The Myth of Bad Republican Candidates

[Dr.Traveler]

Even though you'e stupid you make a good point. Conservatives have not been able to field a credible candidate in two election cycles. What does this say about the state of conservatism?

The reason they haven't been able to field a credible candidate in two election cycles is that the GOP as a whole knows that Conservatives will line up behind a GOP candidate, whoever they are, on election day.

There's a lot of bitching and moaning that this isn't true. But at +1 days after the GOP convention the first item of business from every Conservative leader I've seen is to line up his followers behind whoever the nominee is.

Until Conservatives are willing to show the GOP they need to be taken seriously by running a third party candidate, the GOP will continue to field candidates that slant towards the moderates and right leaning Democrats.

Everything I said up there also applies to Religious Right. They haven't been a force for a few election cycles for exactly the same reason. After all, what will Fiscal, Social, etc. Conservatives do? Vote Democrat?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Republicans are voting for the moderate Romney for electability reasons. After the 2008 election, conservatives told us McCain didn't get elected because he was a moderate.

Who's right?

Is Romney considered more electable because he's a moderate, or because there is no quality conservative in the race?

From a personal standpoint....

I have yet to finish doing my grading of the REP candidates against my scoresheet, which I do for every election... but unlike 2008 (Where my candidate was Thompson), there is something polarizing about each of the candidates... you can love the economic stance of one but hate the social stance... you can love the social stance but hate something about the background... you can love the conservative approach to govt but hate the foreign policy...

I think the key is that one of the candidates HAS TO SHOW CHANGE... while they may have supported Medicare part X or this govt run healthcare in the past, they have to convince and show that they have learned from those mistakes and work completely in the opposite direction.. then and only then will you get a candidate that the party and the independents will rally behind

What you're describing is true, and it's the reason the Conservative vote is so badly fractured. If you can make peace with Gingrich's moral failings, you're probably likely to find Santorum's and Perry's overt religious stances troubling. If you're comfortable with the religious stances of the two Rick's, then Gingrich is a non-starter.

I could go on and on, but the issue is that if you're a "_____" supporter, chances are there's going to be something about the others that will keep you away. And even if you like one of them, there's probably issues that guy has that kills your enthusiasm.

The GOP needed a guy like Reagan this cycle that could deliver a "Morning in America" style of positive message. After all the effort they've put into tearing each other down, I don't see a single one of them doing that in the General.

At this point I see this election as Obama's to lose. Fortunately for the GOP, he does seem intent on losing it.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Republicans are voting for the moderate Romney for electability reasons. After the 2008 election, conservatives told us McCain didn't get elected because he was a moderate.

Who's right?

Is Romney considered more electable because he's a moderate, or because there is no quality conservative in the race?

Romney is leading because he is the establishment candidate and the media, up until this week has left him alone.

Romney was fairly well vetted in 2008. There just hasn't been anything really news worthy to say about him until his "I like firing people" gaffe.

The real reason he's leading is that Romney is the pick of the 30% of the GOP that represents the Rockefeller Republicans and that the other 70% of the GOP is pretty badly fractured. Toss in the fact that the Tea Party lacks the leadership to really unite behind any one candidate and it isn't a surprise that a guy with 30% support is the leader.

If Romney had a serious competitor for his base in the GOP, you'd likely see Ron Paul flat out winning the nomination, as at this point he's the number 2 guy as far as level of support in the GOP right now.

 

[Jarhead]

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?

The media gave passes to every gaffe Biden and Obama made.

Yet they force GOP candidates to explain why they made the gaffe.

Obama says 57 states and the media laughs...we all laughed.....why? Becuae it was a gaffe. Shit happens.

Perry says 8 justices on the supreme court and he is labelled a moron by the media.

Obama pronounces corpseman like he is a dead man....twice.....and the media laughed as we all did....why? It was a gaffe...big freaking deal.

Perry loses his thought on stage and the media talks about hiom having focus issues.

Romeny helped 70% of his clients turn around their businesses.....yet the media only wants to talk about the 30% he couldnt turn around....whereas in his business...a 70% success rate is deemed as GREAT.

