The Myth of Bad Republican Candidates

[mudwhistle]

Cain/bad
Newt/so bad it hurts
Paul/every circus needs a clown
Perry/severely unprepared

Myth?

Not to be a whiner, but when you have debates where a majority of the moderators support Obama or are Democrat shills....they tend to want to cast Republicans in a less than flattering light.

Simply asking the right questions can do a lot of damage.

Obama will never be asked questions with mallicious intent. Even Bill O'Reilly thinks he's cool.

i bet you where the kid who before a game started would make excuses in case you lost afterwords.

This is you, right now, and sadly a well used tactic of the right. Does it ever get old being the perpetual victim?

I bet you were one of those kids that once I layed a massive hit on them they were worthless for the rest of the game.

 

[rightwinger]

Cain/bad
Newt/so bad it hurts
Paul/every circus needs a clown
Perry/severely unprepared

Myth?

Not to be a whiner, but when you have debates where a majority of the moderators support Obama or are Democrat shills....they tend to want to cast Republicans in a less than flattering light.

Simply asking the right questions can do a lot of damage.

Obama will never be asked questions with mallicious intent. Even Bill O'Reilly thinks he's cool.

i bet you where the kid who before a game started would make excuses in case you lost afterwords.

This is you, right now, and sadly a well used tactic of the right. Does it ever get old being the perpetual victim?

Are you suggesting that if the Republicans lose to Obama in 2012 they are going to blame the Lamestream media?

Doesn't sound too plausible

 

[ClosedCaption]

Not to be a whiner, but when you have debates where a majority of the moderators support Obama or are Democrat shills....they tend to want to cast Republicans in a less than flattering light.

Simply asking the right questions can do a lot of damage.

Obama will never be asked questions with mallicious intent. Even Bill O'Reilly thinks he's cool.

i bet you where the kid who before a game started would make excuses in case you lost afterwords.

This is you, right now, and sadly a well used tactic of the right. Does it ever get old being the perpetual victim?

Are you suggesting that if the Republicans lose to Obama in 2012 they are going to blame the Lamestream media?

Doesn't sound too plausible

Nothing is their fault....

 

[The Rabbi]

Not to be a whiner, but when you have debates where a majority of the moderators support Obama or are Democrat shills....they tend to want to cast Republicans in a less than flattering light.

Simply asking the right questions can do a lot of damage.

Obama will never be asked questions with mallicious intent. Even Bill O'Reilly thinks he's cool.

i bet you where the kid who before a game started would make excuses in case you lost afterwords.

This is you, right now, and sadly a well used tactic of the right. Does it ever get old being the perpetual victim?

Are you suggesting that if the Republicans lose to Obama in 2012 they are going to blame the Lamestream media?

Doesn't sound too plausible

Are you saying the Lamestream won't take sides in this election?

 

[mudwhistle]

And dissatifaction with GOP voters just couldnt happen unless the media made them unhappy Couldnt be "real" dissatifaction...no sir re

I'm sure it's real, just cleverly suggested and fostered by representatives of the Obama media.

And without any proof you've discovered this groundbreaking evidence. Link or belief?

Even Rush has been guilty of it. Information is available out there that can be twisted and spun. It depends on how active your imagination is.

Oh, you are definetly proof of that sparky

Did you know Jesus cost people jobs?

He was caught healing people without a lisense costing health care professionals their jobs. He was actually feeding the poor and the hungry with bread and fish that came from God knows where, bypassing local bakers and fishermen forcing them into near bankruptcy. He trashed venders at the steps of the temple scattering their money and destroying their goods in the process.

What an evil conservative Jesus was.....telling us that the poor will always be with us.

Wow that was really bad...Tell me more about the problems of an active imagination.

I don't need a link.

I have eyes and a brain.

Fox asked them tough question. Fair and balanced.

The networks asked them so many gay questions it became obvious.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I'm sure it's real, just cleverly suggested and fostered by representatives of the Obama media.

And without any proof you've discovered this groundbreaking evidence. Link or belief?

Oh, you are definetly proof of that sparky

Did you know Jesus cost people jobs?

He was caught healing people without a lisense costing health care professionals their jobs. He was actually feeding the poor and the hungry with bread and fish that came from God knows where, bypassing local bakers and fishermen forcing them into near bankruptcy. He trashed venders at the steps of the temple scattering their money and destroying their goods in the process.

What an evil conservative Jesus was.....telling us that the poor will always be with us.

Wow that was really bad...Tell me more about the problems of an active imagination.

I don't need a link.

I have eyes and a brain.

Thats up for debate

Fox asked them tough question. Fair and balanced.

The networks asked them so many gay questions it became obvious.

No proof equates fiction. Just because you like the fiction doesnt make the fiction true.

