Bolton and Jim Inhofe were the ones that sprang up immediately for me. Really speaks to how much contempt GOP leadership holds some portions of government, which I think is a clear sign their input is on the issue is something to be ignored.
It's like taking an Amish guy away from behind the horse and just dropping him into a manager position at a performance car garage.
Makes no fucking sense, and the idiots that do it have the nerve to talk down to others about the associated issue on top of it. Then wonder why we laugh. 😉
I had a theory about this, and how the parties appoint people. Somebody like Elliot Richardson (R) or recently Chuck Hagel (R) got appointments in Dem administrations. But to my memory, this seldom happens from the other side, and I'll get to that in a minute.
The typical person who likes to see these nutcases in office is probably overwhelmed with media and communication today. So instead of absorbing more of it, being forced to make personal judgments as to relative truth, logic and common-sense, they simply limit themselves to the megaphone blasting more comforting tones. But that was the idea behind representative government in the first place.
Now they have more choices on their plate at election time, for instance, in California with its "direct democracy" aspect of referendums. People are so uninformed about these aspects of the ballot that they either make haphazard choices or they leave all the boxes unchecked. This means that the industrial interests for or against some measure can spew all the propaganda they want, and the loudest voices determine the outcome. With the crap-shoot from some voters and others who abstain, the powerful interests behind the referenda have a bigger chance of getting their way with campaign ads.
Partisan loyalty for appointee positions matters much to the GOP, and too much, in my opinion. They reward people for campaign work with plum jobs, and if they were good campaigners but dummies, they get plum jobs in agencies the party cares less for.
And with the information overload, these voters already have a disadvantage for any substantive knowledge of what happens inside the Beltway black-box. So simplistic ideas rule the day.
With less information available, the personality contest in elections was more important. It still is with some of those voters, but they expect to hear the most comforting pablum, which can also be drivel.
Of course, they'll tell you that common-sense is in the eye of the beholder, or that all opinions are equal, but theirs are the best. (Think about that one.)
So there is untapped potential nationally from the 100 million eligible and registered who don't vote in elections. But that, too, could be a crap shoot, although one side figures they'll have better success with bigger turnouts, and the other side figures better with less.
I think that was the angle promoted by the Breitbart-ACORN fiasco. It left the impression that the voters ACORN was seeking to register -- and ACORN itself -- were information-deficit.
