Thomas Sowell: on emotional voting
I have deep respect for Thomas Sowell and his work, and this column of his is no different:
It is easy to understand why there would be pent-up resentments among Republican voters. But are elections held for the purpose of venting emotions?…
Elections…have far more lasting, and far more serious ”” or even grim ”” consequences than emotional venting. The actual track record of crowd-pleasers, whether Juan Peron in Argentina, Obama in America or Hitler in Germany, is very sobering, if not painfully depressing…
Despite many people who urge us all to vote, as a civic duty, the purpose of elections is not participation. The purpose is to select individuals for offices, including President of the United States. Whoever has that office has our lives, the lives of our loved ones and the fate of the entire nation in his or her hands.
An election is not a popularity contest, or an award for showmanship. If you want to fulfill your duty as a citizen, then you need to become an informed voter. And if you are not informed, then the most patriotic thing you can do on election day is stay home. Otherwise your vote, based on whims or emotions, is playing Russian roulette with the fate of this nation.
Sowell is correct. But—
But elections will always turn partly on emotion. There are intangibles that determine our reactions to even the most experienced of leaders. The ideal candidate—my ideal candidate, anyway—has knowledge and executive experience, including experience in government, which makes a governor or former governor ideal. That candidate also, however, has a certain forceful and yet engaging personality that engenders trust (not blind trust, but trust) in the wisdom of his/her decisions for the future. It helps, too, if that person is eloquent, articulate, and yet sincere, as well as able to convey complex thoughts with a graceful economy of expression. And of course the thoughts that he/she expresses would have to agree with my policy leanings—not 100%, but a substantial amount.
It’s an order so tall few can completely fill it. I think Reagan came closest in my lifetime. And yet back when he was running, I was immune to his appeal because my politics at the time didn’t agree with his.
This election cycle, when I looked at the governors running for president on the Republican side I used to think “Walker’s the best.” After all, he had the admirable track record. He also seemed to have youth and energy, and what I’d seen of his speeches was, if not eloquent, then certainly eloquent enough.
But over time I’ve noticed that something is missing with Walker, and that “something” seems important. What is it? Is it something emotional, what I’ve referred to before as his “blandness”? Should that even matter, or does it represent a larger problem, one that would be a stumbling block in some way, or to winning election as president in the first place? It is disconcerting that a man known for his stubborn fighting nature seems so mild-mannered, so unlike someone who has done what he has in fact done. So the seeming contradiction (which may or may not be meaningful) in Walker confuses me, and that confusion causes me to back away somewhat from him and to look at the others.
What works for a governor at the state level is not necessarily the exact same thing we look for in a president. For one thing, states are relatively local and the country is not. For another, there’s foreign policy. We want a grander vision for a president, and I don’t know that that is merely an emotional need in us. I think it might be something that matters in a president.
What of the other governors? I thought Perry had promise, but that he was handicapped not only by his 2012 performance but by the fact that he conjured up too much resemblance to George W. Bush (even more than Bush’s own brother, Jeb). At any rate, it’s moot now. Kasich is deficient in that he’s too liberal for me, as is Pataki. Gilmore hardly registers at all and neither does Huckabee. Jeb Bush has the same deficits as Kasich, plus he comes across as weak. Jindal and Christie are conundrums, but in different ways. Jindal is obviously bright and quite conservative, but he just doesn’t project strength and I doubt he will ever gain traction in this election. As for Christie, I happen to like him (I’m from New York City, after all, and he speaks to me of home), think he’s smart, and believe he’s more conservative than people give him credit for. But I’m well aware that the base detests him and I don’t think he has much more chance of the nomination than Jindal does, although his numbers are somewhat higher.
A track record of proven executive experience isn’t enough. Agreement on political stances isn’t enough. Emotion and charisma isn’t—or at least shouldn’t be—enough. Knowledge and eloquence? Still not enough. What is enough? Some combination of all those things, plus depth of character, a ramrod spine, and an ability to project the quality of leadership. If a candidate has those things, I don’t care about a few flaws.
Carly is the answer.
