The Myth of Bad Republican Candidates

[rightwinger]

Problem is media superstars don't always make great leaders, unless your leading a Rock & Roll band.

Obama has been a disaster, Hillary helped him because half of his administration is Clinton holdovers and she runs the State Department which has been a cluster-fuck.

Your problem is you put image over substance. Anyone who operates in the real world knows this leads to disappointment. Obama promised Hope & Change but instead he delivered division and conflict. He never accepts blame for anything. I figure the best thing he can do is move to Hawaii and turn the government over to someone else. Hopefully come next Jan he will.

This thread is about good candidates, not good leaders

You have to get elected first, and being a superstar helps. The GOP does not currently have any candidates who draw real enthusiasm out of the voters. Paul comes the closest

What made Obama a superstar?

His speahces (spechwriters)
His articulation? (Romeny is articulate)
His success as a senator? (he was simply a freshman in the group of 50)

He was a black JFK

Young, dynamic, exciting. He gave great speeches to huge crowds, he seemed to "get it" while McCain was a blundering old man spouting GOP talking points and defending the economy as not that bad

 

[Jarhead]

This thread is about good candidates, not good leaders

You have to get elected first, and being a superstar helps. The GOP does not currently have any candidates who draw real enthusiasm out of the voters. Paul comes the closest

What made Obama a superstar?

His speahces (spechwriters)
His articulation? (Romeny is articulate)
His success as a senator? (he was simply a freshman in the group of 50)

He was a black JFK

Young, dynamic, exciting. He gave great speeches to huge crowds, he seemed to "get it" while McCain was a blundering old man spouting GOP talking points and defending the economy as not that bad

So in other words, his speechwriters knew what he needed to say.

Interesting how you catagorized McCain as a blundering old man

First...that was how he was portrayed...as a blundering old man.

But he could have been portrayed this way by the media..

Despite his age, his injuries and his decades of service, McCain continues to show his love for his country and his desire to serve...

You know...the way they portrayed Byrd....and others......

But lets go back to the "economy" thing....

McCain wanted to suspend his campaign and do what he was elected to do at a time of crisis...act as a senator and be part of congressional decisions

Ironically...Obama opted to do otherwise...and pretty much said "I am here if you need me"

Now....here is one way it could have been presented..

"While McCain put his campaign on hold so he can play a role in decididng how to deal with this economic crisis, Mr. Obama does not want to lose his momentum and therefore will only go back to DC for a vote...but not for his input..."

You may have seen a different take by the people...

Instead the media presented it this way...

McCain thinks he will be the hero and cure the economy...Obama realizes they have great people in washington that can handle things without him.

It is all about how you present it.

Like I said yesterday....

2 celebrities can get a DWI...

The media can present it as ...

"John Boehner got a DWI yesterday and many in congress believe it is an indication of his arogance for the law...

Or

"Charlie Rangel got a DWI yesterday and many in congress say it was a momentary lapse in judgement and it should not cloud over the great he has done...."

 

[bodecea]

I wanted to respond to something you said earlier....

You said the public is smarter than the GOP thinks they are and that the public does not get swayed by the media....or something like that..

Hear me out on this...dont get caught up in the fact that I chose Palin as an example. Put in her place any governor of any state....but it was Palin that this happened to...

She entered the media "vetting" process as a highly regarded governor of her state. She had a grass roots personae, a very high approval rating, many successes for her state and its population...some failuers (Bridge to nowhere)...but overall, her constituants saw her as an outstanding choice....I believe north of 80% at its peak.

Then the media hit...and anyone who says the media was NOT looking for dirt is disingenuous.....and that is expected....as they did with Obama...and McCain...

But...

All of a sudden, it was all about the Palin dirt...the bridge...her educational background, her daughter's preganancy...

Sure, they would mention her tax rebate to the people....but explain it as "going to bed with big oil"

Sure, you heard about her high approval rating....but only when the media would say "her high approval rating as governor has been dropping steadily"

And that is the point...