 

[Jarhead]

As I heard one pundit say...

The last debate there were questions presented to the GOP candidates that, no matrter what they answered, there would be a large group of people that would loathe the answer.
Such as that question about contraception.

Yet...

No one in the media has asked the Obama administration why the tax payer was put in last position in regard to the Solyndra loan.

Sure...you can say that the media wanted to ask questions that the public is interested in...

So please..... you tell me....is the American Public interested in the position of a candidate as it pertains to a topic that has NEVER been a debate...or is the American Public interested in the inefficiencies of government as it pertains to our tax dollars.

 

[g5000]

January 11, 2012
The Myth of Bad Republican Candidates
By Selwyn Duke

Repeat a big Democrat talking point often enough, and it becomes the truth. There is a certain liberal narrative that has recently filtered down to many independents and even some conservatives: the idea that the current crop of Republican candidates is weak, wanting, and worrisome. The lament is, "Hell's bells, the guy in the White House is out of his depth, but what alternatives does the GOP offer?" The idea, I suppose, is that we might as well just re-elect Barack Obama. At least he has four years of golfing, government-growing, and greenback-gobbling experience.

This is a strawman and a fallacy of the excluded middle.

The problem with the current crop is that the cream is sinking to the bottom instead of rising to the top. The guys in the lead are a bunch of weasels.

"[W]e mights as well just re-elect Barack Obama"? Oh, FUCK NO!

The idea is that we should just stay home come election time. You fuckers got the moron Bush you wanted, and now you have the Obama you deserve.

You can have MY vote when you EARN it.

This characterization of the Republican field much reminds me of the gratuitous criticism of the U.S. by the hate-America-first crowd. Okay, you say America is a bad country. Compared to what? Some imaginary Utopia that will never exist? Because in the real world, the U.S. has been besting her competition for a long time.

Many repeat the statist talking point about the GOP contenders' alleged ineptitude simply because of media spin and the branding iron of repetition. Yet others do, in fact, have unrealistic expectations. They have in mind an ideal, a utopia of a politician -- a person who agrees with them on every major issue, possesses eloquence and decent looks, and has never strayed from ideological purity. And when this imaginary figure doesn't appear, they ask, "Is this the best our political class has to offer?!"

Yet to what are we comparing these candidates? And are we being mindful of Bismarck's sage observation that "[p]olitics is the art of the possible"? For even insofar as a true traditionalist's ideal candidate does exist -- and this is important to understand -- he could not win election given the current state of our culture.

Holy shit. That is the lamest argument I have seen in a long time. "Come on, fellas. Let's just vote for the lesser of two evils. Again."

 

[ClosedCaption]

As I heard one pundit say...

The last debate there were questions presented to the GOP candidates that, no matrter what they answered, there would be a large group of people that would loathe the answer.
Such as that question about contraception.

Yet...

No one in the media has asked the Obama administration why the tax payer was put in last position in regard to the Solyndra loan.

Sure...you can say that the media wanted to ask questions that the public is interested in...

So please..... you tell me....is the American Public interested in the position of a candidate as it pertains to a topic that has NEVER been a debate...or is the American Public interested in the inefficiencies of government as it pertains to our tax dollars.

logical fallacy...Just because someone asked the GOP a question and didnt ask a question you just thought of isnt proof of any bias. Especially when the two you are comparing are about two different things.

 

[Jarhead]

As I heard one pundit say...

The last debate there were questions presented to the GOP candidates that, no matrter what they answered, there would be a large group of people that would loathe the answer.
Such as that question about contraception.

Yet...

No one in the media has asked the Obama administration why the tax payer was put in last position in regard to the Solyndra loan.

Sure...you can say that the media wanted to ask questions that the public is interested in...

So please..... you tell me....is the American Public interested in the position of a candidate as it pertains to a topic that has NEVER been a debate...or is the American Public interested in the inefficiencies of government as it pertains to our tax dollars.

logical fallacy...Just because someone asked the GOP a question and didnt ask a question you just thought of isnt proof of any bias. Especially when the two you are comparing are about two different things.

I would say you missed the point I was making..

But it is quite obvipous you are just making believe you missed the point.

So tell me.....while I am on the topic....what is the reason the Administration broke the law and for the first time in US history, a loan was made by the US government to a private company without the stipulation that the loan be placed in first position?

Or do you not know?

Well...neither do I.

Why?

Because no one in the Press deemed it worthy to ask.

But they have no problem asking questions about a social debate that doesnt even exist.

 

[ClosedCaption]

As I heard one pundit say...

The last debate there were questions presented to the GOP candidates that, no matrter what they answered, there would be a large group of people that would loathe the answer.
Such as that question about contraception.

Yet...

