My Mom and Dad were at the debates last night, so I will need to get the inside scoop later. Of course Mr Carville would not think much Mom's choice of radio stations. (see below)
Questions of the day:
- Who do you think should be the Republican nominee and why?
- Is the current candidate pool weak?
- If so.. Why? How can they improve this?
CNN Carville
CNN Belief Gingrich
""We have watched GOP debates where audience members booed gay soldiers and cheered the prospect of someone dying without health insurance. We've seen a candidate who wasn't penalized in the least for not knowing that China has had nuclear weapons since 1964 but had to drop out because of a consensual sexual relationship. We have seen a member of the House Intelligence Committee who apparently didn't realize that we haven't had an embassy in Iran for the last 30 years, candidates who don't believe in evolution, and a candidate that didn't even know the voting age in the United States. Maybe Bush, Daniels, Christie, Barbour and Thune figured out ahead of time what Fairleigh Dickinson University uncovered just recently: that people who watch Fox News are actually more ignorant than people who watch no news at all. Could you imagine what they would have found had they studied people listening to talk radio?
Perhaps the Republicans are getting exactly the kind of candidates that best match the intellectual composition of the majority of the people in their party -- just a thought, but it's my only explanation of our low bidders. Looks like their chance at the presidency is going, going, gone."
8 comments:
If you're getting your news from CNN you have no idea whatsoever what those who get their news from Fox know, because you will never hear it. Most studies find exactly the opposite, in fact. Remember, people CHOOSE their sources for news, and they do so intelligently, contrary to liberal belief. Lying to them or slanting the truth loses you audience. Compare Fox News and CNN and you will see it, plain as day.
J. Ewing
As for the candidates, I think the "American people" (a phrase I find increasingly trite, overused and meaningless) are ready for a candidate that knows what he believes and can explain it, and won't back down from campaigns based on sound bites, distortions and character assassination. That's either Gingrich or Bachmann, and Bachmann can't win.
J. Ewing
I of course like Newt because he seems to say what he is thinking most of the time. I was shocked to see him back in the news after he seemingly disappeared for so long.
As for news sources, beauty is definitely in the eye of the beholder. Since we all like to find others that support our worldview. But we have had that discussion before.
I have commented repeatedly on the surprising weakness of the GOP presidential field, given a county of 300 million people and a president who should be easy to defeat due to our jobless recovery and struggling middle class.
I'm considering going to my local GOP caucus and casting a vote for Romney (if they will let me) because I find Gingrich more than a little scary as a potential president.
And it is not just me, with my far left perspective, who feels this way.
Gingrich Is Inspiring—and Disturbing
Laurie, by all means attend the GOP caucus (I'll be there, coordinating), but you should be aware of state law, which requires that you "intend to vote for the Party's candidate in November" or have voted for the Party's candidate in the past and generally agree with the Party's principles. Exact language on request. If not, you may still attend but you must register as an observer and you don't get a vote.
And I believe ANY of the GOP candidates would be vastly preferable to the disaster that is Obama, especially since a winning GOP President will likely usher in a Republican Senate and House that would be a check on Presidential nuttiness. And Newt's not a nut.
J. Ewing
Sometimes venture capitalists won't invest in someone until they have failed several times before. Apparently hoping that they have learned something. Maybe that's what folks see in Newt.
FYI, turns out the folks are attending next weeks debate. Not last weeks.
If the GOP in general were as you say, Newt Gingrich wouldn't have a chance. But we're smart enough to see past the sound-bite-quoting attacks to the deeper issues. For example, when Newt says the "Palestinians are an invented people" he is essentially correct, and he can back it up by quoting history. Then he can explain that he isn't saying it to be incendiary, but to bring balance to the subject of Israel and the Palestinians, something that the political correctness of the past (hopefully), and more conventional candidates, could never do.
J. Ewing
I think Newt will get the nomination and lose to Obama.
From what I see on the news the Palenstinian people appear to be quite real. Newt in charge of foreign policy will scare enough people such as me to donate and volunteer for Obama again.
Nothing much will get done it terms of domestic policy no matter who is president, though the dems would be too wimpy to be total obstructionists if the GOP should take back both branches.
Post a Comment