A woman with a very high approval rating saw her numbers drop as the media vetted her negatively...the people were quite happy with her......until the media started to tell them they shouldnt be.

Sure...you can say "well, the media made them realize what a bozo she was, so the media did the right thing"

Well, if she was doing nothing illegal...and she was not compromising the constitution of the state....and the people were happy with the lifestyle she is overseeing......why would the people care?

But they did anyway...becuase the media told them they should.

I hear what you are saying, but how do you know that the area I bolded was not the Real Hype? I have some friends from Alaska and they never, ever liked her and were shocked that she was even considered. I know that is anecdotal, but how do we know which representation is the Real hype?

Because her approval rating was sky-high

In a highly Republican state early on in her governorship. Not a terrible surprise there. What is it now, in Alaska?

(which doesn't include your friends, who were probably disappointed she didnt want to sleep with them).

I understand your personal attack. It's pretty much you conceding your failure as a poster.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Once the media realized what they had with Palin, it was game over. Palin was poorly prepared and had a minimal view of world affairs. She explained her foreign policy experience as being close to Russia and Canada but never provided examples where she actually dealt with either. She did not know the Prime Minister of Canada. She thought explaining that Putin having to fly over Alaska to visit the US was relevant.
The press had a field day .........and Palin deserved every bad press release. McCain had to ban her from talking to the free press and she still hasn't to this day

That was the real issue. Palin was a paper tiger of a candidate, much like Perry turned out to be. You can't run on the national stage if you aren't familiar with the national issues. You can be an exceptional governor, as many in Alaska considered Palin to be and many in Texas considered Perry to be, and come off looking like a clueless idiot on the national stage.

It's also worth mentioning that Perry and Palin both has an advantage the usual governor didn't have. Both come from resource rich states. When you have enough state level income that you can reduce or even do away with income or sales taxes, people tend to like the government.

The right was free to attack Obama on any issues they thought relevant. They had FoxNews at their disposal 24/7. If they wanted to highlight the Harvard Law Review experience...they could have
Instead, they chose to attack on Rev Wright, Bill Ayers, Michelle Obama hates America, Obama was not born in America, Telepromters, Flag lapel pins and other nonsense
The American public gave a collective yawn and voted overwhelmingly for Obama

There's a lot of folks that want to stick their head in the sand and claim Obama wasn't vetted. He actually was. If you think there's an issue he wasn't vetted on, go to google.com and type in that issue with the ending command site:cnn.com Google will then return hits only from CNN. What you'll find is they did report on everything, no matter how stupid it was.

The big difference between CNN and Fox remains the level of political commentary on Fox. Go to CNN Daily Schedule and you'll find that starting from 4am to 6pm they run JUST news programs. That's 14 hours of newscasting. After that you have investigative reporting and political commentary.

Now go to Fox News Schedule. The first actual news program is 6am. You can argue the news runs until about 5pm. That's about 10 hours. The rest is investigative reporting and political commentary.

The difference here is that once a topic has been reported on in the 14 hours of new coverage on CNN, you've got a max 10 hours that you'd see it being commented on politically, and even that isn't likely to happen as a fair share of the 10 remaining hours is entertainment or international investigative reporting.

On Fox, once you're out of the 10 hours of newscasting, you have 14 hours of commentary and investigative reporting. Of course on Fox that 14 hours is primarily US news and Political news commentary.

Balance is different.

I haven't looked at MSNBC, but I'd bet they lean more towards Fox's ratio of news to investigative reporting/commentary.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

In 2008, Obama was a superstar. Probably the biggest personal attraction since JFK. Obama drew up to 75,000 people to hear him speak. there are no current Republicans near that. The only Republican who is close is Sarah Palin and she is unelectable

Hillary is another political superstar who ran in 2008. If Obama didn't smash McCain, Hillary would have.