No one in the media has asked the Obama administration why the tax payer was put in last position in regard to the Solyndra loan.

Sure...you can say that the media wanted to ask questions that the public is interested in...

So please..... you tell me....is the American Public interested in the position of a candidate as it pertains to a topic that has NEVER been a debate...or is the American Public interested in the inefficiencies of government as it pertains to our tax dollars.

logical fallacy...Just because someone asked the GOP a question and didnt ask a question you just thought of isnt proof of any bias. Especially when the two you are comparing are about two different things.

I would say you missed the point I was making..

But it is quite obvipous you are just making believe you missed the point.

So tell me.....while I am on the topic....what is the reason the Administration broke the law and for the first time in US history, a loan was made by the US government to a private company without the stipulation that the loan be placed in first position?

Or do you not know?

Well...neither do I.

Why?

Because no one in the Press deemed it worthy to ask.

But they have no problem asking questions about a social debate that doesnt even exist.

Answer: Your question seems leading and therefore I cant answer. If I did answer I would have to acknowledge "admin broke the law", "first time in US history" etc

Like I said, just because a question wasnt asked (that you just thought of) isnt proof of anything. Actually it's proof they havent asked that particular question...thats it. I understand you are making assumptions but do we have to all pretend that these arent assumptions?

 

[strollingbones]

o hell no i am not reading all this...and months ago i made the mistake of saying the gop needs to settle down and get started and everyone got all pissy about this is our way of picking blah blah fucking blah....

yall have shot yourselves in the foot.....no one shot ya

 

[Dragon]

It's not the Democrats saying this is a weak field, it's the Republicans. Anyway those Republicans who don't particularly like any of the candidates, which appears to be most of them.

The Rabbi actually had a post above in which he asked JoeB if he would prefer an "ex-actor and former governor." Now THAT'S repeating a Democratic talking point (Reagan the B-movie actor, "Bedtime For Bonzo," etc.). But it also illustrates a point.

There is no such thing as being experienced enough to take on the presidency without actually being president. There is no other job in American politics that can prepare a person for all sides of being president. If you have a long career in Congress, you have part of it maybe because dealing with Congress is part of it. If you have been a successful governor you've got another part. A long-serving officer in the armed forces, especially a general, has another part. Someone with a lot of diplomatic experience, such as an ambassador to a crucial post, or better yet Secretary of State, has another part. But who has all of that, or even a significant part of it?

And that's why the ex-actor and governor turned out to be such a successful president: resume is pretty meaningless. Reagan had one little bit of it, having served as governor, but had to learn all the rest on the job, as does everyone in the White House. Leadership ability, charisma, and ability to learn count for more, and he demonstrated all of those in spades (the fact that his second term was much more moderate than his first term shows the last, and the first two should be obvious).

I could pick any really successful president in our history and do the same analysis. Bill Clinton? Dwight Eisenhower? Franklin D. Roosevelt fer crisesakes! None of them had enough experience to be a successful president, all had to learn on the job, but all of them had leadership ability and all had enough flexibility to learn.

None of the current GOP candidates have much in the way of leadership ability or charisma, and most of them are too firmly ideological to show much promise of learning ability. I don't just mean that in terms of charisma none of them is a Reagan, I mean (much more to the point) none of them is an Obama. And that's likely to be fatal.

 

[mudwhistle]

As I heard one pundit say...

The last debate there were questions presented to the GOP candidates that, no matrter what they answered, there would be a large group of people that would loathe the answer.
Such as that question about contraception.

Yet...

No one in the media has asked the Obama administration why the tax payer was put in last position in regard to the Solyndra loan.

Sure...you can say that the media wanted to ask questions that the public is interested in...

So please..... you tell me....is the American Public interested in the position of a candidate as it pertains to a topic that has NEVER been a debate...or is the American Public interested in the inefficiencies of government as it pertains to our tax dollars.

I think it's important to know how high of an opinion Obama has of himself, and I want to know if Republicans like Gays.

This nonsense about Iran getting nukes isn't important. I think terrorism isn't as important anymore. Focusing on the evil 1% instead of cutting spending is the key here.

 

[g5000]

I readily admit that the mass of the citizens sincerely wish to promote the welfare of the country; nay, more, I even grant that the lower classes mix fewer considerations of personal interest with their patriotism than the higher orders; but it is always more or less difficult for them to discern the best means of attaining the end which they sincerely desire. Long and patient observation and much acquired knowledge are requisite to form a just estimate of the character of a single individual. Men of the greatest genius often fail to do it, and can it be supposed that the common people will always succeed? The people have neither the time nor the means for an investigation of this kind. Their conclusions are hastily formed from a superficial inspection of the more prominent features of a question. Hence it often happens that mountebanks of all sorts are able to please the people, while their truest friends frequently fail to gain their confidence.

