and Sen. John Thune, all look at this and decide not to raise their paddles?

So here we wind up with the political equivalent of the Hope Diamond going for $99.99. I think that these guys were smart enough to see a big flaw in the process and it is this: The majority of the people in the Republican Party who were going to pick their nominee had been so overwhelmed by misinformation, unworkable simplistic solutions -- e.g., electrifying border fences -- and anti-science, right-wing pandering, that the potential candidates decided they just could not go through with it.

We have watched GOP debates where audience members booed gay soldiers and cheered the prospect of someone dying without health insurance. We've seen a candidate who wasn't penalized in the least for not knowing that China has had nuclear weapons since 1964 but had to drop out because of a consensual sexual relationship. We have seen a member of the House Intelligence Committee who apparently didn't realize that we haven't had an embassy in Iran for the last 30 years, candidates who don't believe in evolution, and a candidate that didn't even know the voting age in the United States. Maybe Bush, Daniels, Christie, Barbour and Thune figured out ahead of time what Fairleigh Dickinson University uncovered just recently: that people who watch Fox News are actually more ignorant than people who watch no news at all. Could you imagine what they would have found had they studied people listening to talk radio?

Perhaps the Republicans are getting exactly the kind of candidates that best match the intellectual composition of the majority of the people in their party -- just a thought, but it's my only explanation of our low bidders. Looks like their chance at the presidency is going, going, gone.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

oh look, another left-wing nutbar has joined the political group here.

Have you met Steven, yet? I'm sure you'll be best friends!

[Danno 1,228]

It's a beautiful thing when a Left-winger spits and sputters all over himself in an opinion piece ... and end up saying nothing.

[Captain Oates 910]

(CNN) -- As usual, Professor Paul Krugman's piece in the Monday morning New York Times is causing a great deal of chatter among the political types. Krugman points out just how inept the Republican field is. In some cases he takes a scalpel (and in others a machete) to surely the weakest field of presidential aspirants any party has offered in modern American history (see my earlier CNN column comparing this field to 1980). I believe I can explain why this field is so inept. In order to proffer this explanation I am going to utilize Professor Krugman's field of economics.

Hold on: I confess I've never taken an economics course and if you ask me the relationship between interest rates and bond prices I would have a Herman Cain Libya moment. I could probably get the right answer but it would take me a while. There are some laws of economics that I believe all economists (be they salt, fresh, or brackish water) would agree on. One of these is: The more valuable a thing, the more people will be interested in purchasing that thing. And as Professor Krugman points out in his piece, the 2012 Republican nomination was clearly considered by most observers to be a thing of value.

Even the most partisan Democrat -- me for example -- would concede that three months ago the Republicans had an excellent chance to win the presidency. So ask yourself: Why does this thing that appears to have so much value have so many low bidders? Why did people like Govs. Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, Haley Barbour, Jeb Bush and Sen. John Thune, all look at this and decide not to raise their paddles?

So here we wind up with the political equivalent of the Hope Diamond going for $99.99. I think that these guys were smart enough to see a big flaw in the process and it is this: The majority of the people in the Republican Party who were going to pick their nominee had been so overwhelmed by misinformation, unworkable simplistic solutions -- e.g., electrifying border fences -- and anti-science, right-wing pandering, that the potential candidates decided they just could not go through with it.

We have watched GOP debates where audience members booed gay soldiers and cheered the prospect of someone dying without health insurance. We've seen a candidate who wasn't penalized in the least for not knowing that China has had nuclear weapons since 1964 but had to drop out because of a consensual sexual relationship. We have seen a member of the House Intelligence Committee who apparently didn't realize that we haven't had an embassy in Iran for the last 30 years, candidates who don't believe in evolution, and a candidate that didn't even know the voting age in the United States. Maybe Bush, Daniels, Christie, Barbour and Thune figured out ahead of time what Fairleigh Dickinson University uncovered just recently: that people who watch Fox News are actually more ignorant than people who watch no news at all. Could you imagine what they would have found had they studied people listening to talk radio?

Perhaps the Republicans are getting exactly the kind of candidates that best match the intellectual composition of the majority of the people in their party -- just a thought, but it's my only explanation of our low bidders. Looks like their chance at the presidency is going, going, gone.

Heck you have been reading my mind !

Actually I think it's fantastic news that the candidates are what they are...

Imagine a General Dwight Eisenhower running against Barry O - that would be a fright

Compare General Eisenhower against the pizza man - the 'brother from another mother' - it really must be so depressing for 'normal' republicans like Charles

The RWNJ's are off to fantasy island with the forced child toilet cleaners - kill Medicare and social security etc. They are making it too easy for Barry O and his donors may think he doesn't need so much money to beat this load of misfits, weirdos, pizza men, god nuts and assorted clowns

A thriving democracy needs both points of view and the Reptilians are just throwing their chances away with these crazies and weirdos and freak show retirees

Online betting is illegal in the US, so I will get my daughter in the UK to put $20k on Barry to win.

Edited December 9, 2011 by Ashud Cocoa

[Dakine10 5,452]

oh look, another left-wing nutbar has joined the political group here.

Have you met Steven, yet? I'm sure you'll be best friends!

It's a beautiful thing when a Left-winger spits and sputters all over himself in an opinion piece ... and end up saying nothing.

It's OK. Let it all out.

Here we have the muslim antichrist from Kenya running things with the lowest aproval ratings in memory, and none of the Republican clown brigade looks capable of doing anything about it. I'd be pissed too. Not sure why your taking it out on the left though. Republicans are the ones screwing themselves.

[Captain Oates 910]

It's OK. Let it all out.

Here we have the muslim antichrist from Kenya running things with the lowest aproval ratings in memory, and none of the Republican clown brigade looks capable of doing anything about it. I'd be pissed too. Not sure why your taking it out on the left though. Republicans are the ones screwing themselves.

Please don't post a photoshop of Donald Trump screwing himself

[The_Dude 1,142]

oh look, another left-wing nutbar has joined the political group here.

Have you met Steven, yet? I'm sure you'll be best friends!

Said the hyperpartisan who thinks education equals brainwashing. You are far more acerbic and prone to hyperbole.

It's a beautiful thing when a Left-winger spits and sputters all over himself in an opinion piece ... and end up saying nothing.

Much like when you post anti-gay or anti-black opinion pieces from Newsmax or some other far right sources?

[maning 36]

Said the hyperpartisan who thinks education equals brainwashing. You are far more acerbic and prone to hyperbole.

Much like when you post anti-gay or anti-black opinion pieces from Newsmax or some other far right sources?

LOL BURN.