Enough siad.

 

[Jarhead]

Republicans are voting for the moderate Romney for electability reasons. After the 2008 election, conservatives told us McCain didn't get elected because he was a moderate.

Who's right?

Is Romney considered more electable because he's a moderate, or because there is no quality conservative in the race?

Romney is leading because he is the establishment candidate and the media, up until this week has left him alone.

Romney was fairly well vetted in 2008. There just hasn't been anything really news worthy to say about him until his "I like firing people" gaffe.

The real reason he's leading is that Romney is the pick of the 30% of the GOP that represents the Rockefeller Republicans and that the other 70% of the GOP is pretty badly fractured. Toss in the fact that the Tea Party lacks the leadership to really unite behind any one candidate and it isn't a surprise that a guy with 30% support is the leader.

If Romney had a serious competitor for his base in the GOP, you'd likely see Ron Paul flat out winning the nomination, as at this point he's the number 2 guy as far as level of support in the GOP right now.

His "I like firing people" was not a gaffe.

He was referring to those companies that do not offer him the service he pays them for.

Just as anyone else would do.

Sadly, the DNC did not feel you or any of us desrved to know the context of what he was saying.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Romney is leading because he is the establishment candidate and the media, up until this week has left him alone.

Romney was fairly well vetted in 2008. There just hasn't been anything really news worthy to say about him until his "I like firing people" gaffe.

The real reason he's leading is that Romney is the pick of the 30% of the GOP that represents the Rockefeller Republicans and that the other 70% of the GOP is pretty badly fractured. Toss in the fact that the Tea Party lacks the leadership to really unite behind any one candidate and it isn't a surprise that a guy with 30% support is the leader.

If Romney had a serious competitor for his base in the GOP, you'd likely see Ron Paul flat out winning the nomination, as at this point he's the number 2 guy as far as level of support in the GOP right now.

His "I like firing people" was not a gaffe.

He was referring to those companies that do not offer him the service he pays them for.

Just as anyone else would do.

Sadly, the DNC did not feel you or any of us desrved to know the context of what he was saying.

The context is out there. It's just still a really bad soundbite to put out there, especially with the Bain Capital allegations out there. Saying you "like to fire people" sounds bad in any context.

Romney is usually pretty skilled at picking the right words. It was one poor choice, and it's likely to blow completely over by the general election.

 

[rightwinger]

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?

This GOP field lacks star power

Obama was a rising star, charismatic, young dynamic and yes.....black
Hillary was a well known First Lady, Senator.....household name

There is nobody in the GOP with charisma outside of Ron Paul. Paul is the only one anyone can get excited about but is still Ron Paul the Libertarian.

 

[Jarhead]

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?

This GOP field lacks star power

Obama was a rising star, charismatic, young dynamic and yes.....black
Hillary was a well known First Lady, Senator.....household name

There is nobody in the GOP with charisma outside of Ron Paul. Paul is the only one anyone can get excited about but is still Ron Paul the Libertarian.

what made Obama a rising star?
Look at it this way..

He could have been painted this way...

" a young man out of Chicago. We know very little about his positions for he votes along party lines over 95% of the time...with a good portion of the other 5% being "present" votes. What we do know, however, is that he came out of the most corrupt city of politics in the country..and he grew quicker in the ranks than anyone from that city ever did. He has a pastor that has a very unusual take on America and he considers himself as his mentor. He has never held a real job in the business world....and there is very little information about his childhood"

There is not one thing in that statement that is not 100% accurate.

Whatever...just reading how you described the assets of Obama and Hillary and then how you described the GOP candidates...I can tell you are unable to put your partisan galsses off.

Please note...when I decribed the candidates of 2008, I did not apply the rhetoric and personal opinion...I described exactly what they were.

You were unable to do that.

So this debate is going nowhere...but fun as usual with you!

 

[The Rabbi]

Even though you'e stupid you make a good point. Conservatives have not been able to field a credible candidate in two election cycles. What does this say about the state of conservatism?