Motivation and arousal are the key ingredients at this point in time. Thus, Trump.
Something Neo should have kept private: “As for Christie, I happen to like him (I’m from New York City, after all, and he speaks to me of home).”
Frog:
Actually, I’ve said as much several times already on this blog.
So my shameful secret was already out.
Christie is very very familiar to me. Very much like the people I grew up around.
Amen to Dr. Sowell as (nearly)always. With the recent passing of his great historical colleague at the Hoover
Institution, Robert Conquest, I’ve had him on my mind
A lot recently. Giants. Absolute Giants.
The qualities to which you allude neo are encompassed in the term, “Presidential Timber”.
Among all the qualities of which we might agree as desirable in a President, the foremost is depth of character, for without that essential, the others have no foundation upon which to rest. The ‘tree’ of leadership can only grow as high as its foundation will support.
I agree with most of your observations and comments….particularly re: Walker…I just can’t verbalize what it is that’s not working…the disconnect is there.
As for Christie…..and my growing up in NJ and living in The City for many years, yeah I get Christie…I’d feel real comfortable having a few beers and shooting pool with him….what I perceived as the “self appointed hall monitor” bit during the debate re: Trump and Carly is the kinda thing ( like bridge gate and his grandiose post 9/11 revisionist history regarding his taking the helm as US Attorney on 9/10 when he only got a phone call with a job offer…. and was not even confirmed until Dec.20) just really bugs me and I don’t trust the guy…nor his judgement.
Still really like Carly and Rubio, and hope Carson shows another dimension…Cruz is a wait and see….It’ll be curious to see what happens as Trump begins act more serious and somewhat more reserved and he moves from the blueprint sales stage to actually naming “contractors” and unveiling some tangible models of his plans …if his current base expands….or begins to evaporate as the novelty wears off…..
The 15,000 per day for 2-3 years figure (that I think Bush put out there) gave some people a better reality check on Trumps Day One deportation nonsense and Carly’s riposte on his walk back of the face comment puts him in an interesting position….she crushed him with a cerebral comeback to his juvenile attack, so I’m pretty certain that he now feels he’s gotta one up her some how at some point….which risks exposing himself once again to yet another smackdown, or the ire of all the media watching for his next misogynistic (percieved) attack on her.
I want someone who speaks with intellect and without too much uhhing and umming. I agree with your post – we do gravitate to those who reflect a bit of ourselves. I am tired of presidents who can’t articulate a policy, position or decision clearly. I also am drawn to Carly. I would like to see her spoil the “war on women” meme for the democrats and I would love to see her go up against Hillary in a debate.
“Christie is very very familiar to me. Very much like the people I grew up around.”
I guess you must’ve spent some time on “The Jersey Shore”……
Not an attack neo….just a friendly semi inside joke…..
I once had a woman say to me she never voted– oh, except for president! Talk about low information–that’s what we’re up against.
Sowell:
The purpose is to select individuals for offices, including President of the United States. Whoever has that office has our lives, the lives of our loved ones and the fate of the entire nation in his or her hands.
Surely that was not the intention. And certainly there are more hands than the president’s in which our lives and the fate of the nation are held — our public educrats for one.
Sowell:
It helps, too, if that person is eloquent, articulate, and yet sincere, as well as able to convey complex thoughts with a graceful economy of expression.
When last had there been such a candidate? This is wishful thinking.
Sowell:
And if you are not informed, then the most patriotic thing you can do on election day is stay home.
Informed as to what? I am informed; informed that suffrage had been expanded precisely to include the uninformed voter, the emotional voter. And though I’m not staying home on election day, I am not voting.
And Neo-neocon:
What is enough? Some combination of all those things, plus depth of character, a ramrod spine, and an ability to project the quality of leadership.
Again. When last had there been such a candidate?
To the question “What will AMERICA look like after you are president?” — the answer ought to have been a variation on the theme “Like it had when once it defended its borders and did not denigrate, diminish, demote, American citizens to second class status.” But that was not heard; only pandering to Israel, and “I like Ron”.
