The Myth of Bad Republican Candidates

[Jarhead]

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?

Please tell me why candidate Obama was a strong candidate but candidate Romeny is a week one.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

One only has to watch the GOP base jump from one candidate to another to see how weak they are. There is nothing intrinsically weak about their resumes but they are weak of character and weak in being able to build a support base. They are also weak in being able to articulate a sane political platform that does not get decimated on closer scrutiny

 

[mudwhistle]

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?

Please tell me why candidate Obama was a strong candidate but candidate Romeny is a week one.

Obama makes a thrill go down my leg.

Romney......not so much.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

One only has to watch the GOP base jump from one candidate to another to see how weak they are. There is nothing intrinsically weak about their resumes but they are weak of character and weak in being able to build a support base. They are also weak in being able to articulate a sane political platform that does not get decimated on closer scrutiny

Did your Daddy beat you with a stupid-stick?

It only illustrates how effective the media is at trashing the frontrunner.

 

[Decepticon]

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?

Oh, so polls don't measure anything because it's all a feedback loop from the media?
So, I guess by extension, that ELECTIONS don't mean anything either? I mean those are just feedback loops from the media too, right? Oh wait, they have CONSEQUENCES, don't they? Just as this POLL has CONSEQUENCES.

But let me guess, you don't AGREE with with this assessment?

Gee, I guess it's just COINCIDENCE that this RATIONALIZATION can be used to conveniently dismiss anything you don't like as media bias?

Talk about a less than stellar intellect.
At least I'm not defending sticking my head in the sand.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

One only has to watch the GOP base jump from one candidate to another to see how weak they are. There is nothing intrinsically weak about their resumes but they are weak of character and weak in being able to build a support base. They are also weak in being able to articulate a sane political platform that does not get decimated on closer scrutiny

exactly...the media attacks the front runner...and the people jump to the next.

They are not weak in being able to articulate a sane political platform.....the media spins what they say and forces them to explain themselves.....and it is hard to explain someone elses spin..

You may not see it. I do.

Yet back in 2008...it was the exact opposite....Obama would say something like "spread the wealth" and the media would rationalize it for him.

Are you aware that the media did not ONCE ask Obama how it is possible that he did not know of Wrights sentiments after 20 years of Wright being his mentor...they simply accepted his answer of "I did not know of his sentiments"

But lets look at Romeny...and Bain..as ean expample..

No one in the media is heralding him for a 70% success rate at Bain in turning around businesses...

They only want to talk about the 30% that failed....and exactly who in the media has mentioned that without Bain, all 100% of them would have failed.

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

Oh, so polls don't measure anything because it's all a feedback loop from the media?
So, I guess by extension, that ELECTIONS don't mean anything either? I mean those are just feedback loops from the media too, right? Oh wait, they have CONSEQUENCES, don't they? Just as this POLL has CONSEQUENCES.

But let me guess, you don't AGREE with with this assessment?

Gee, I guess it's just COINCIDENCE that this RATIONALIZATION can be used to conveniently dismiss anything you don't like as media bias?

Talk about a less than stellar intellect.
At least I'm not defending sticking my head in the sand.

Did you take a double dose of stupid pills today?
I didnt say polls dont measure anything. I specifically said what they do measure.
In addition to being dumb you can't read either.

 

[mudwhistle]

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?

Oh, so polls don't measure anything because it's all a feedback loop from the media?
So, I guess by extension, that ELECTIONS don't mean anything either? I mean those are just feedback loops from the media too, right? Oh wait, they have CONSEQUENCES, don't they? Just as this POLL has CONSEQUENCES.

But let me guess, you don't AGREE with with this assessment?

Gee, I guess it's just COINCIDENCE that this RATIONALIZATION can be used to conveniently dismiss anything you don't like as media bias?

Talk about a less than stellar intellect.
At least I'm not defending sticking my head in the sand.

Pleeeeeze!

Polls are just one of the tools the media uses to shape public opinion.

 

[NoNukes]

Oh, please, guy.

This is the weakest feild of GOP Candidates I've seen in 32 years of being involved in politics.

Good to see a person telling the truth.

 

[ClosedCaption]

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....

Was the tax payer put in last posistion? If so, thats a valid question. No qualms from me. I believe people have covered Solyndra a lot tho, so one question that wasnt asked indicates only that the question wasnt asked. You're pretending that because Obama wasnt asked about that question about solyndra that it is unfair for the press to ask the GOP about social issues.

How you make that leap is beyond explanation

 

[Jarhead]

Oh, please, guy.

This is the weakest feild of GOP Candidates I've seen in 32 years of being involved in politics.

