The GOP’s Long Love Affair With Schmucks

[AUUSN 823]

"Unlike the Democrats, who never stray far from career politicians when selecting a presidential candidate, Republicans always seem to be looking for some sort of otherworldly savior to waltz in and take the country by storm. Someone unsullied by, you know, much (if any) actual experience in holding office, winning elections, and governing on a daily basis. Though GOP voters typically end up selecting major-state governors (Reagan, Bush II) or long-serving, partly mummified senators (Dole, McCain), they spend a hell of a lot time in primary season dancing with some pretty strange suitors.

Perhaps it’s the analogue to the longstanding and still-potent jibe that Republicans don’t really want to govern. They disdain the political process to such a degree that it takes them forever to pull the switch for a politician. Even the 2012 nominee Mitt Romney was touted more for his supposed business acumen as a turnaround specialist at Bain Capital than he was for his record as governor of Massachusetts. I’d argue, too, that Romney’s refusal to stand for reelection as governor in 2006 mirrored his party’s damaging dislike of politics. If you want to be president but can’t be bothered to actually learn how to govern, well good luck with that." http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/29/the-gop-s-long-love-affair-with-schmucks.html

[WarTim 3,456]

Speaking as a conservative....We have no love for libs. :bananadance:

[AUUSN 823]

Speaking as a conservative....We have no love for libs. :bananadance:

Conservative huh? Go post your score in the other thread and prove it.

[Weegle777 78]

Ummm...obama kind of fits that narrative as well. Just saying.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Both sides have more than their fair share of "shmucks".

I think the Republicans' problem is that, in the primaries, they spend all of their time playing to their base. The in the general election, their nominee attempts to move more to the center so that he can win. Reinventing one's self in the middle of an election will often make one look like a "shmuck".

[Weegle777 78]

In all reality, which politician isn't a schmuck?

[icanthearyou 4,462]

In all reality, which politician isn't a schmuck?

In my opinion, whether you agree with them or not, the ones who are true to their beliefs while still respecting the principles of democracy and recognizing the need for compromise. The ones who have to watch the poll numbers and take orders from their big donors are all pure politicians and therefore, shmucks.

[WarTim 3,456]

Speaking as a conservative....We have no love for libs. :bananadance:/> :bananadance:/> :bananadance:/>

Conservative huh? Go post your score in the other thread and prove it.

I did not make a post slamming your party. I certainly have NOTHING to prove to YOU. Have a nice day!!!

[AURaptor 1,122]

If you want to be president but can’t be bothered to actually learn how to govern, well good luck with that."

This sums up Obama, completely .

[AUFAN78 3,894]

In all reality, which politician isn't a schmuck?

In my opinion, whether you agree with them or not, the ones who are true to their beliefs while still respecting the principles of democracy and recognizing the need for compromise. The ones who have to watch the poll numbers and take orders from their big donors are all pure politicians and therefore, shmucks.

Do you think this has been an Obama's failure? Seems to me that even minimal compromise would bolster his standing with the right.

[autigeremt 6,598]

Does Clinton (Bill) visiting orgy island and Anthony Wieners silliness create some doubt?

[DKW 86 7,419]

If you want to be president but can't be bothered to actually learn how to govern, well good luck with that."

This sums up Obama, completely .

Touche'

[AURaptor 1,122]

If you want to be president but can't be bothered to actually learn how to govern, well good luck with that."

This sums up Obama, completely .

Touche'

Seriously. How anyone thought this guy could actually govern boggles the mind.

State senator - > two years as US senator -> runs for President.

ZERO executive skills, what so ever, and it shows.

[DKW 86 7,419]

If you want to be president but can't be bothered to actually learn how to govern, well good luck with that."

This sums up Obama, completely .

Touche'

Seriously. How anyone thought this guy could actually govern boggles the mind.

State senator - > two years as US senator -> runs for President.

ZERO executive skills, what so ever, and it shows.

if it weren't for JFK and LBJ, I would question whether all Presidential Candidates didn't need to be governors lately.

