Too bad they didn’t listen to the content.
As opposed to the Democrats doing the same thing in 2008 ?
Suppose in 2008 Barry O’Brien a white Irish political pol from Chicago with an Ivy League education and law school, some community activism experience, a short term in the state Senate and just a 1st term 2 year Senator in the US congress. Suppose Mr. O’Brien ran for President with that short resume. He would have been laughed off the stage in Iowa and NH as not yet qualified.
They did. That’s why he’s doing so well.
Based on our history, I see no evidence that governors make better presidents than Senators. We’ve had good and bad ex-governor presidents, and we’ve had good and bad ex-Senator presidents.
I don’t think he does. He should be able to figure out evolution, but he can’t (or chooses not to) – his statements about it show an incredible ignorance of the science of evolution. In order to learn how to do something one must be at least somewhat intellectually curious, and I see no sign of such intellectual curiosity from Carson. Perhaps he was at one point in his life (he must have been in order to learn neurosurgery), but it seems to me that it’s long gone.
If he had the political and oratorical skills of Obama (and his team), he would have won easily.
It’s ridiculous to think that Obama couldn’t have won without being black – we’ve had plenty of black politicians, and before 2008 none of them came close to being president or a major party candidate.
The sky has always been the limit for talented white politicians. Talented white politicians have always had a chance to win.
You say that like it’s a good thing.
Do you think it is?
That lousy Constitution just gets in the way of getting things done.
I think experience as governor is quite overrated. Looking at WW II presidents and later, the following were governors:
FDR, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush the Lesser. FDR was a great president, Carter and Clinton good presidents, Reagan and Bush the two worst ever. Chris Christie is a governor, but he’s also a crook. Rick Perry is a drunken fool, and Scott Walker is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Kochs.
The following were not governors: Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Bush the Greater, and Obama. I’ll take JFK, LBJ, and Obama over Reagan and the lesser Bush any day.
Running a government means appointing a good cabinet, since these are the people that are actually in the engine room making things hum. The president’s job is to lead, using the bully pulpit to engage the nation, diplomatic skills to work with other nations, and the ability to twist arms in Congress. None of these are the exclusive province of governors.
Back to who Republicans are going to nominate:
There’s Trump, who is an intellectual nothing with nothing but ego and brashness. Totally unsuited. Ben Carson, the idiot savant who can do neurosurgery and nothing else. Fiorina, the failed executive and gullible enough to swallow Planned Parenthood smears hook, line, and sinker. And these morons are leading the pack. There’s Rubio, the smarmy little dick who’s about 50 years behind the rest of us on Cuba policy and a supply-side charlatan, and Bush who, it seems, is not the smarter brother after all. What else do they have? Christie, the thug? Paul, the libertarian bozo? None of these people could pull off a one-car parade, let alone manage a government.
This line of attack sure is getting tiresome, six years in. First of all, describing Obama as a former community organizer is like characterizing Paul Ryan as a former waiter or for that matter Carly Fiorina as a former secretary. IT WAS HIS FIRST FUCKING JOB, ok? It’s literally THE lamest talking point you could possibly lob against the guy.
Second, Obama was nominated among other things because he demonstrated outstanding foreign policy judgment, especially on key issues at stake in the election; he demonstrated extraordinary command over a wide range of policy issues and brought much-missing intelligence and dignity to the office; and he had boatloads of charisma whereas Hillary had almost none. Reducing Obama’s election to excitement over the First Black President may not be racist, but it’s certainly a piss-poor analysis.
For consistency, I’ll be the first to say that as much as I loathe Rubio as a candidate, I don’t have a problem with his thin resume per se. I have a problem with his judgment and policy ideas. If I subscribed to neoconservative orthodoxy, however, I would be quite excited about his candidacy and frankly I don’t fault any such-minded people who view Rubio as favorably as I did Obama in 2008.
It is not a lot of experience. It is more experience than none whatsoever. If you are going to imply that Obama’s lack of experience is not a good thing, then you will have to torture your logic a bit longer to elicit a confession that none at all is an improvement.
He overdid the torture. Logic died.
But it gained us actionable intelligence, didn’t it?
Oh, no, it didn’t. It never does. Sorry for asking.
Over here you said Ted Cruz was prepared by virtue of his one term in the Senate:
Since neither Trump, Carson nor Fiorina have won statewide election, I presume you find them all unlikely presidential candidates?
I don’t think this is quite fair. He did graduate from an Ivy League school, and appears to have been pretty savvy in his business dealings. (Which doesn’t change the fact that he’s a gauche, insecure blowhard.)
Carson got between 44 and 52 percent in those polls. If you think more than 20 or 30 percent of the public agrees with his brand of fundamentalist Christian, far-right ideology, I don’t know what to tell you.
I did not say Cruz was prepared. He’s nowhere near ready to be President. I only stated that he can win because Senator is a legitimate office from which to mount a Presidential campaign. Not in terms of the merits of being a Senator, but because Senators have won statewide. A representative has not. Since the Castros will likely never win statewide office, they will never be President or VP.
If the Dems were to nominate Fidel and Raul Castro for Prez and VP, Cruz would have a shot.
Since neither Trump, Carson nor Fiorina have won statewide election, I presume you find them all to be unsuccessful presidential candidates?
Of the three, I think only Carson has a shot, and he’s a long shot. But sure, if the Castros were the greatest neurosurgeons in the country, or heck, the greatest cello players in the world, they might have a shot.
But unremarkable cabinet officials or representatives don’t get a shot in our system.
There is a difference between the skills to RUN for President, and the qualifications to BE President.
As for the skills to run for President no question about it Obama has them. In fact the best set of skills for that I’ve seen in my life time.
As for qualifications to be President I feel Obama was lacking back in 2008 and did not have.
I’d rate Obama’s political skills below Clinton and Reagan, actually. He’s always been a good speaker, but content of speeches matters as well and Obama has never been able to move the needle of public opinion with his oratory the way Clinton and Reagan could.