As far as I can tell, Mr Trump, alone, has stated, unequivocally, Americans first. Further on Trump, this much is obvious – Mr Trump is not a man for all seasons. And this much is also obvious, he is nearest to the man for this season. Trump is visceral in a visceral age. He is populist in the age of mobocracy. If you can keep your head when all about about you are shushing “you can’t say that” then you’re the one we’ve been waiting for.
There is a time to plant and a time to harvest. There is also the time in-between, the time to weed, to scare the crows, and get rid of the weevils — that time is now, that hired hand is Trump.
Personality, “emotional venting”, and appeal to emotion can act in concert but they’re not the same thing.
Donald Trump, for all his virtues as a much needed shit disturber, is not qualified to be President of the United States – at least not a United States which is likely to be facing a huge international challenge and momentum deficit left by 8 years of Democrat Party maladministration.
If the only task of the next President was to halt and expel an illegal alien invasion, or insult leftist pansies, I’d be handing out his literature myself.
But I’m not even sure that my favorite – on the basis of ideology and rhetoric – Cruz, is going to be prepared to confront what we are likely to face. Perhaps no one is, or could be.
The steely constitutionalist hard man of the bunch, actually seems to be Fiorina. Geez.
I like her well-informed, unequivocal, and unapologetic directness. She can probably get away with a kind of no nonsense attitude on campaign that would be hung around any man’s neck by a puling press populated by girly men and histrionic females as evidence of misogyny.
But she has no real political credentials any more than Trump has.
Tentatively: Cruz and Fiorina.
But then I thought Paul Ryan was a take no prisoners fighter. So what do I know.
I you are going to make a case for Trump that is the way to do it.
Well said.
Well, Ryan hadn’t been in the spotlight quite the way that Fiorina and Cruz have been. He’d presented his budget plan to the House, and looked good doing it. But that was pretty much it for his public exposure. Cruz and Fiorina are both on the campaign trail, so we get more exposure with them than we did with Ryan.
Christie has drawbacks with the people who pay a lot of attention (which presumably includes everyone posting here). But I wonder how much the rest of the Republican population has an issue with him? If someone’s only exposure to Christie was when he was on TV, I suspect that they’d be much more amenable to him.
As I see it we have looming three (depending on how you categorize them) critical issues here; and two of them will be purely international: The middle east with Putin as a factor; China, and our borders.
Sure the Supreme Court appointments and all the rest will be extremely important, but these others could be existential issues in the near term.
Trump might well do what he promises to do about the invasion we are experiencing while simultaneously shoving a straw up the noses of crony capitalists … maybe.
But I simply cannot imagine a guy who comes off as our own version of IL Duce in a suit, being reliable internationally. And unfortunately after 8 years of sabotage, our needs may be much in that direction.
Neo, this is part of the problem: “Christie is very very familiar to me. Very much like the people I grew up around.”
That does not constitute a recommendation.
Yes, I know you have said as much about Christie before today.
But don’t most of the people you grew up around vote Democratic? Aren’t those the same people with whom you cannot now, since your conversion, discuss politics?
We grew up in different cultures.
You could not comfortably live in West Texas, and I could not abide living in NYC or NJ.
Yes, I’d vote for Christie over any contemporary Dem. But that does not mean I’d expect much in return!
Haven’t given up on Walker–yet. These phony debates do not well serve the thoughtful, bland individual; unless they get the media focus for better or worse. Jeb gets attention because of the name and his presumed (early) front runner status; Fiorina gets attention as the new comer; Carson, as well, but that may be waning. Trump gets attention to excess. There is only so much available during these cattle calls; and some candidates get over looked.
So far, this foolishness has benefited Fiorina in getting known. They have up to a point benefited Trump; although the final accounting is not in.
I still think the nomination will be won or lost out on the trail engaging in retail politics–and, of course, superior organization.
Sowell, is always on the mark, of course. I used to put great store in executive experience. But, no experience can really prepare a person for the job. George Bush learned that on 9/11. So, I have downgraded the experience factor and emphasize character and intelligence–with a compatible ideology, of course. You better be a quick learner. Hello Carly.