[cptau 169]

"Unlike the Democrats, who never stray far from career politicians when selecting a presidential candidate, Republicans always seem to be looking for some sort of otherworldly savior to waltz in and take the country by storm. Someone unsullied by, you know, much (if any) actual experience in holding office, winning elections, and governing on a daily basis. Though GOP voters typically end up selecting major-state governors (Reagan, Bush II) or long-serving, partly mummified senators (Dole, McCain), they spend a hell of a lot time in primary season dancing with some pretty strange suitors.

Perhaps it’s the analogue to the longstanding and still-potent jibe that Republicans don’t really want to govern. They disdain the political process to such a degree that it takes them forever to pull the switch for a politician. Even the 2012 nominee Mitt Romney was touted more for his supposed business acumen as a turnaround specialist at Bain Capital than he was for his record as governor of Massachusetts. I’d argue, too, that Romney’s refusal to stand for reelection as governor in 2006 mirrored his party’s damaging dislike of politics. If you want to be president but can’t be bothered to actually learn how to govern, well good luck with that." http://www.thedailyb...h-schmucks.html

Some Democrat primary candidates not to be forgotten:

1988 Jesse Jackson

1988 Jesse Jackson, David Duke

2004 Howard Dean, John Edwards; Al Sharpton; Carol Moseley Braun

2008 John Edwards

[homersapien 11,362]

"Unlike the Democrats, who never stray far from career politicians when selecting a presidential candidate, Republicans always seem to be looking for some sort of otherworldly savior to waltz in and take the country by storm. Someone unsullied by, you know, much (if any) actual experience in holding office, winning elections, and governing on a daily basis. Though GOP voters typically end up selecting major-state governors (Reagan, Bush II) or long-serving, partly mummified senators (Dole, McCain), they spend a hell of a lot time in primary season dancing with some pretty strange suitors.

Perhaps it’s the analogue to the longstanding and still-potent jibe that Republicans don’t really want to govern. They disdain the political process to such a degree that it takes them forever to pull the switch for a politician. Even the 2012 nominee Mitt Romney was touted more for his supposed business acumen as a turnaround specialist at Bain Capital than he was for his record as governor of Massachusetts. I’d argue, too, that Romney’s refusal to stand for reelection as governor in 2006 mirrored his party’s damaging dislike of politics. If you want to be president but can’t be bothered to actually learn how to govern, well good luck with that." http://www.thedailyb...h-schmucks.html

Some Democrat primary candidates not to be forgotten:

1988 Jesse Jackson

1988 Jesse Jackson, David Duke

2004 Howard Dean, John Edwards; Al Sharpton; Carol Moseley Braun

2008 John Edwards

I think the point relates to nominees, not contenders. The Democrats rejected these candidates.

[autigeremt 6,598]

"Unlike the Democrats, who never stray far from career politicians when selecting a presidential candidate, Republicans always seem to be looking for some sort of otherworldly savior to waltz in and take the country by storm. Someone unsullied by, you know, much (if any) actual experience in holding office, winning elections, and governing on a daily basis. Though GOP voters typically end up selecting major-state governors (Reagan, Bush II) or long-serving, partly mummified senators (Dole, McCain), they spend a hell of a lot time in primary season dancing with some pretty strange suitors.

Perhaps it’s the analogue to the longstanding and still-potent jibe that Republicans don’t really want to govern. They disdain the political process to such a degree that it takes them forever to pull the switch for a politician. Even the 2012 nominee Mitt Romney was touted more for his supposed business acumen as a turnaround specialist at Bain Capital than he was for his record as governor of Massachusetts. I’d argue, too, that Romney’s refusal to stand for reelection as governor in 2006 mirrored his party’s damaging dislike of politics. If you want to be president but can’t be bothered to actually learn how to govern, well good luck with that." http://www.thedailyb...h-schmucks.html

Some Democrat primary candidates not to be forgotten:

1988 Jesse Jackson

1988 Jesse Jackson, David Duke

2004 Howard Dean, John Edwards; Al Sharpton; Carol Moseley Braun

2008 John Edwards

I think the point relates to nominees, not contenders. The Democrats rejected these candidates.