The reason they haven't been able to field a credible candidate in two election cycles is that the GOP as a whole knows that Conservatives will line up behind a GOP candidate, whoever they are, on election day.

There's a lot of bitching and moaning that this isn't true. But at +1 days after the GOP convention the first item of business from every Conservative leader I've seen is to line up his followers behind whoever the nominee is.

Until Conservatives are willing to show the GOP they need to be taken seriously by running a third party candidate, the GOP will continue to field candidates that slant towards the moderates and right leaning Democrats.

Everything I said up there also applies to Religious Right. They haven't been a force for a few election cycles for exactly the same reason. After all, what will Fiscal, Social, etc. Conservatives do? Vote Democrat?

If the conservatives walk out of the GOP they will have rendered themselves irrelevant for a long time.

 

[rightwinger]

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?

This GOP field lacks star power

Obama was a rising star, charismatic, young dynamic and yes.....black
Hillary was a well known First Lady, Senator.....household name

There is nobody in the GOP with charisma outside of Ron Paul. Paul is the only one anyone can get excited about but is still Ron Paul the Libertarian.

what made Obama a rising star?
Look at it this way..

He could have been painted this way...

" a young man out of Chicago. We know very little about his positions for he votes along party lines over 95% of the time...with a good portion of the other 5% being "present" votes. What we do know, however, is that he came out of the most corrupt city of politics in the country..and he grew quicker in the ranks than anyone from that city ever did. He has a pastor that has a very unusual take on America and he considers himself as his mentor. He has never held a real job in the business world....and there is very little information about his childhood"

There is not one thing in that statement that is not 100% accurate.

Whatever...just reading how you described the assets of Obama and Hillary and then how you described the GOP candidates...I can tell you are unable to put your partisan galsses off.

Please note...when I decribed the candidates of 2008, I did not apply the rhetoric and personal opinion...I described exactly what they were.

You were unable to do that.

So this debate is going nowhere...but fun as usual with you!

Obama was packing stadiums both at home and abroad

Star power......

 

[Jarhead]

This GOP field lacks star power

Obama was a rising star, charismatic, young dynamic and yes.....black
Hillary was a well known First Lady, Senator.....household name

There is nobody in the GOP with charisma outside of Ron Paul. Paul is the only one anyone can get excited about but is still Ron Paul the Libertarian.

what made Obama a rising star?
Look at it this way..

He could have been painted this way...

" a young man out of Chicago. We know very little about his positions for he votes along party lines over 95% of the time...with a good portion of the other 5% being "present" votes. What we do know, however, is that he came out of the most corrupt city of politics in the country..and he grew quicker in the ranks than anyone from that city ever did. He has a pastor that has a very unusual take on America and he considers himself as his mentor. He has never held a real job in the business world....and there is very little information about his childhood"

There is not one thing in that statement that is not 100% accurate.

Whatever...just reading how you described the assets of Obama and Hillary and then how you described the GOP candidates...I can tell you are unable to put your partisan galsses off.

Please note...when I decribed the candidates of 2008, I did not apply the rhetoric and personal opinion...I described exactly what they were.

You were unable to do that.

So this debate is going nowhere...but fun as usual with you!

Obama was packing stadiums both at home and abroad

Star power......

would he have been packings stadiums if the media painted him this way....

he has been a US senator for all of 1 year (at that point)
he has never run a business or created a job
he has a pastor who has strange sentiments about America..and he refers to that pastor as his mentor
he was the only President of the Harvard Law Review that never had something published
He has a history of voting along party lines over 95% of the time and the other 5% were "present" votes

Pointing out that he has star power is the point we are making.

The media can make a star and kill a star.

We see it happen all the time.

They can report on a star driving drunk as "a moment of poor judgement" or "wreckless and an indication of his arrogance"

The first way will save the stars reputation...the second will kill the stars reputation.

The media "poo poohed" Obamas lack of business experience.