Frog,
I hear ya and would argue that we all hopefully avail ourselves of as many data points as possible….I grew up in NJ and NYC and was never really into politics….my family though working class was always staunchly Repuplican and VERY conservative….and curiously, for me…..later in life when I began to take an interest in politics and THEN began to have THOSE kinda conversations I discovered that about 98% of my friends were like me……even though we are a very blue state……birds of a feather, I guess……and same here in my new state…..almost a replay.
I always like to hear anecdotal stories of encounters with people of interest in my life….kinda of like seeing how much my mileage really does vary…like if W was running and you were at a dinner, golf outing fund raiser, parade or went to grade school with him where he mingled….I’d be all ears…and like anyone that travels extensively, or hunts or fishes knows….a little local knowledge goes a long way….
old flyer,
well put.
I’m not ready to pick a favorite yet. I’m actually looking more to the themes the candidates are bringing up and how others are responding. This will give us a base platform, and then I want to see who can best prioritize it, explain it to the people, and defend it.
Trump is one I can’t support because I don’t think he has done any homework and because he equates making money with success. If he can’t get through a debate without attacking Kelly in a stupid tasteless way, he won’t be able to talk to Putin. He has zilch understanding of foreign affairs–not even enough to find decent advisors. He thought Hillary would be great at negotiating a deal with Iran.
What do I want in a President? I want him/her to be able to send our military into combat and to plan to win if combat becomes necessary. After all, the President is the C-in-C. He is sworn to defend this country against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And that is his primary job. That is the primary thing I look for in a candidate.
Secondly, I want a person who respects the law. Respects it enough to enforce even laws he/she doesn’t agree with. I want that because the president is the Chief LEO of the nation.
The third thing I want is a person who is a fiscal conservative and will use his/her powers of persuasion to convince the Congress to work to balance the budget and reduce the deficit.
Fourth, I want a person who is pro business and free markets. Someone who understands that the heavy hand of government regulation is anti-business.
Fifth, I want someone who knows that taxes are evil and should be kept as low as possible. Taxes that are too high eat out the wealth of a nation.
I have known and talked with people who knew Truman, Eisenhower, and Reagan personally. The common theme about these Presidents that stood out to me was their inner toughness. A stainless steel backbone was what they all had. It is what a good C-in-C needs. When I look at the GOP hopefuls, it is hard to discern anyone who measures up to those three men as C-in-C.
Fiorina seems to come the closest.
Cruz certainly is a fiscal conservative and respects the law. Is he tough enough to be C-in-C? I don’t see it, yet.
Trump certainly has a tough guy persona. But has he really got the grit to send young men and women into battle and persevere even when things get tough? I haven’t seen it yet. I know he’s pro business. I know he claims to be for balancing the budget and low taxes. But those are recent positions. Can he be trusted to hold to those?
Rubio is a very smooth speaker and has good conservative instincts. But what kind of C-in-C would he be. He’s not seasoned. He’s never had a trial by fire. I would have more belief in him if he had a military record or had gone through a real crisis. Could he pull the trigger on a strike to take out Iran’s nuclear infrastructure?
I’m assuming Walker is tough because he has fought off everything the dems have thrown at him and is still standing. Is he the equivalent of Clark Kent? Mild mannered governor who is really Superman? I’m hoping that is the case, but how would we know thus far?
The rest are really below my radar right now.
That said, any one of the GOP candidates are far superior to any of the dems. None of the dems have the grit to be C-in-C. They’re all like Obama in that regard.
But it’s a long way to the primaries and more will be revealed as time goes by.
Fiorina Leads in NH in Post-CNN Debate Poll:
She may not finally get the nomination, but she may be the only one who can slow down the Trumpede at this point and give some breathing space to someone like Rubio or Walker.
“It is disconcerting that a man known for his stubborn fighting nature seems so mild-mannered, so unlike someone who has done what he has in fact done.”
As so often, Neoneocon is right on for Governor Walker. I grew up in his state of Wisconsin, got my introduction to the ruling class(es) in Madison, and have contributed to his political efforts several times, will again.