Good to see a person telling the truth.

you mean..

"Good to see someone who agrees with me"

This is a matter of opinion...there is no "lie or truth" involved.

 

[mudwhistle]

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....

Was the tax payer put in last posistion? If so, thats a valid question. No qualms from me. I believe people have covered Solyndra a lot tho, so one question that wasnt asked indicates only that the question wasnt asked. You're pretending that because Obama wasnt asked about that question about solyndra that it is unfair for the press to ask the GOP about social issues.

How you make that leap is beyond explanation

Well known shills for Obama that don't even attempt to hide their negative feelings about the GOP are not good arbitors of fair political debate.

 

[Jarhead]

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....

Was the tax payer put in last posistion? If so, thats a valid question. No qualms from me. I believe people have covered Solyndra a lot tho, so one question that wasnt asked indicates only that the question wasnt asked. You're pretending that because Obama wasnt asked about that question about solyndra that it is unfair for the press to ask the GOP about social issues.

How you make that leap is beyond explanation

I dont moind the media askling the GOP about social issues.

I mind them asking querstions about social issues that do not exist...for it begins a dialogue about a candidate that is irrelevant.

For example....what if Romney said " i bleive the state has the right to ban contraception if it wants"....not the rest of what he said...just that one line.....

The talk about Romeny would not be about his stance on state rights.....it would have been about Romney wanting to ban contraception....and if you did not see that as to why it was asked, then you are not paying attention.

and I have to tell you....it is quite obvious you are not aware that the tax payer was put in last position on a half a billion dollar loan.....but we were....the first time in our history...and there is a congressional alw that forbids it.

So how come your news did not feel you should know about that? I searched the NY Times...couldnt find it...I found it in the WSJ....

And again...why didnt they ask the administration?

 

[rightwinger]

Oh, please, guy.

This is the weakest feild of GOP Candidates I've seen in 32 years of being involved in politics.

Good to see a person telling the truth.

you mean..

"Good to see someone who agrees with me"

This is a matter of opinion...there is no "lie or truth" involved.

In all honesty..

Do you consider this to be a strong field of Republicans? Can you remember a weaker Republican field?

 

[Jarhead]

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.

No, no they are not, because under your stupid as fuck logic back in 08 i think it was when Sharpton ran he would have been a good person to choose. He isn't, and he knew, The people knew it, and therefore he didnt go anywhere.

This is why you are stupid. When we hit this run for the white house you have Tiers. You have your Top tiers, your middle tiers, and your lower tiers.
Your lower Tiers ( Cain Bachman) are out to make money. See when you run for president you become more high profile. Therefore people want you to travel around the nation and give speeches for money. This is all the lower tiers tend to be about. Getting their name out there and making more money. They are not serious.
Then you have your middle Tier ( Perry, Huntsman, etc) who while are kinda of hoping to win, they dont expect it. They are looking for more of a VP or cabinet position to up their status. Then you have Top tier like Mitt. He is in it to win it and nothing else. We all know this, and we have known this since 08 when he lost. He never has stopped running since 08.

This what i posted above has been going on for a longtime in politics, and it hasnt changed. You on the other hand are too fucking stupid to understand this, and think its the left/media/puppies with three legs fault.

Why? because you are a dumb fucking hack. Thats really the end result. Thats why you would be laughed off any real serious panel with your " its the media" crap. Your opinion plays well to low-brow hicks who post on message boards and think Obama is from Africa.

In fact your opinion falls into the classic right cry baby rant about how X is a victim and therefore its not your fault. Which anyone with half a clue knows that this flies in the face of the rights "personal Responsibility" meme you dipshits love to trot out from time to time.

If we where to really go deeper ( we wouldnt have to go that deep) into the rights arguments. You will see you fucksticks love to set yourselves up as victims regardless of the outcome.

Here is what is happening. People like you are trying to destroy decades of "this is how it always worked",because all of a sudden you bulldoze your way in without understanding whats actually going on.

Stop acting like a child and enagge in a debate.

Never mind.....you are not worhty of my time with your childish insults, cursing, and statements of assumptions that you calim are facts.

Learn how to debate, then get back to me.

 

[EriktheRed]

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 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.

Link

Read more:
Articles: The Myth of Bad Republican Candidates

Is this guy actually blaming it on the Dems that the current crop of GOP candidates is so pathetic???

 

[Jarhead]

Good to see a person telling the truth.

you mean..

"Good to see someone who agrees with me"

This is a matter of opinion...there is no "lie or truth" involved.

In all honesty..

Do you consider this to be a strong field of Republicans? Can you remember a weaker Republican field?