Hillary was a big enough superstar she scared off a good deal of the Democrats who were waiting in the wings. Evan Bayh from Indiana used to have a lot of buzz about him. He decided not to run in '08 convinced that he couldn't beat Hillary. Now he's pretty much done.

You're seeing a lot of GOP players sit out '12 for a similar reason. They knew that the nomination would go to Mitt, as he's the guy with the largest political power base in the GOP and the largest stack of cash. They figured if Mitt couldn't beat Obama, they couldn't either.

Should Mitt lose in '12, which could happen, you'll see a fairly strong GOP field in '16. Jindal, Rubio, Christie, Pawlenty, and a whole host of others are waiting in the wings. I wouldn't be surprised if Boehner runs.

 

[The Rabbi]

2008 Republicans included McCain, Huckabee, Romney, Paul an Guiliani. Romney and Paul are leading the 2012 field and there are no other candidates as good as McCain, Huckabee or Rudy G

This field of Republicans lacks star power. Outside of Ron Paul, there is nobody who can generate enthusiasm and draw crowds

In 2008, Obama was a superstar. Probably the biggest personal attraction since JFK. Obama drew up to 75,000 people to hear him speak. there are no current Republicans near that. The only Republican who is close is Sarah Palin and she is unelectable

Hillary is another political superstar who ran in 2008. If Obama didn't smash McCain, Hillary would have.

I wanted to respond to something you said earlier....

You said the public is smarter than the GOP thinks they are and that the public does not get swayed by the media....or something like that..

Hear me out on this...dont get caught up in the fact that I chose Palin as an example. Put in her place any governor of any state....but it was Palin that this happened to...

She entered the media "vetting" process as a highly regarded governor of her state. She had a grass roots personae, a very high approval rating, many successes for her state and its population...some failuers (Bridge to nowhere)...but overall, her constituants saw her as an outstanding choice....I believe north of 80% at its peak.

Then the media hit...and anyone who says the media was NOT looking for dirt is disingenuous.....and that is expected....as they did with Obama...and McCain...

But...

All of a sudden, it was all about the Palin dirt...the bridge...her educational background, her daughter's preganancy...

Sure, they would mention her tax rebate to the people....but explain it as "going to bed with big oil"

Sure, you heard about her high approval rating....but only when the media would say "her high approval rating as governor has been dropping steadily"

And that is the point...

A woman with a very high approval rating saw her numbers drop as the media vetted her negatively...the people were quite happy with her......until the media started to tell them they shouldnt be.

Sure...you can say "well, the media made them realize what a bozo she was, so the media did the right thing"

Well, if she was doing nothing illegal...and she was not compromising the constitution of the state....and the people were happy with the lifestyle she is overseeing......why would the people care?

But they did anyway...becuase the media told them they should.

Palin is a very good example. Rick Perry followed her example. Governors who, on the surface looked like emerging stars, but when the spotlight fell on them they proved to be not ready for prime time

The right blames the evil "Lamestream Media" for their candidates failings but both Palin and Perry have nobody to blame but themselves. "What newspapers do you read" and "Which cabinet departments would you cut?" are not difficult questions
Both Palin and Perry emerged as superficial candidates who were not up on current events and national issues. Both were also poorly prepared for the offices that they sought

To blame the media is just shoot the messenger

Hah. Did I call that or what?
Yeah, she was a bozo the whole time. The media only reported it so everyone found out.
Attention: As governor she was constantly in the spotlight of the state media.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Hah. Did I call that or what?
Yeah, she was a bozo the whole time. The media only reported it so everyone found out.
Attention: As governor she was constantly in the spotlight of the state media.

There's a difference between being competent at the State level, and competent on the national stage. Rick Perry is painfully learning that too.

I actually liked the choice of Palin initially. Her record in Alaska was pretty solid. Ditto Perry. The problem once they opened their mouth on national issues they were just clueless. I can respect a lot of things, but willfully ignorant isn't one of them.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Oh, please, guy.

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

There has never been an election where you dims didn't say the same thing.