His kind of courage is a rarity not only in politics, but in ordinary life. Unfortunately, he doesn’t look the hero; his face has mild lines, one eye is a bit squinty, his bald spot shows, and he has a calm voice. Furthermore, as a bar-owner acquaintance explained to me about Walker, he’s a preacher’s son.
Not a big market for effective politicians in this day of TV heroes.
Carly is inside Donald’s OODA loop.
Emotions!
It has begun!
Well deserved!
Oblio Says:
September 18th, 2015 at 7:36 pm
Carly is inside Donald’s OODA loop.
Trump slapped Fiorina over her tenure at HP and, more importantly, Lucent, which everyone either forgets or describes as a success. Trump was barely even trying, but clearly rattled Fiorina, who started to unravel. Shes obviously touchy about that subject, which lost her the CA Senate race.
Fiorinas comments about Putin were cringe-inducing. She was so inane on the 14th amendment that even Rand Paul sided with Trump over the issue. Fiorinas attempt to take the immigration momentum back from Trump (weve been talking about this for 25 years!) was so silly that I think Bush even laughed. Her teary speech about burying a child over drug addiction, with weed as the gateway, was moving until one found out that it was a stepchild, that the birth mother had custody, and that the step child was 35 when she died. Yuck. She should be tarred and feathered for that.
Not to mention how a woman who, when she ran HP, partnered with the CIA to create the infrastructure for mass data collection, is described as some kind of outsider. Shes John McCain in a pantsuit.
And then there is her HP selling tech equipment to Iran in violation of the embargo.
I noticed a lot of articles today about how Trump was the low energy candidate last night, that the debate tired and deflated him. Well, he and the other candidates all did the post-debate spin; Fiorina did not.
Trump appeared at a rally the next day, and took questions all night. Fiorina did Morning Joe. While Fiorina is basking in the post debate glow, Trump is moving on to the next thing.
Trump is just getting started with Fiorina. Let her have her moment in the sun.
@ George Pal :
How can you follow a sentence that ends with
“…I’m not voting…” with such a passionate and
may I say eloquent argument in favor of a
particular candidate?
You do realize that not voting (or voting
third party) has the same effect as voting
voting for the candidate you
least want to win? Right?
G6loq says:
“the birth mother had custody, and that the step child was 35 when she died. Yuck. ”
Oh my……
thanks…I hadn’t seen that small fact……
CB
The riddle of leadership is the sheer neutrality of it.
A leader one day could not be a leader the next.
Leadership is one of those “necessary but not sufficient” propositions, where the degree of each necessary element can vary depending on the circumstances, but the sufficiency of the additional elements is based entirely on the circumstances at the time.
Egotists, narcissists and sociopaths are the idiot savants of leadership, although not the entirety of leaders.
Regardless of the political system, a leader-candidate is always subject to forces outside his control. Luck and fortuity have the final say.
Becoming the leader and then actually leading are two different things. The leader’s goals are subordinate to the preservation of power.
Ronald Reagan can be said to have exercised his leadership to accomplish two goals, bringing long term prosperity to America (and thus enriching hundreds of millions of people everywhere on Earth), and destroying an evil empire.
Mao exercised his leadership to sacrifice tens of millions of people, and inflicting terror and suffering on hundreds of millions, all in service of his ability to do so.
None of us knows who will do what, or actually can.
We can only assess whether someone in fact shares our principles, to what extent, and whether that person has a realistic chance of implementing those principles. None of this is more than roughly predictable.
All of it is subject to chance, and the purported factors defining the process may or may not be relevant.
What we can see is vaster than our ability to influence what we see.
Trite, I know.
And personally, having lived in NYC for five years and visited often, people there are actually very nice people on the whole, delightful mostly, and (really bizarrely) except for their politics, down to Earth.
In a 2003 speech, Fiorina said, “in the past 40 years, there are very few people who have used their talent along lines of excellence to achieve more things for more people in more places than Reverend Jackson. And we are all better off for his leadership.”
In the same speech, she recalls when Jackson called her on the phone to offer her encouragement, and to pray with her. She recounted: “I hung up the phone and said, ‘Oh my God, I’ve just been praying with the Reverend Jackson.’”
