Good grief, you missed the point, Mollie.  But, perhaps you're right to chastise me; perhaps in these times it is best to obfuscate by polite phrasing.  However, doofus really is a perfectly acceptable descriptive term.  Certainly, terms of the four-letter variety, and their near cousins, should be off limits in polite society,  but doofus?  Come on. 

Raconteur:

We are all imperfect. I am astonished and disappointed that here on Ricochet somebody like David Brooks can be called a "doofus." That is, in my humble opinion, disgraceful. Has anybody on Ricochet called Mitt Romney-- who is far to the left of David Brooks-- a doofus?

As to that,  let me just say that you have pointed out the problem of being misunderstood when phrasing politely, as in numerous cases here on Ricochet, so allow me to be more direct: Romney is a doofus.

Regarding point #1, what effort in life isn't oriented around victory and supremacy?  I emphasize effort for obvious reasons; there are those that come by losing naturally.

Regarding point #2, I read that as in order to win, one must first - and last - lose.  If that's indeed true, then extrapolated to the mission of religious leaders, it suggests that they're trying to make their point the hard way.  I see it as an annulment of the God given ability to use the power of mind and body to overcome and conquer adversity, and to achieve well being for self and family .  I find it difficult to imagine doing that with passive resignation to humility and doubt.

But, then, I'm not a religious person.

Or a  Syria, perhaps?

When one believes they have Allah on their side, anything one can imagine is possible - and it is impossible to lose.

There's nothing new in this.  Iran is what it is, a country filled with good people led by a few but powerful delusional nut cases and their small but, again, militarily powerful followers.

If our leaders are looking for those leaders to experience some sort of epiphany in response to proffered rational diplomacy, they're in the wrong business.  And, I might add, a bit delusional themselves.

The mind-set of the Dutch audience must be considered when assessing the tenor of the speech.  What to us may seem conciliatory and apologetic, may sound like war trumpets to that audience.  We must allow that the man understood his audience, and we should give sufficient credit to his attainment of rank to concede that he knows better than we how best to broach such a hot-button topic to a Dutch audience.

I think he did an excellent job under the circumstances.  I also think we ought to invite him here to give that talk on a cross-country tour.

That Krathammer piece lays the blame directly at the feet of the Republican establishment, and well he should.   Republican leaders in both the house and senate are useless to conservatives, and to the nation, in general.

What's troubling your perspective, Peter, is that you lack the ability to see what is not there and, conversely, to not see what is there - in social and economic situations.

But don't despair, once you get the hang of it, it's easy.  Ask any liberal.

Well, she does write well...for a forth grader.

Is there some replicable measure of stupidity?  It would be useful for predicting outcomes/consequences for actions taken - particularly by politicians.  It would certainly help communities budgeting, for example,  the cost of hosting an occupy encampment.

It would be especially useful for making estimated costs of presidential budgets more realistic.

If Obama wins this election, it's likely that there is no future for the Republican Party, so the question, as it relates to future opportunities, is irrelevant.

For numerous reasons already cited here on Ricochet, Ronmey cannot win against Obama.

For numerous reasons, many cited here on Ricochet, along with his strong support of unions,  Santorum cannot garner enough conservative support to win against Romney.

Gingrich, as with all of us, is a human being, with warts, certainly, but he's the only one of the three most likely Republican candidates to articulate the core principles which the great majority of Americans believe are necessary for the governance of our country.  And, the only one able to do it with conviction.

So, if the question is who is the best bet against Obama this November, the answer, unequivocally, is Newt Gingrich.

If you're thinking these are public schools, you'd be wrong.  They're public orphanages.  The three R's are irrelevant.  Positive self image and three squares, or tetrahedrons, as you suggest are the new education.

If we were counting only numbers of flaws, you may have a point.  But it's the kind and magnitude of flaws that count the most.   Romneycare is an insurmountable flaw for conservatives - that's why there's all the puzzlement about the candidate order of finish.

Perhaps Romney is the best candidate in the race, but it's quite evident from the polls and primaries that only a minority of Republicans think so.

It's simply an extrapolation of the Pelosi "We have to pass it so we can know what's in it" admonition.  In this particular case, we have to believe it before we can understand it. QED.  Understanding Pelosi is simple, really, once you get the hang of it.

A review of the old saw that counsels leaving well enough alone might be in order.

One wonders if Sebelius ever looked upward, curious at what was passing over her head during the questioning.