 

[rightwinger]

I wanted to respond to something you said earlier....

You said the public is smarter than the GOP thinks they are and that the public does not get swayed by the media....or something like that..

Hear me out on this...dont get caught up in the fact that I chose Palin as an example. Put in her place any governor of any state....but it was Palin that this happened to...

She entered the media "vetting" process as a highly regarded governor of her state. She had a grass roots personae, a very high approval rating, many successes for her state and its population...some failuers (Bridge to nowhere)...but overall, her constituants saw her as an outstanding choice....I believe north of 80% at its peak.

Then the media hit...and anyone who says the media was NOT looking for dirt is disingenuous.....and that is expected....as they did with Obama...and McCain...

But...

All of a sudden, it was all about the Palin dirt...the bridge...her educational background, her daughter's preganancy...

Sure, they would mention her tax rebate to the people....but explain it as "going to bed with big oil"

Sure, you heard about her high approval rating....but only when the media would say "her high approval rating as governor has been dropping steadily"

And that is the point...

A woman with a very high approval rating saw her numbers drop as the media vetted her negatively...the people were quite happy with her......until the media started to tell them they shouldnt be.

Sure...you can say "well, the media made them realize what a bozo she was, so the media did the right thing"

Well, if she was doing nothing illegal...and she was not compromising the constitution of the state....and the people were happy with the lifestyle she is overseeing......why would the people care?

But they did anyway...becuase the media told them they should.

Palin is a very good example. Rick Perry followed her example. Governors who, on the surface looked like emerging stars, but when the spotlight fell on them they proved to be not ready for prime time

The right blames the evil "Lamestream Media" for their candidates failings but both Palin and Perry have nobody to blame but themselves. "What newspapers do you read" and "Which cabinet departments would you cut?" are not difficult questions
Both Palin and Perry emerged as superficial candidates who were not up on current events and national issues. Both were also poorly prepared for the offices that they sought

To blame the media is just shoot the messenger

Hah. Did I call that or what?
Yeah, she was a bozo the whole time. The media only reported it so everyone found out.
Attention: As governor she was constantly in the spotlight of the state media.

State media? Alaska has fewer people than my county in New Jersey. That is not a spotlight........more like a penlight

 

[Uncensored2008]

None of the GOP candidates has anything close to the resume of President Obama

If the contest were to lead ACORN, you'd be right.

For POTUS, each one of them is vastly more qualified than Obama.

In 2008, Obama had no qualifications, but was untested. Today, he has 4 years of abject failure under his belt.

 

[rightwinger]

None of the GOP candidates has anything close to the resume of President Obama

If the contest were to lead ACORN, you'd be right.

For POTUS, each one of them is vastly more qualified than Obama.

In 2008, Obama had no qualifications, but was untested. Today, he has 4 years of abject failure under his belt.

None of the candidates has Executive Branch experience except for Huntsman and he worked for Obama

Romney and Huntsman were governors. Gingrich, Paul and Bachmann were just Congressmen

Not even close to being President of the United States

 

[Jarhead]

Palin is a very good example. Rick Perry followed her example. Governors who, on the surface looked like emerging stars, but when the spotlight fell on them they proved to be not ready for prime time

The right blames the evil "Lamestream Media" for their candidates failings but both Palin and Perry have nobody to blame but themselves. "What newspapers do you read" and "Which cabinet departments would you cut?" are not difficult questions
Both Palin and Perry emerged as superficial candidates who were not up on current events and national issues. Both were also poorly prepared for the offices that they sought

To blame the media is just shoot the messenger

Hah. Did I call that or what?
Yeah, she was a bozo the whole time. The media only reported it so everyone found out.
Attention: As governor she was constantly in the spotlight of the state media.

State media? Alaska has fewer people than my county in New Jersey. That is not a spotlight........more like a penlight

Deflection...

A population of 10, 100, 1,000, 10,000, 100,000, or 1,000,000...approval rating is a percentage...and the reqch of the media percentage wise is the same.

