Wingnut wisdom

Is it a good idea in general to elect people who have taken numerous shots to the head on a regular basis? And of course, Runyan picked the Dred Scott decision because it’s an anti-abortion dog whistle:

Jon Runyan, a former pro football player and now the Republican nominee against freshman Rep. John Adler (D-NJ), has added his voice to the recent constitutional jurisprudence of GOP candidates — listing the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sanford Supreme Court decision as a recent case that he disagreed with.

As the Asbury Park Press reports, from a debate last night:

“Jon, it’s a different branch of government, but can you give me an example from the last 10 or 15 years of a Supreme Court decision in which you strongly disagree?” Adler asked.

“That I strongly disagree with?” Runyan asked, pausing for a moment to consider the question. “Dred Scott.”

There was some laughter in the audience.

Adler then asked the question again, pointing out that he asked for decisions in the previous 10-15 years. Runyan was reportedly unable to give an answer.

Because he doesn’t know how to think. He only knows how to repeat wingnut talking points — and there are, indeed, far too many wingnut voters in South Jersey.

One thought on “Wingnut wisdom

  1. It has always surprised me that wingnuts — especially EAST COAST wingnuts — can’t remember the Kelo case. Hell, it was v. New London, Connecticut! A private property rights case! Private ownership, individual liberty, small government, yada yada. All that stuff they love. How do they not know of Kelo? It might even appeal to some folks in the middle and not make them look as wingnutty.


Comments are closed.