Anonymous wrote:Nothing to see here...just the primary season. Didn't the Democrats have a crowded field in the last few elections that included:
Dick Gephart, Carol Mosely-Braun, Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton, Bill Bradley, Jesse Jackson (many years back). These are a few that spring to mind....many nice enough people, but no chance in hell of winning on a national stage.

If you think Bill Bradley or Dick Gephardt are in any way comparable to these people, you have a screw loose. Those two were qualified to be President, even if they did not win.

And as for the rest, anyone can run. That's not the GOP's problem. The problem is that these kooks are the frontrunners. I do not think you will see a point where the front-runner was Moseley-Braun, Kucinish, Sharpton or Jackson. If you saw a poll that said "Sharpton leads the Democratic Field", what would you say on this forum? Then what would you say if two weeks later the headline read "Kucinich is tied for first in the new poll". And THEN what would you say if three weeks later Carol Moseley Braun was the frontrunner, and posters like you were saying we ignore her at our peril?

Well that's exactly what the GOP race looks like to me. Crazytown.

Anonymous wrote:Nothing to see here...just the primary season. Didn't the Democrats have a crowded field in the last few elections that included:
Dick Gephart, Carol Mosely-Braun, Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton, Bill Bradley, Jesse Jackson (many years back). These are a few that spring to mind....many nice enough people, but no chance in hell of winning on a national stage.

But not dingbat ignorant of Washington issues.

Nothing to see here...just the primary season. Didn't the Democrats have a crowded field in the last few elections that included:
Dick Gephart, Carol Mosely-Braun, Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton, Bill Bradley, Jesse Jackson (many years back). These are a few that spring to mind....many nice enough people, but no chance in hell of winning on a national stage.

The GOP base are a bunch of anti-intellectual idiots who only identify with a Bachmann/Perry/Cain.

The party puts them up to get votes. Then they run the show behind the scenes. Witness W.

The system is anything BUT a meritocracy. It's mostly based on pandering to the lowest common denominator, creating or stoking antagonisms between people who didn't previously realize they should be against somebody else, and greasing the right paws in return for campaign contributions.
It's also increasingly anti-intellectual, and heaps scorn on technocrats and educated people.

So you are surprised because...?

Also, I really would dispute the notion that Santorum or Bachmann are competent. There is a wide gulf between competence and embarrassing stupidity and incompetence, notwithstanding the "eyes glazed over with incomprehension" benchmark set during W's reign.

I'm not talking about quibbles you might have with a president's resume or intellect or whether you can name all of your heads of state. I'm not talking about criticisms of Reagan or Obama or Bush. This is another category..

I am talking about a complete lack of knowledge in areas that are basic to the presidency. I thought that Sarah Palin was a fluke, but now we have Perry and Cain. These candidates are unable to correctly describe their role as described in the Constitution (Palin), cannot recall their own budget cuts in a year when the budget is supposedly everything (Perry), and cannot discuss foreign affairs issues that are discussed on the nightly news without stumbling around like an idiot (Cain).

BTW obviously there are many candidates that are actually competent. You can't make this claim about Gingrich, Paul, Santorum, Romney. Bachmann I suppose is a tossup. Personally I think her gaffes were superficial and historical in nature and therefore embarrassing but not critical.


WTH is going on with the political selection process, that candidates can get so far before anyone realizes that they don't have a working knowledge of the issues facing a President?