The media only wants to discuss the 30% failure of Bain under Romney's watch.....never ONCE mentioning that a 70% success rate iun that business is deemed as OUTSTANDING

And now ROmeny is forced to answer questions about his "failures" ...and how does that make him look?

 

[Rinata]

Oh, please, guy.

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

I guess you fell for it then.

Anybody can watch their performance in the debates and watch their interviews. They're all nuts!!! Nobody is making it up.

 

[Jarhead]

Oh, please, guy.

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

I guess you fell for it then.

Anybody can watch their performance in the debates and watch their interviews. They're all nuts!!! Nobody is making it up.

Gee...ya think that is becuase you dont agree with their ideology?

Ya think?

 

[ClosedCaption]

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.

Every election consists of "What if" questions that dont exist. If you dont like that then you dont like political debates for the last 200 years

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.

It's quite obvious because I told I didnt...

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?

Why didnt the WSJ ask the question? Because they are liberal also? Did fox ask? Are they liberal because they havent asked? Or is only the newspaper you dislike (NYT) liberal because they didnt ask the question no one else has asked?

Let me know how this works..

I mean at least be honest and say that no one has asked a question you just made up.

 

[rightwinger]

what made Obama a rising star?
Look at it this way..

He could have been painted this way...

" a young man out of Chicago. We know very little about his positions for he votes along party lines over 95% of the time...with a good portion of the other 5% being "present" votes. What we do know, however, is that he came out of the most corrupt city of politics in the country..and he grew quicker in the ranks than anyone from that city ever did. He has a pastor that has a very unusual take on America and he considers himself as his mentor. He has never held a real job in the business world....and there is very little information about his childhood"

There is not one thing in that statement that is not 100% accurate.

Whatever...just reading how you described the assets of Obama and Hillary and then how you described the GOP candidates...I can tell you are unable to put your partisan galsses off.

Please note...when I decribed the candidates of 2008, I did not apply the rhetoric and personal opinion...I described exactly what they were.

You were unable to do that.

So this debate is going nowhere...but fun as usual with you!

Obama was packing stadiums both at home and abroad

Star power......

would he have been packings stadiums if the media painted him this way....

he has been a US senator for all of 1 year (at that point)
he has never run a business or created a job
he has a pastor who has strange sentiments about America..and he refers to that pastor as his mentor
he was the only President of the Harvard Law Review that never had something published
He has a history of voting along party lines over 95% of the time and the other 5% were "present" votes

Pointing out that he has star power is the point we are making.

The media can make a star and kill a star.

We see it happen all the time.

They can report on a star driving drunk as "a moment of poor judgement" or "wreckless and an indication of his arrogance"

The first way will save the stars reputation...the second will kill the stars reputation.

The media "poo poohed" Obamas lack of business experience.

The media only wants to discuss the 30% failure of Bain under Romney's watch.....never ONCE mentioning that a 70% success rate iun that business is deemed as OUTSTANDING

And now ROmeny is forced to answer questions about his "failures" ...and how does that make him look?

Please...

Don't treat the public like a bunch of morons. They are smarter than the right gives them credit for. Obamas credentials were well known. The right played up the Wright and Ayers nonsense and nobody cared. Only Republicans care about business experience as being relevant.
Obama never voted present as a US Senator and it was another failed red herring from the right

Whether you think he deserved it or not, Obama was a superstar in 2008 and the GOP has nothing close in 2012

 

[g5000]

After all, what will Fiscal, Social, etc. Conservatives do? Vote Democrat?

Nope. They will do what I did and stay home.

 

[g5000]

what made Obama a rising star?
Look at it this way..

He could have been painted this way...

" a young man out of Chicago. We know very little about his positions for he votes along party lines over 95% of the time...with a good portion of the other 5% being "present" votes. What we do know, however, is that he came out of the most corrupt city of politics in the country..and he grew quicker in the ranks than anyone from that city ever did. He has a pastor that has a very unusual take on America and he considers himself as his mentor. He has never held a real job in the business world....and there is very little information about his childhood"

There is not one thing in that statement that is not 100% accurate.

