In America, the Republicans (and plenty of other Americans) seem to lack a proper grasp of the meaning of the phrase "representative democracy". You see, what that means is that a whole bunch of people, eligible, and inclined, to vote do so. What they're voting for is a person to represent them when it comes to deciding on big issues affecting the population at large. The general idea is that "one person:one vote" would get just a tad cumbersome in the course of day-to-day governing. Better to choose someone likely to vote in a manner consistent with the wishes of the majority of the local population. Which, of course, is what happened in the last American election. Particularly the Presidential election. As we all know, most folks who could vote, and were inclined to vote, voted for Obama and the Democratic party.

Now, does this means that people disagreeing with ideas put forward by the majority are supposed to shut up? No. The "other side" can be (emphasis on "can") a valuable balance, preventing the winning side from proceeding unchecked with foolish ideas (like, for example, reducing taxes on the rich while increasing taxes on the poor, or starting a war which, disregarding the fact that it was uncalled-for in the first place, they were disinclined to actually pay for). The "losing" side can, given a willingness to engage in intelligent and ethical debate, act to temper potentially rash acts on the part of the "winning" side. Sadly, you'll notice I used the words "intelligent" and "ethical" in that last sentence. Unfortunately, those are two traits utterly lacking in today's Republican party. They're not the party of "No", as they're coming to be known. They're the party of nitwits. Add up the I.Q. points of the Republican members of both the Senate and Congress and you still couldn't get together enough candles to light up the birthday cake of a toddler.

This, of course, is why they're so reliant on "talking points". If these morons don't have a script to follow, they're helpless. Take, for example, Scott Brown, who claims to be running against Rachel Maddow in Massachusetts. When it was pointed out to him that Ms. Maddow was not, in fact, running for office; had not, in fact, been asked to run for office, Mr. Brown's response was, "Bring her on!". Bring who on, Scotty? She's not running.

By the by, folks who go up against Ms. Maddow ought to realise something. She's got a Ph.D. Why does that matter? Because one of the most important things folks who've gotten a Ph.D. learn is how to do a literature search. That is, she knows, deep down in her bones, how to find information, and why it's important to do it. She knows what tools to use, and she's got the patience to just keep going, drilling deeper and deeper until there's nothing left to find. If you're a lazy moron (i.e. a Republican), this is not the kind of person you want to take on. She will bury you. She will find every statement you ever made on any issue and if you've been inconsistent? or lied? Well, you'd better hope there's some sort of supernatural deity on your side.