What conduct definitively labels an elected official as incompetent, you ask? Well, opinions may differ, but I think we can all agree the publicly exposing yourself as uninformed, ignorant, and devoid of reading comprehension qualifies.
Meet Maricopa, Arizona Vice-Mayor Ed Farrell (D), who saluted the passing of anti-gay, military funeral-disrupting Fred Phelps, who tookleave of this homosexual-blighted world recently, by writing this on his Facebook page:
“We need more Fred Phelps in this world. May you rest in peace sir….This world needs to get back to the biblical standards that our God made for us. This guy was not afraid to preach it, and I respect that.”
To prove his point, Farrell linked to a satirical obituary in The Onion, believing it to be genuine. He believed this despite clues like the following:
“What Fred Phelps accomplished over the past 30 years—from a federal constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman, to nationwide laws allowing businesses to turn away gay customers—makes him easily one of the most successful and monumental figures of the past century,” said biographer Michael Ammons, noting that depictions of gays and lesbians began to disappear from popular culture and the media as soon as Phelps began taking his powerful rallies against homosexuality from state to state. “Fred Phelps devoted his life to one goal, and he triumphed. This was an incredibly influential man who deserved all the attention he received. Think of the legacy he leaves behind: In the past three decades, homosexuality has become practically nonexistent in society.”
Wishful thinking, perhaps, on Farrell’s part?
Finally alerted to his gaffe, Farrell explained that he had never heard of Phelps, didn’t know that he spear-headed harassment of mourning family members of fallen soldiers, and didn’t know that the Onion was a satirical site—and, obviously, is too dense to figure it out. He just knows that he’s sick of all those pesky homos. “I am just having a hard time with all of this gay and lesbian rights thing. It has never been an issue until these kind of people made it an issue,” he added to his commentary.
All of this can be neatly summed up as incompetence, or perhaps “What an idiot!” He praised a man he never heard of, based on satire that depicts Rick Santorum’s fantasy U.S., never checked his facts, and many years into the most significant cultural shift in decades, professed ignorance and bewilderment regarding it. I don’t care how small his town is: he doesn’t know enough to hold office in it. Farrell apologized once someone set him straight, and properly diagnosed himself as “shamed.” But, as they say, you can’t fix stupid.
You shouldn’t vote for it, either.
[ Runner-Up: California state Sen. Leland Yee (D), who was arrested for bribery and gun-running, despite being a gun control advocate. Yes, I know what Yee did is much worse. But he’s almost certainly smarter.]
___________________________
Facts: Copa Monitor, Mediaite, The Onion
Ethics Alarms 
This guy is brain dead. What more can be said?
Much like someone with no photo ID is too disconnected from society to likely have a valid opinion as to the governing of this country, someone who has never heard of Phelps can not possibly be connected enough with society to be able to respond to the needs of the people they govern.
And someone who isn’t aware that the Onion is satirical is either my grandmother, or too stupid to breath free air.
Many Tea party activists wonder why Mitt Romney won the nomination two years ago. it seems that low information voters are not restricted to Democrats…
I don’t think Ablative’s complaint is with low information voters. In fact, our Federal system, if it operates as designed, would allow voters to be extremely “low information”, so they can focus their energies on their own Pursuits.
However, as I can tell, Ablative’s frustration is more at people who lack common sense and discernment.
Low information voters DO lack those things, though, because if you have common sense, you want to be informed.
Those tea party voters (who are responsible for Obama’s second term, because they stayed home) also thought Christine O’Donnell was a great candidate. Romney was easily the class of the GOP field. Santorum, one TP favorite, would have lost in McGovernesqe proportions (I would have voted against him TWICE); the other, Bachmann, is a bona fide idiot, as I have documented here many times. A TP voter who rejected Romney is by definition low information, and also an irresponsible citizen.
AFTER I wrote this, I found this: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/374528/which-side-are-you-kevin-d-williamson
It pretty much describes the basis for my contempt for the all-or-nothing ideologues who ( combined with low information or simply lazy voters on the other side) allowed the Democrats to win another 4 years for a hopelessly overmatched, foundering, weak, failed leader at a time when the US desperately needs competence, transparency and accountability. Indeed, I also blame Democrats for failing to mount a primary challenge—incompetent leaders should not be renominated out of inertia or cynical political gain. Both parties have an obligation to present competent, skilled leaders to voters, and voters have a duty to reject those who are not. The 2012 election was a multi-lateral failure of democratic duty (the newsmedia too), but Mitt Romney was not part of the disgrace.
What I’m getting at is that the way the process has developed and is currently practiced is that ALL of us are low information voters. To not be a low information voter in today’s political system would require voters to spend less time working and doing their own thing and more time reading thousand page tomes to understand the unconstitutional crap that is to be foisted on them.
Insufficient information perhaps; certainly not “low.”
I advocate for a Constitutional Amendment restricting proposed bills to no more than 2 pages.
Think of the ink you could save then as well as keeping things simple for the low information voter.
I’d support that.
I am on record in saying that I don’t exactly blame low information voters for being that way – for virtually the entire history of the Republic it was entirely reasonable to be “low information”. It wasn’t until the 70’s or so that it has become something that enables what we now have in D.C.
It is just taking time for society to learn that.
And for the record, I think O’Donnell was a great candidate because I have spoken with her and know many other who have spoken with her. She had a shitty campaign team, sure, but that is it.
She not only had to deal with attacks from the left, but also attacks pushed by Rove (his people did loads of oppo research, and continued to use it after she got the nomination).
If you can’t figure out that “I am not a witch” is a campaign suicide. then you are too naive and inexperienced to have the audacity to run for Senator, and keep someone qualified from taking the job. Simple as that.
When you have limited state-wide campaign experience, and your people are telling you that this is what you need to counter specific negative attacks about being a witch, then I don’t think it is unreasonable that the candidate would defer to the supposedly experienced and more knowledgeable staff.
I do. A Senator better know the difference between idiotic advice and good advice, or she will be a tool of unscrupulous advisors. Christine struck me as a nice person way, way over her head…like too many tea party candidates. The GOP should have the majority in the Senate NOW.
Awwww — I forgot all about Christine “I am not a witch” O’Donnell.
You know, I had forgotten how inexcusably bad she was. I was too easy on Scott:
https://ethicsalarms.com/2010/10/20/christine-whitmans-insult-to-democracy/
https://ethicsalarms.com/2011/08/18/ethics-dunce-christine-odonnell/
https://ethicsalarms.com/2010/10/08/dear-christine-odonnell-no-youre-not-me-and-please-stop-saying-you-are/
https://ethicsalarms.com/2010/09/28/three-strikes-on-christine-odonnell/
https://ethicsalarms.com/2010/09/17/ethics-dunces-christine-odonnell-voters/
The most troubling thing is that he’s a public official and he believed these statements:
“nationwide laws allowing businesses to turn away gay customers”
“depictions of gays and lesbians began to disappear from popular culture and the media as soon as Phelps began taking his powerful rallies against homosexuality from state to state.”
“In the past three decades, homosexuality has become practically nonexistent in society.”
Where do these scenarios exist in the United States? That he does or ever did believe them makes him dangerously out of touch.