Lol! What a bunch of BS. Lmao.

[japantiger 4,051]

"Unlike the Democrats, who never stray far from career politicians when selecting a presidential candidate, Republicans always seem to be looking for some sort of otherworldly savior to waltz in and take the country by storm. Someone unsullied by, you know, much (if any) actual experience in holding office, winning elections, and governing on a daily basis. Though GOP voters typically end up selecting major-state governors (Reagan, Bush II) or long-serving, partly mummified senators (Dole, McCain), they spend a hell of a lot time in primary season dancing with some pretty strange suitors.

Perhaps it’s the analogue to the longstanding and still-potent jibe that Republicans don’t really want to govern. They disdain the political process to such a degree that it takes them forever to pull the switch for a politician. Even the 2012 nominee Mitt Romney was touted more for his supposed business acumen as a turnaround specialist at Bain Capital than he was for his record as governor of Massachusetts. I’d argue, too, that Romney’s refusal to stand for reelection as governor in 2006 mirrored his party’s damaging dislike of politics. If you want to be president but can’t be bothered to actually learn how to govern, well good luck with that." http://www.thedailyb...h-schmucks.html

Some Democrat primary candidates not to be forgotten:

1988 Jesse Jackson

1988 Jesse Jackson, David Duke

2004 Howard Dean, John Edwards; Al Sharpton; Carol Moseley Braun

2008 John Edwards

I think the point relates to nominees, not contenders. The Democrats rejected these candidates.

Apparently you didn't actually read the article you quoted in your post...it specifically said "GOP voters typically end up selecting major-state governors....." and they reject "pretty strange suitors." in the primary season...seriously dude; you're not even trying.

[WarTim 3,456]

"Unlike the Democrats, who never stray far from career politicians when selecting a presidential candidate, Republicans always seem to be looking for some sort of otherworldly savior to waltz in and take the country by storm. Someone unsullied by, you know, much (if any) actual experience in holding office, winning elections, and governing on a daily basis. Though GOP voters typically end up selecting major-state governors (Reagan, Bush II) or long-serving, partly mummified senators (Dole, McCain), they spend a hell of a lot time in primary season dancing with some pretty strange suitors.

Perhaps it’s the analogue to the longstanding and still-potent jibe that Republicans don’t really want to govern. They disdain the political process to such a degree that it takes them forever to pull the switch for a politician. Even the 2012 nominee Mitt Romney was touted more for his supposed business acumen as a turnaround specialist at Bain Capital than he was for his record as governor of Massachusetts. I’d argue, too, that Romney’s refusal to stand for reelection as governor in 2006 mirrored his party’s damaging dislike of politics. If you want to be president but can’t be bothered to actually learn how to govern, well good luck with that." http://www.thedailyb...h-schmucks.html

Some Democrat primary candidates not to be forgotten:

1988 Jesse Jackson

1988 Jesse Jackson, David Duke

2004 Howard Dean, John Edwards; Al Sharpton; Carol Moseley Braun

2008 John Edwards

I think the point relates to nominees, not contenders. The Democrats rejected these candidates.

Apparently you didn't actually read the article you quoted in your post...it specifically said "GOP voters typically end up selecting major-state governors....." and they reject "pretty strange suitors." in the primary season...seriously dude; you're not even trying.

Bingo! Yahtzee!

[homersapien 11,362]

"Unlike the Democrats, who never stray far from career politicians when selecting a presidential candidate, Republicans always seem to be looking for some sort of otherworldly savior to waltz in and take the country by storm. Someone unsullied by, you know, much (if any) actual experience in holding office, winning elections, and governing on a daily basis. Though GOP voters typically end up selecting major-state governors (Reagan, Bush II) or long-serving, partly mummified senators (Dole, McCain), they spend a hell of a lot time in primary season dancing with some pretty strange suitors.