And there is not one thing in that statement that was not common knowledge.

Comparing Obama to the GOP candidates highlights two things. First, that the races of the past few cycles have been about the lesser of two evils, with the result of more and more evil choices as time passes.

Second, Obama did not win because of what was not known about him. He won because of what WAS known about the GOP. It had just run our economy into the shitter, and achieved a record national debt.

 

[The Rabbi]

Obama was packing stadiums both at home and abroad

Star power......

would he have been packings stadiums if the media painted him this way....

he has been a US senator for all of 1 year (at that point)
he has never run a business or created a job
he has a pastor who has strange sentiments about America..and he refers to that pastor as his mentor
he was the only President of the Harvard Law Review that never had something published
He has a history of voting along party lines over 95% of the time and the other 5% were "present" votes

Pointing out that he has star power is the point we are making.

The media can make a star and kill a star.

We see it happen all the time.

They can report on a star driving drunk as "a moment of poor judgement" or "wreckless and an indication of his arrogance"

The first way will save the stars reputation...the second will kill the stars reputation.

The media "poo poohed" Obamas lack of business experience.

The media only wants to discuss the 30% failure of Bain under Romney's watch.....never ONCE mentioning that a 70% success rate iun that business is deemed as OUTSTANDING

And now ROmeny is forced to answer questions about his "failures" ...and how does that make him look?

Please...

Don't treat the public like a bunch of morons. They are smarter than the right gives them credit for. Obamas credentials were well known. The right played up the Wright and Ayers nonsense and nobody cared. Only Republicans care about business experience as being relevant.
Obama never voted present as a US Senator and it was another failed red herring from the right

Whether you think he deserved it or not, Obama was a superstar in 2008 and the GOP has nothing close in 2012

Jarhead is right: The media built up Obama, in large part because they fell in love with the "first black president" business. He made his reputation on one speech he gave at the 2004 convention. That was it. He succeeded in not screwing up or pissing anyone off by toeing the party line. And he lucked into a bunch of stuff, including an economic melt down that played to McCain's chief weakness.

 

[rightwinger]

would he have been packings stadiums if the media painted him this way....

he has been a US senator for all of 1 year (at that point)
he has never run a business or created a job
he has a pastor who has strange sentiments about America..and he refers to that pastor as his mentor
he was the only President of the Harvard Law Review that never had something published
He has a history of voting along party lines over 95% of the time and the other 5% were "present" votes

Pointing out that he has star power is the point we are making.

The media can make a star and kill a star.

We see it happen all the time.

They can report on a star driving drunk as "a moment of poor judgement" or "wreckless and an indication of his arrogance"

The first way will save the stars reputation...the second will kill the stars reputation.

The media "poo poohed" Obamas lack of business experience.

The media only wants to discuss the 30% failure of Bain under Romney's watch.....never ONCE mentioning that a 70% success rate iun that business is deemed as OUTSTANDING

And now ROmeny is forced to answer questions about his "failures" ...and how does that make him look?

Please...

Don't treat the public like a bunch of morons. They are smarter than the right gives them credit for. Obamas credentials were well known. The right played up the Wright and Ayers nonsense and nobody cared. Only Republicans care about business experience as being relevant.
Obama never voted present as a US Senator and it was another failed red herring from the right

Whether you think he deserved it or not, Obama was a superstar in 2008 and the GOP has nothing close in 2012

Jarhead is right: The media built up Obama, in large part because they fell in love with the "first black president" business. He made his reputation on one speech he gave at the 2004 convention. That was it. He succeeded in not screwing up or pissing anyone off by toeing the party line. And he lucked into a bunch of stuff, including an economic melt down that played to McCain's chief weakness.

Really can't disagree. Obama saw his chance, the time was right and he won

There is nobody in the current field of republicans who given the same circumstances could have done the same

Take Perry for instance. He came in as the Republican savior and when the spotlight fell on him he melted

 

[CaughtInTheMid]

those are cool caricatures in the OP. my wife and i had one done at a restaurant years ago and it's funny what they decide to focus in on.