I see this field as having...

1) The former speaker of the house who helped Clinton acheive some great success
2) A successful former governor who has acheiued great success in business as well
3) a true libertarian who has not wavered from his platform in years
4) A young conservative senator with a very clean background

In 2008 the democrats field had..

1) A successful senator of many years ( Biden)
2) a former first lady with a few successful years as a senator
3) a young freshamn senator with no business experience but a great presentation

Now...putting aside the political rehtoric...

How is this field of GOP candidates weaker than the Democratic field of 2008?

 

[Jarhead]

No, no they are not, because under your stupid as fuck logic back in 08 i think it was when Sharpton ran he would have been a good person to choose. He isn't, and he knew, The people knew it, and therefore he didnt go anywhere.

This is why you are stupid. When we hit this run for the white house you have Tiers. You have your Top tiers, your middle tiers, and your lower tiers.
Your lower Tiers ( Cain Bachman) are out to make money. See when you run for president you become more high profile. Therefore people want you to travel around the nation and give speeches for money. This is all the lower tiers tend to be about. Getting their name out there and making more money. They are not serious.
Then you have your middle Tier ( Perry, Huntsman, etc) who while are kinda of hoping to win, they dont expect it. They are looking for more of a VP or cabinet position to up their status. Then you have Top tier like Mitt. He is in it to win it and nothing else. We all know this, and we have known this since 08 when he lost. He never has stopped running since 08.

This what i posted above has been going on for a longtime in politics, and it hasnt changed. You on the other hand are too fucking stupid to understand this, and think its the left/media/puppies with three legs fault.

Why? because you are a dumb fucking hack. Thats really the end result. Thats why you would be laughed off any real serious panel with your " its the media" crap. Your opinion plays well to low-brow hicks who post on message boards and think Obama is from Africa.

In fact your opinion falls into the classic right cry baby rant about how X is a victim and therefore its not your fault. Which anyone with half a clue knows that this flies in the face of the rights "personal Responsibility" meme you dipshits love to trot out from time to time.

If we where to really go deeper ( we wouldnt have to go that deep) into the rights arguments. You will see you fucksticks love to set yourselves up as victims regardless of the outcome.

Here is what is happening. People like you are trying to destroy decades of "this is how it always worked",because all of a sudden you bulldoze your way in without understanding whats actually going on.

Stop acting like a child and enagge in a debate.

Never mind.....you are not worhty of my time with your childish insults, cursing, and statements of assumptions that you calim are facts.

Learn how to debate, then get back to me.

and punt...I figured you would...I just explained it for you and instead of understanding it you punted. See i told you that you didnt want to understand what actually goes on. It goes against your stupid narrative that its the left-media's fault.

which you know only really works on those jerk you off shows like Levin or hannity. Here you will get called out for your stupid bullshit.

Take your childish insults and use them on someone else.

As you can see...I dont punt...I am debating with everyone who responds to me..

Except you...becuase you are acting like a child.

Grow up and then get back to me.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Uh, have you people been paying attention? Have you watched even one of the so-called "debates"?

Sorry to break it to you but that op/ed was wishful thinking and written to appeal to those who think education is a bad thing and will only make lil Johnny an "elitist snob".

 

[rightwinger]

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.

One only has to watch the GOP base jump from one candidate to another to see how weak they are. There is nothing intrinsically weak about their resumes but they are weak of character and weak in being able to build a support base. They are also weak in being able to articulate a sane political platform that does not get decimated on closer scrutiny

exactly...the media attacks the front runner...and the people jump to the next.

They are not weak in being able to articulate a sane political platform.....the media spins what they say and forces them to explain themselves.....and it is hard to explain someone elses spin..

You may not see it. I do.

Yet back in 2008...it was the exact opposite....Obama would say something like "spread the wealth" and the media would rationalize it for him.

Are you aware that the media did not ONCE ask Obama how it is possible that he did not know of Wrights sentiments after 20 years of Wright being his mentor...they simply accepted his answer of "I did not know of his sentiments"

But lets look at Romeny...and Bain..as ean expample..

No one in the media is heralding him for a 70% success rate at Bain in turning around businesses...

They only want to talk about the 30% that failed....and exactly who in the media has mentioned that without Bain, all 100% of them would have failed.

For Christs sake.....can you guys stop blaming the media?

When is a Republican going to be responsible for what he says and does? Perry is a moron who was too lazy to prepare for debates
Cain had a history of acting inappropriately towards women
Gingrich had a long history of misstatements which he continued to make

When are Rebublicans going to be personally responsible for their actions?