Perhaps it’s the analogue to the longstanding and still-potent jibe that Republicans don’t really want to govern. They disdain the political process to such a degree that it takes them forever to pull the switch for a politician. Even the 2012 nominee Mitt Romney was touted more for his supposed business acumen as a turnaround specialist at Bain Capital than he was for his record as governor of Massachusetts. I’d argue, too, that Romney’s refusal to stand for reelection as governor in 2006 mirrored his party’s damaging dislike of politics. If you want to be president but can’t be bothered to actually learn how to govern, well good luck with that." http://www.thedailyb...h-schmucks.html

Some Democrat primary candidates not to be forgotten:

1988 Jesse Jackson

1988 Jesse Jackson, David Duke

2004 Howard Dean, John Edwards; Al Sharpton; Carol Moseley Braun

2008 John Edwards

I think the point relates to nominees, not contenders. The Democrats rejected these candidates.

Apparently you didn't actually read the article you quoted in your post...it specifically said "GOP voters typically end up selecting major-state governors....." and they reject "pretty strange suitors." in the primary season...seriously dude; you're not even trying.

What? You've confused me. I based my response on the first sentence of the quote. The subject is about candidates, not "also-rans". You need to explain to me how I got anything wrong.

But you're right about one thing. I am not trying. I don't think this topic is really worth the effort.

[DKW 86 7,419]

So, Obama, having served 2-4 years in the IL State Senate and 2 Years in the US Senate was a career politician?

Let me get this straight. Choosing "Career Pols" is a good thing?

I guess you dont understand the beauty of the elective process whereby we can have peaceful revolutions and replace the "CAREER POLS" in DC.

[autigeremt 6,598]

"Unlike the Democrats, who never stray far from career politicians when selecting a presidential candidate, Republicans always seem to be looking for some sort of otherworldly savior to waltz in and take the country by storm. Someone unsullied by, you know, much (if any) actual experience in holding office, winning elections, and governing on a daily basis. Though GOP voters typically end up selecting major-state governors (Reagan, Bush II) or long-serving, partly mummified senators (Dole, McCain), they spend a hell of a lot time in primary season dancing with some pretty strange suitors.

Perhaps it’s the analogue to the longstanding and still-potent jibe that Republicans don’t really want to govern. They disdain the political process to such a degree that it takes them forever to pull the switch for a politician. Even the 2012 nominee Mitt Romney was touted more for his supposed business acumen as a turnaround specialist at Bain Capital than he was for his record as governor of Massachusetts. I’d argue, too, that Romney’s refusal to stand for reelection as governor in 2006 mirrored his party’s damaging dislike of politics. If you want to be president but can’t be bothered to actually learn how to govern, well good luck with that." http://www.thedailyb...h-schmucks.html

Some Democrat primary candidates not to be forgotten:

1988 Jesse Jackson

1988 Jesse Jackson, David Duke

2004 Howard Dean, John Edwards; Al Sharpton; Carol Moseley Braun

2008 John Edwards

I think the point relates to nominees, not contenders. The Democrats rejected these candidates.

Apparently you didn't actually read the article you quoted in your post...it specifically said "GOP voters typically end up selecting major-state governors....." and they reject "pretty strange suitors." in the primary season...seriously dude; you're not even trying.

What? You've confused me. I based my response on the first sentence of the quote. The subject is about candidates, not "also-rans". You need to explain to me how I got anything wrong.

But you're right about one thing. I am not trying. I don't think this topic is really worth the effort.

Should have thought about that before posting. Lol

[homersapien 11,362]

What? You've confused me. I based my response on the first sentence of the quote. The subject is about candidates, not "also-rans". You need to explain to me how I got anything wrong.

But you're right about one thing. I am not trying. I don't think this topic is really worth the effort.

Should have thought about that before posting. Lol

True. I seem to draw more than my share of fire. Need to choose my "fights" better.

