Sunday, September 25, 2011


I spotted this in a New York Times article about the Romney-Perry duel (although, given Herman Cain's victory in the straw poll in Florida last night, this seems somewhat less like a two-candidate race now). Emphasis added below:

In the campaign headquarters for Mr. Perry on Congress Street in downtown Austin, aides have been watching videos of Mr. Romney in his 1994 Senate race in Massachusetts against Senator Edward M. Kennedy. Then, Mr. Romney supported abortion rights. In a debate, he also said: "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush."

The material is widely known and was discussed four years ago during Mr. Romney's first presidential race. But the details were new to Mr. Perry, aides said....

Seriously? The guy is one of the leading Republican elected officials in America, and had that status four years ago as well, yet he's not well enough informed to know the details of Mitt Romney's flip-flops over the years? All sorts of grubby little bloggers (me, for instance), and blog readers, and generally well-informed citizens know this -- we know what Mitt Romney used to say and what he says now. But Rick Perry -- a Republican, an A-list politician, and a guy who probably had vague thoughts of higher office years before he seriously started running for president -- didn't even keep up with the news enough to know about this?

What is it about ignorance that's so damn appealing to GOP voters? If this guy had a Jan Brewer record on immigration and a Michele Bachmann opinion on HPV he'd be on a glide path to the nomination -- ignorance wouldn't be a hindrance, it would be a selling point. Reagan, W, Perry -- and now maybe Cain -- what it is about lack of knowledge that the base finds so appealing?