Paul Broun vs. Charles Darwin

Everyone knows about the maniacal cretin from Georgia, Congressman Paul Broun, about whom we recently wrote Congressman Broun on Evolution & the Big Bang. At that post you can see the video in which he said that evolution and the Big Bang theory are “lies straight from the pit of hell.”

Broun is not only a world-class ignoramus, he’s also a medical doctor, and in Congress he’s a member of the Committee on Science and Technology and the Committee on Homeland Security. Although Broun is running unopposed and the time for an opponent to qualify for the ballot has passed, the national ridicule that resulted from Broun’s idiocy has encouraged a write-in campaign for Charles Darwin.

In the Athens Banner-Herald of Athens, Georgia, located in Broun’s district, there’s an editorial titled Write-in vote for Darwin is natural selection. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

As hardly bears repeating here, U.S. Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., northeast Georgia’s man in Congress, has faced some withering criticism — and, OK, to be fair, a not inconsiderable amount of support — for a recent speech at a Baptist church banquet in which he called evolution, embryology and other aspects of science “lies straight from the pit of hell.”

True, it hardly bears repeating, but we love to do it because it can’t be emphasized enough how incredibly ignorant the man is. It’s been widely reported that conservative radio host Neal Boortz said that Broun’s commentary “makes Republicans look like knee-dragging, still-tending, tobacco-spitting Neanderthals.” The editorial continues:

Among the negative reactions to Broun’s statement has been an effort, supported by a Facebook page, to have people write in the name “Charles Darwin” in the 10th District congressional race, where Broun is running unopposed in Nov. 6 balloting.

[…]

Technically, of course, casting a write-in vote for Charles Darwin in the 10th District race is a pointless exercise. For one thing, he died in 1882, and for another, he’s not properly qualified as a write-in candidate under Georgia election law.

Yes, but who cares about technicalities in a situation like this? Let’s read on:

While votes for Darwin won’t be included in any official tally of actual election results, they will be counted by elections officials in the counties comprising the 10th Congressional District. Given the media interest in the Darwin write-in campaign, it’s a virtual certainty that those votes, while they won’t be officially counted, will be reported. I know that I’m planning to get the number of votes for Darwin counted across the district, and will publish them in this space.

That should be interesting. We continue:

A considerable number of votes for Darwin — and I’m talking in the thousands, if not the tens of thousands (there are more than 390,000 registered voters in the 10th District) — could do a couple of things.

What would they be? The editorial tell us:

First, and perhaps most importantly, a noteworthy tally for Darwin could help counteract any impression left by the wide reporting of Broun’s remarks that his entire district subscribes to his views.

That’s trivial. The flaming fool will still be in Congress. Here’s the other reason for a Darwin vote:

And second, a significant number of votes for Darwin could signal to a more mainstream Republican somewhere in the district that a successful run against Broun two years from now might be plausible.

That’s a good reason. Here’s how the editorial ends:

I can’t help but believe, though, that there are a lot of Republicans in the 10th District who aren’t necessarily happy that Broun is their congressman. An impressive write-in effort for Darwin — given the fact that Broun will be going back to Washington anyway — would be a way for those Republicans to express dissatisfaction with Broun’s tenure that might, at the very least, prompt Broun to dial back some of his more problematic rhetoric.

All in all, it’s a rather feeble editorial. But in Broun’s district, perhaps it’s all that can be expected. Anyway, for what it’s worth, the Curmudgeon heartily endorses Darwin’s candidacy. Yes, Darwin is dead, but Broun is brain-dead, so the two are evenly matched in brain power. Also, Darwin’s residence is now in Westminster Abbey, so he’s disqualified for that reason too — but who cares? Taking all things into consideration, the people of that district would be better off being represented by a genuine dead man than a living imbecile.

Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

8 responses to “Paul Broun vs. Charles Darwin

  1. The Curmudgeon says”Yes Darwin is dead , but Broun is brain dead” Broun’s brain is actually Aby Normal.
    I’m telling my congressman I expect him to cause a vote to expell Broun from The Science Committee.

  2. Surely there’s some fellow in the district named Charles Darwin that could step forward and claim the prize….

    Hey, one can dream, right?

  3. This illustrates the folly of either party letting a candidate from the opposite party run unopposed. You never know when the fool’s going to do or say something really stupid (See “Pull a Todd Akin”), or worse, some incontrovertible damning evidence about his past is revealed (like child molestation.)

  4. With two weeks to go, there’s probably no non-feeble plan of action he could offer. Symbolic opposition (to the white ballot) is all you’re going to be able to accomplish when the field is closed.

    The second part is bang on. The way to change party policy and leadership is to challenge incumbents in the primaries. Don’t support them merely beacuse they are incumbent, or even because their incumbency will give them an advantage in the general election. If we were to rank candidates on a scale of 1-100; the value of incumbency in the general election might be a legitimate reason to prefer an 85 candidate over a 90. But it should not be a reason to vote for a 0 or a 10.

  5. Being from Missouri, I can tell you not to count Akin out, sad as that may be. I have an awful lot of family voting for him b/c he wants “smaller government.” When I try to argue that anyone so uneducated and idiotic can’t be trusted to govern regardless of his views on the size of government, I mostly get blank stares.

  6. @TJW : And yet Akin wants to make the government’s role larger when it comes to determining women’s reproductive rights.

  7. Gov’t should never be involved in issues such as this. These things are up to a woman, her family, her physician, her faith, etc. Even Roe vs. Wade relates to personal matters that gov’t, so infultrated by Christian religiousity, despite Constitutional adomintions to never allow this to occur again, and provisions to prevent such from occurring, ignores these protections foreseen as important by our forefathers. It is time to REJECT the imposition of personalized, religiousity-related beliefs purported as being ‘truisms’ rather than ideological myths, imposed by those who try to make those in opposition feel somehow guilty for even thinking that there might be a more logical solution. I am very tired of dealing with such condescending, sel-righteous individuals almost daily! Bill McD.

  8. Rsg makes an excellent point. I think that is a problem with the GOP today. For all of the talk about smaller govt and fiscal responsibility they are very selective in where they wish to apply those principles. It seems they are trying to prove you can have less expensive govt that at the same time is more intrusive in the lives of the individual citizens.