Bottom line....the people did not see her as a bozo until the media decided to have them see her as a bozo.

If I ate at a restaurant and I loved the food...I would not care if the chef was not properly trained....as long as I was happy...

But if the media continually talked about how a poorly trained chef is more apt to serve a meal that has ecoli...Ijust may second guess going there...even though I have never heard of that chef making such an error...

Before she was vetted by the media, people did not know OR CARE that she did not read newspapers. Obviously, base don her perfrmance for them, such was not an issue.

Then the media presented her as an idiot for NOT reading newspapers.

And over time, people decided they did not like a governor who did not read newspapers...but to this day, they really dont know why it was such as bad thing...she was doing a great job, newspapers or not....but the media convinced them that it was bad, bad, bad.

 

[Jarhead]

Hah. Did I call that or what?
Yeah, she was a bozo the whole time. The media only reported it so everyone found out.
Attention: As governor she was constantly in the spotlight of the state media.

There's a difference between being competent at the State level, and competent on the national stage. Rick Perry is painfully learning that too.

I actually liked the choice of Palin initially. Her record in Alaska was pretty solid. Ditto Perry. The problem once they opened their mouth on national issues they were just clueless. I can respect a lot of things, but willfully ignorant isn't one of them.

But not having any state experience or national stage experience at all offers a better chance of being competant at the national level?

I dont get your point.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Palin is a very good example. Rick Perry followed her example. Governors who, on the surface looked like emerging stars, but when the spotlight fell on them they proved to be not ready for prime time

But it isn't the "spotlight," as we all know. It's the "politics of personal destruction." The party unleashes the propaganda corps to wage a war of demagoguery against GOP candidates. The techniques of Goebbels have been honed to a level he never dreamed of. "Smear" and "Mudslinging" are far too mild. You're party wages war with a scorched Earth policy against anyone marked as a threat to the party. Jon Stewart trains the troops to bleat the meme against the target, while CNNABCNBCCBS blare the slander 24/7

The right blames the evil "Lamestream Media" for their candidates failings but both Palin and Perry have nobody to blame but themselves. "What newspapers do you read" and "Which cabinet departments would you cut?" are not difficult questions
Both Palin and Perry emerged as superficial candidates who were not up on current events and national issues. Both were also poorly prepared for the offices that they sought

To blame the media is just shoot the messenger

You're a good spokesman for this, RW. You clearly represent the utter and complete lack of integrity at work. Just as you have zero integrity here, and will post anything to smear a Republican, regardless of veracity, so the party media does. the party propaganda outlets operate on the "win at any cost" methodology that you so thoroughly demonstrate in the forum. Like you, the media is devoid of any sense of responsibility to be accurate or truthful. Just like you, they will use truth, lies, half-truth and innuendo to smear opponents of the party while avoiding any story that might damage the party.

 

[The Rabbi]

Hah. Did I call that or what?
Yeah, she was a bozo the whole time. The media only reported it so everyone found out.
Attention: As governor she was constantly in the spotlight of the state media.

There's a difference between being competent at the State level, and competent on the national stage. Rick Perry is painfully learning that too.

I actually liked the choice of Palin initially. Her record in Alaska was pretty solid. Ditto Perry. The problem once they opened their mouth on national issues they were just clueless. I can respect a lot of things, but willfully ignorant isn't one of them.

I'd say there is a difference between governing and running. Some people are good at one, not so good at the other.

 

[Jarhead]

Hah. Did I call that or what?
Yeah, she was a bozo the whole time. The media only reported it so everyone found out.
Attention: As governor she was constantly in the spotlight of the state media.

There's a difference between being competent at the State level, and competent on the national stage. Rick Perry is painfully learning that too.

I actually liked the choice of Palin initially. Her record in Alaska was pretty solid. Ditto Perry. The problem once they opened their mouth on national issues they were just clueless. I can respect a lot of things, but willfully ignorant isn't one of them.

