That’s an interesting opinion. To evaluate politicians, then, we should be looking at the ability of their handlers rather than the qualifications of the candidates?
Unready? Most of them have been in politics for some time. Cruz is a freshman senator, but so was Obama when he announced.
You should as much as possible ignore the campaign itself and concentrate on their actual record in office. Not that the campaign isn’t important, but a slick campaign shouldn’t fool a voter into thinking that the candidate is competent despite no record of competence, honest despite no record of honesty, or bipartisan despite no record of bipartisanship.
A President is a politician, but a good President is supposed to be somewhat above politics, since the core job of an executive(carrying out the law) is supposed to be non-political. Congress is 100% political. The Supreme Court is supposed to be 100% non-political. The Presidency is somewhere in between, because it involves politics but also a lot of work that has to be done in a non-partisan fashion. When partisanship does slip into core government functions, it rightly creates a scandal. When the government screws up massively, that also creates a scandal. So you need someone with a proven record of competent governance. All of the GOP Senators lack that.
And yet you supported Ben Carson. Going so far as to say that he would improve under professional handling. Are there two of you and sometimes you don’t agree with each other?
What I’ve said in regards to Carson is that I’d love for him to become a good candidate with the benefit of handlers because it would be such an obvious change that it would draw attention to the role of professionals in making a candidate look good. Often the difference between “talented” and gaffe-prone is how well your staff prepares you. Carson has no political experience and probably thought anybody could do this. He seems to be figuring out that it’s not that simple and is staffing up pretty nicely. So he might be a lot better by the fall than he is now.
That doesn’t mean I support his candidacy. Just that I’m rooting for him to get better. A polished Carson would be a form of political performance art that might reveal some dirty little secrets about how things actually work. I’d bet he’s probably got a higher IQ than any of his opponents on either side, so he’ll learn quickly.
That doesn’t seem to be what you were saying just now. You said that success in politics was largely down to a politician’s handlers, rather than the quality of the candidate. Shouldn’t we be looking at the handlers, in that case, rather than the politician’s record or in office or competence or honesty or history of bipartisanship? Those all seem to be qualities of the candidate.
Let me try to be clearer. While staff is important, a candidate’s record in office demonstrates whether he can do the job or not and what he believes. If his record contradicts his promises, and it still sounds pretty convincing, that’s the speechwriters and handlers polishing up a turd pretty well.
Will you please pick a fucking topic and stick with it? I’m tired of the duck and weave that characterizes your posting in all of these threads.
Pick one of the following:
No matter how he looks, I will vote for Ben Carson in the GOP Primary.
If Ben Carson improves some between now and the primary I will vote for him.
If Ben Carson improves a LOT between now and the primary I will vote for him.
No matter what happens with Ben Carson, I will vote for someone with experience over Ben Carson.
I’ve already picked my candidate and it is: (fill in the blank) so everyone else’s performance (including Ben Carson) is simply reality television that I can enjoy without it influencing my vote.
Now the essay question:
I think (experience/intelligence - pick one) trumps (intelligence/experience - pick the other one) and here’s why:
Answer these and maybe we can have a discussion. Note that none of these have anything to do with Rand Paul (who is the subject of this thread), so please feel free to answer in the Ben Carson thread.
Then Walker, Christie and Jindal are out of the running, because their gubernatorial records suck balls:
The transcript is here: Senator Rand Paul on his 2016 Campaign and Iran Negoitations - The Hugh Hewitt Show
Not that I really thought he had much of a chance given his somewhat iconoclastic views, but this most recent faux pas may be the one that kills his chances of being taken seriously at all by the Republican base.
And probably worst of all:
I don’t really see much to disagree with in his statements, but then again, I’m not a Republican. Or like the WSJ said:
It sounds to me like he isn’t too far removed from sticking his finger in Jeb’s face and telling him, “Your brother created ISIS.”
Looks like Randy didn’t get the memo about how ISIS is all President Obama’s fault.
Well, Republican policy has created terrorists and the senior Paul was pretty vocal about that as well.
Like I already said, I agree with the idea Republican policy created this situation. However, it is not a position that will appeal to the base in the primaries. It didn’t work for Ron and it won’t work for Randy.
The latest set of polls seems to reaffirm that Rand Paul is probably the second most electable Republican. Rubio does the best against Clinton in trial heat polls, but Paul is a close second.
I think that tells us more about what a lousy bunch of candidates are running on the Republican side than it does about who will win the nomination or the election that is more than a 15 months away. The idea that Rubio or Randy will end up as the nominee makes me laugh.
And to be clear, that doesn’t mean I don’t think it could happen. It could, but I would find either of those results to be hysterical.
Since the “best” Republican outcome still shows a loss to Hillary, it strikes me as more accurate to say that Rand is the second*-least UNELECTABLE*, actually. 
Classic examples of this dictum:
[QUOTE=Michael Kinsley]
A “gaffe” is when a politician tells the truth – some obvious truth he isn’t supposed to say.
[/QUOTE]
Fox News pretends Rand Paul isnt a candidate.