[WarTim 3,456]

"Unlike the Democrats, who never stray far from career politicians when selecting a presidential candidate, Republicans always seem to be looking for some sort of otherworldly savior to waltz in and take the country by storm. Someone unsullied by, you know, much (if any) actual experience in holding office, winning elections, and governing on a daily basis. Though GOP voters typically end up selecting major-state governors (Reagan, Bush II) or long-serving, partly mummified senators (Dole, McCain), they spend a hell of a lot time in primary season dancing with some pretty strange suitors.

Perhaps it’s the analogue to the longstanding and still-potent jibe that Republicans don’t really want to govern. They disdain the political process to such a degree that it takes them forever to pull the switch for a politician. Even the 2012 nominee Mitt Romney was touted more for his supposed business acumen as a turnaround specialist at Bain Capital than he was for his record as governor of Massachusetts. I’d argue, too, that Romney’s refusal to stand for reelection as governor in 2006 mirrored his party’s damaging dislike of politics. If you want to be president but can’t be bothered to actually learn how to govern, well good luck with that." http://www.thedailyb...h-schmucks.html

Some Democrat primary candidates not to be forgotten:

1988 Jesse Jackson

1988 Jesse Jackson, David Duke

2004 Howard Dean, John Edwards; Al Sharpton; Carol Moseley Braun

2008 John Edwards

I think the point relates to nominees, not contenders. The Democrats rejected these candidates.

Apparently you didn't actually read the article you quoted in your post...it specifically said "GOP voters typically end up selecting major-state governors....." and they reject "pretty strange suitors." in the primary season...seriously dude; you're not even trying.

What? You've confused me. I based my response on the first sentence of the quote. The subject is about candidates, not "also-rans". You need to explain to me how I got anything wrong.

But you're right about one thing. I am not trying. I don't think this topic is really worth the effort.

Should have thought about that before posting. Lol

True. I seem to draw more than my share of fire. Need to choose my "fights" better. ;D/>

Once again, in the span of only a few days, we agree. ( This is getting a little spooky)...

[japantiger 4,051]

"Unlike the Democrats, who never stray far from career politicians when selecting a presidential candidate, Republicans always seem to be looking for some sort of otherworldly savior to waltz in and take the country by storm. Someone unsullied by, you know, much (if any) actual experience in holding office, winning elections, and governing on a daily basis. Though GOP voters typically end up selecting major-state governors (Reagan, Bush II) or long-serving, partly mummified senators (Dole, McCain), they spend a hell of a lot time in primary season dancing with some pretty strange suitors.

Perhaps it’s the analogue to the longstanding and still-potent jibe that Republicans don’t really want to govern. They disdain the political process to such a degree that it takes them forever to pull the switch for a politician. Even the 2012 nominee Mitt Romney was touted more for his supposed business acumen as a turnaround specialist at Bain Capital than he was for his record as governor of Massachusetts. I’d argue, too, that Romney’s refusal to stand for reelection as governor in 2006 mirrored his party’s damaging dislike of politics. If you want to be president but can’t be bothered to actually learn how to govern, well good luck with that." http://www.thedailyb...h-schmucks.html

Some Democrat primary candidates not to be forgotten:

1988 Jesse Jackson

1988 Jesse Jackson, David Duke

2004 Howard Dean, John Edwards; Al Sharpton; Carol Moseley Braun

2008 John Edwards

I think the point relates to nominees, not contenders. The Democrats rejected these candidates.

Apparently you didn't actually read the article you quoted in your post...it specifically said "GOP voters typically end up selecting major-state governors....." and they reject "pretty strange suitors." in the primary season...seriously dude; you're not even trying.

What? You've confused me. I based my response on the first sentence of the quote. The subject is about candidates, not "also-rans". You need to explain to me how I got anything wrong.

But you're right about one thing. I am not trying. I don't think this topic is really worth the effort.

Then you shouldn't be surprised when half-...... responses from you get exposed for what they are.