I'd say there is a difference between governing and running. Some people are good at one, not so good at the other.

when Obama was "running" he was adamant that he would work with the GOP and make a difference.

When he was elected, he couldnt with the excuse being "they wont work with me becuase they want me to fail"

Well....duh? That was the point Obama. The opposition will ALWAYS make it difficult for you....so you made that commitment without realizing it was no easy challange.

He ran well....he cant govern.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Hah. Did I call that or what?
Yeah, she was a bozo the whole time. The media only reported it so everyone found out.
Attention: As governor she was constantly in the spotlight of the state media.

There's a difference between being competent at the State level, and competent on the national stage. Rick Perry is painfully learning that too.

I actually liked the choice of Palin initially. Her record in Alaska was pretty solid. Ditto Perry. The problem once they opened their mouth on national issues they were just clueless. I can respect a lot of things, but willfully ignorant isn't one of them.

But not having any state experience or national stage experience at all offers a better chance of being competant at the national level?

I dont get your point.

If you study up, yes.

Here's an analogy. I have a Ph'D in Math. I know a lot about a lot of different topics in math. However, while I know some statistics, it isn't a topic I work with or use on a regular basis. If you take a college student who studied ahead of time and did his homework and gave us both a stat test he'd probably out score me.

If I take any time to prepare I will out score him. But cold? I'd end up looking stupid.

It's the same for Perry and Palin vs Obama. He studied, they didn't. He convinced people he knew what he was doing. Perry and Palin didn't study and they ended up looking stupid.

I'm not an Obama fan. I think he's a terrible leader and administrator. But he does his homework so on the campaign trail he's formidable.

 

[Jarhead]

There's a difference between being competent at the State level, and competent on the national stage. Rick Perry is painfully learning that too.

I actually liked the choice of Palin initially. Her record in Alaska was pretty solid. Ditto Perry. The problem once they opened their mouth on national issues they were just clueless. I can respect a lot of things, but willfully ignorant isn't one of them.

But not having any state experience or national stage experience at all offers a better chance of being competant at the national level?

I dont get your point.

If you study up, yes.

Here's an analogy. I have a Ph'D in Math. I know a lot about a lot of different topics in math. However, while I know some statistics, it isn't a topic I work with or use on a regular basis. If you take a college student who studied ahead of time and did his homework and gave us both a stat test he'd probably out score me.

If I take any time to prepare I will out score him. But cold? I'd end up looking stupid.

It's the same for Perry and Palin vs Obama. He studied, they didn't. He convinced people he knew what he was doing. Perry and Palin didn't study and they ended up looking stupid.

I'm not an Obama fan. I think he's a terrible leader and administrator. But he does his homework so on the campaign trail he's formidable.

Interesting comeback.

Well said and quite acccurate when I think about it.

 

[Rinata]

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

Ya think?

What ideology??? All they do is criticize each other and lie about the prez.

Unfortunately, they don't have to lie about the President and aren't.

And why are you still attributing that quote to Gandhi? The man loved everyone.

First, to whom do you attribute this quote?? As far as I know, it is Ghandi's. Second, I did not say that he doesn't love everyone. I have no idea, and neither do you.

 

[mudwhistle]

None of the GOP candidates has anything close to the resume of President Obama

If the contest were to lead ACORN, you'd be right.

For POTUS, each one of them is vastly more qualified than Obama.

In 2008, Obama had no qualifications, but was untested. Today, he has 4 years of abject failure under his belt.

None of the candidates has Executive Branch experience except for Huntsman and he worked for Obama

Romney and Huntsman were governors. Gingrich, Paul and Bachmann were just Congressmen

Not even close to being President of the United States

Romney was an executive. A Governor. Like Clinton and Reagan.

Obama is just a front-man for an organization. He doesn't even run things.

You have to really grasp at straws to get any positives out his leadership traits. Half the time he doesn't even know what's going on around him......and he doesn't care.

Face it. He sucks as a leader.