Tocqueville: Book I Chapter 13

 

[Jarhead]

logical fallacy...Just because someone asked the GOP a question and didnt ask a question you just thought of isnt proof of any bias. Especially when the two you are comparing are about two different things.

I would say you missed the point I was making..

But it is quite obvipous you are just making believe you missed the point.

So tell me.....while I am on the topic....what is the reason the Administration broke the law and for the first time in US history, a loan was made by the US government to a private company without the stipulation that the loan be placed in first position?

Or do you not know?

Well...neither do I.

Why?

Because no one in the Press deemed it worthy to ask.

But they have no problem asking questions about a social debate that doesnt even exist.

Answer: Your question seems leading and therefore I cant answer. If I did answer I would have to acknowledge "admin broke the law", "first time in US history" etc

Like I said, just because a question wasnt asked (that you just thought of) isnt proof of anything. Actually it's proof they havent asked that particular question...thats it. I understand you are making assumptions but do we have to all pretend that these arent assumptions?

So lets toss out the "law"...(which was broken by the way)..

Does it not bother you that no one in the press is asking the adminisratiuon why the tax payer was put in last psoition as it pertains to the loan to Solyndra?

bUT THEY SPEND THEIR TIME ASKING A gop CANDOIDATE WHO IS NOT A CURRENT LEGISLATOR HIS VIEWS ON SOMETHING THAT IS NOT EVEN A CURRENT (OR PAST) SOCIAL DEBATE?

Sorry...cap lock..didnt mean to hit it....

 

[Decepticon]

A recent poll showed that 58% of Republicans want more choices for their nominee.

Poll: 58% of Republicans want more presidential choices - Political Hotsheet - CBS News


It looks like the only MYTH here is the lie you told in the OP.

You understand that actually confirms the OP, not refute it?

THe OP says that a lack of good republican candidates is a myth.
I posted a poll that shows that a majority of Americans don't like the current republican candidates.
You say that I proved the OP correct?

HOW exactly is posting empirical evidence that most republicans DON'T LIKE their current choices, confirming the assertion that the perception that there are no good republican candidates is a myth? Because it kinda does the exact opposite, huh?


How embarrassing for you.

 

[The Rabbi]

A recent poll showed that 58% of Republicans want more choices for their nominee.

Poll: 58% of Republicans want more presidential choices - Political Hotsheet - CBS News


It looks like the only MYTH here is the lie you told in the OP.

You understand that actually confirms the OP, not refute it?

THe OP says that a lack of good republican candidates is a myth.
I posted a poll that shows that a majority of Americans don't like the current republican candidates.
You say that I proved the OP correct?

HOW exactly is posting empirical evidence that most republicans DON'T LIKE their current choices, confirming the assertion that the perception that there are no good republican candidates is a myth? Because it kinda does the exact opposite, huh?


How embarrassing for you.

I see I am dealing with a less than stellar intellect.
You understand that a poll simply measures opinion (inaccurately), right? You iunderstand that opinion is largely feeding back what it has seen and heard on the media, right? So it is simply feedback from what the media has been saying, which is the point of the op.
It's tough to debate when you're stupid. Maybe try a kitten forum?

 

[Jarhead]

A recent poll showed that 58% of Republicans want more choices for their nominee.

Poll: 58% of Republicans want more presidential choices - Political Hotsheet - CBS News


It looks like the only MYTH here is the lie you told in the OP.

You understand that actually confirms the OP, not refute it?

THe OP says that a lack of good republican candidates is a myth.
I posted a poll that shows that a majority of Americans don't like the current republican candidates.
You say that I proved the OP correct?

HOW exactly is posting empirical evidence that most republicans DON'T LIKE their current choices, confirming the assertion that the perception that there are no good republican candidates is a myth? Because it kinda does the exact opposite, huh?


How embarrassing for you.

Becuase your poll showed how the media has cvonvinced the people that the GOP field is weak.

But lets look at the facts without the rhetoric...and your personal sentiments....

Name one candidate that has not been successful in either poilitics or business...or both.

Now..to go further..

Compare the careers of all of the candidates to that of Obama before he was President.

What made Obama a "strong" candidate...but...say....Romeny....a weak candidate?

The answer? Obama was painted by the media as a very intelligent, articulate man...yet....have we ONCE heard the media discuss Romeny's intelligence and articulation?

So you see...it is a myth...they all have qualities that would make them viable candidates....maybe YOU dont agree with them....but they all are strong candidates.

 

[Dragon]

You understand that a poll simply measures opinion (inaccurately), right? You iunderstand that opinion is largely feeding back what it has seen and heard on the media, right?

You realize that this is a nonfalsifiable and therefore meaningless statement, right?