Maybe we need to stop looking for Reagan or Roosevelt and just get the guy who reminds us the most of our boss's boss.
This is a pretty naive take on politics/debates, and it's not a very balanced one either. In order to win elections, you have to have big moments in the debates, especially when the field is this large. I agree that Cruz's speech wasn't 100% correct, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't try to take on an institution that's one of the least respected in the U.S. to gain favor with his base. Newsflash: Debates are basically entirely composed of diversionary tactics, side-stepping questions, giving half-truths, etc. That's just politics. It doesn't make it right, but that's how the game is played. That's not anything new for Trump and not a very strong argument if you want to make a generalization about the whole GOP field.
I had much the same reaction during the debate. So many times the candidates presented bull**** as facts and then when they were put on the spot they responded by attacking the moderators or giving tired party talking points. Lame. You could see Kasich is frustrated by being on the stage with a bunch of crackpots, nutballs, and unqualified hacks that are just BS'ing the public with impossible promises and nonsense.
It's really crazy. I've never been a fan of Kasich. But I guess no matter what I thought about him before, at least when compared to the other guys, he is more in touch with reality.
Jeb Bush telling Marco Rubio to show up to work is exactly what is wrong with the GOP - a bunch of privileged rich folks telling the poors to work harder.
I think there is truly a question of degree. I've been watching politics a good long time and this is a whole new level. Maybe it's just the "hungry litter" effect of having so many damned candidates. The candidates is too damned high!
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/79KzZ0YqLvo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
You can't represent regressive ideas and come off as 'inspiring', or even intelligent for that matter. The "let's go back to the good ol' days" always requires a selective memory (because they were never good for segments of the population) and a denial of the current and future reality. Change is the one constant; you can direct it and adapt to it, but you can't go backward in time. That's why 'Hope and Change' won over the nation as a whole but fear and regression can only win among the more favored segments.
So I recorded the debate and watched it last night. Cruz had some HUGE moments, I can not stand the guy, but for once he seemed human and did not remind me of the snake from the jungle book. Rubio was the other real winner of the night. But whoever wins the nomination will lose to Hillary, Rubio would have the best chance though.
Yeah, of all the clowns in the car, Kasich and Rubio are the only 2 I could ever respect someone for supporting.
Agreed, he is the only candidate that isn't a crash and burn candidate. I don't think that Rubio is very charismatic but he at least isn't a birther, crazy and hasn't stabbed someone trying to kill them.
I am coming to this conclusion. I don't expect someone that has amazing charisma to come around often. However I was shocked by how few of the candidates were well educated on the issues. Republicans can say what they want about Obama, but he is well versed on the issues... same with Hilary and even Sanders. For some reason the Republicans have been trending towards viable candidates that really are not familiar with the issues but have good background stories or are charismatic.... you look at Palin, Cain, Carson and Trump. It is as if they think they can just copy and paste the narrative of Obama or Clinton or Reagan and get a candidate.... what they forget is that (political positions aside) those candidates knew the issues, positions, etc. Reagan was criticized for his knowledge of the issues at the time, but if you go back and listen to his debates and press conferences, he was light years ahead of a majority of the current Republican Presidential candidates (Cruz and Rubio are exceptions).
If Conservatives had any intelligence in them and ACTUALLY wanted to win the White House, Kasich would run away easily with the nomination. He is the only Republican candidate that would ever have a shot at winning a general election against Hillary. The problem with Republican primary voters is they believe that they are the only ones who vote in general elections.
So true. I think he's the only candidate that stands a chance in the general. Moderate enough to steal votes from Hillary by dems who don't really care for her. And you would think he already has Ohio in the bag. But he's not nearly crazy...I mean, charismatic enough to win the nomination. When some of my family/friends who are Repubs ask me who I'm supporting and I say Kasich, they look at me like I'm crazy. The irony is, I'm supporting Kasich because I'm NOT crazy....
If I was a bleeding heart liberal troll who wanted to sabotage the Republican primaries, I would vote for Trump or Carson because I know they stand no chance of winning a general election. It seems as if the Republican base is full of secret liberals wanting to take down the Republican party or... idiots. I'm going to assume the latter.
Scary how the GOP candidates are lying so much about facts - I mean forget the media, they are calling each other out on their own lies and it doesn't even matter. These guys are toast in a national election against any dem.
Despite Will's excellent and factual piece -- and disturbing in just how completely fictitious some of the statements are -- I do think the media has to take some of the blame here. I wish they'd stop covering it like it's just reality TV. Who got the zingers? Who called out whom? The best one-liners. Who 'won' the debate? Kasich has tried the sane approach and been ignored. His angry-man act didn't play either. But as long as only the most egregious comments get press, the more substantive stuff gets lost. And, as in show biz (only for the not so good looking) press is better than no press. On this debate I thought some of the questions (and virtually all of the coverage) were designed to provoke the most gotcha moments. It's no wonder only the poligeeks like me follow this stuff.