…
Fiorina has also mentioned Jackson throughout her professional career.
“And I thought about something that the Reverend Jesse Jackson said to me several years ago. He very graciously came to the offices of Hewlett Packard to visit me, because we were doing some work together for his Rainbow Coalition. And he said to me, ‘You know, Carly, every game is better when everybody gets to play.’ And I thought it was such a great way of describing why everything is better when all people, regardless of color or nationality or gender, get to play. Sports are better. Business is better. Politics are better. The world is better when everybody gets to play in things that matter.”….
…
Cough, cough [herbaltea:sip] These people are nuts.
Doom.
Al,
There is at work in the Democratic process the candidates and the electorate. A respectable case made for a candidate is pointless if a good case cannot be made for the electorate – and none can be made.
The LIV ( low information voter) is a misnomer, or, if not, greatly dated. The LIV had always been with us, at least since I had come of voting age — a long, long, time ago. Whether the LIV had voted for a Humphrey, or Muskie, or some other liberal Democrat or the Republican mattered little. The liberal Democrat had been, whatever else he was, a defender of America and a champion of the blue collar working class and the differences in the Parties were never sufficient to ever put the nation in peril. We have not, now, the LIV to concern ourselves with but the UCV (utterly corrupt voter). There is, in the caliber of the candidate and the measure of the voter, a certain consonance not befitting a serious nation. I don’t vote because I refuse to take part in pretense.
As to the candidates themselves, I do not concern myself greatly. The candidate I would least like to see win has not an opponent worthy of the term adversary. The candidate I would least like to win is a Leftist; his or her opponent ought be a man (or woman) of the Right but is, inevitably, a moderate, a fence straddler, or meandering down the median strip. I don’t vote because I refuse to consider speciousness a viable option.
I trust not voting does not prohibit an opinion.
I confess I skipped everyone else’s comments, because it is late and I have a lot to do tomorrow to help us escape what America has become. I skimmed them, actually.
What makes a great president? FDR was a truly dreadful peace-time president. He prolonged the depression. He created awful bureaucracies and welfare programs we are still saddled with today. But, after Japan struck Pearl Harbour, he became a great wartime leader, ranking with Winston Churchill.
I have great respect for Thomas Sowell. Had President Obama consulted him, we would not be in the dire straits we find ourselves in. But President Obama relies entirely on his inner circle, led by Valerie Jarrett. Great managers hire people who are smarter than themselves. Obama hired Kerry and Hillary and Sibelius and the list goes on through his whole administration. Can anybody think of anybody in the Obama administration who is worthy of respect? Truly, I can’t.
So, i’m looking at the current field. But I am also reading what Sundance at the Conservative Treehouse has to say. He explains why there are so many GOP candidates running. He explains why each one is running. He explains all the GOP rule changes for 2016. And he explains the goal. His thesis is that the GOP elite want to deliver Jeb Bush as the GOP candidate, and the rest of the GOP field is in the race to split the vote and make Jeb look good. They gave us McCain and Romney, so we know where they are headed: Jeb is their man and the rest are in the game to help.
Jeb was supposed to poll around 20% and Rubio around 10% and Christie 5% and Walker 5%. etc. etc. so, Jeb would look good.
You have to realize that the GOP elites answers to the Chamber of Commerce, Wall Street and a few big donors. They do not give a tuppeny-f**k about you and me. They finance campaigns through huge campaigns to PACs, and clobber any GOP candidate who steps out of line, even to the point of funding Democrats. I can give examples, if you doubt me.
So, you can look over all the GOP candidates, including Fiorina and Carson, and pick your favorites, and you will see each of them get picked off, just as Newt was last time, until you are left with Jeb Bush. That is the plan.
Unfortunately for them, the GOP elite, Trump entered the campaign and picked the one topic they didn’t want talked about; illegal immigration. He threw a spanner in their works and has disrupted their plans.
Expect a sustained media assault on Trump from all sides, including Fox News, until he is driven from the race, just like Herman Cain.
But I think Trump is made of sterner stuff. He has one advantage the elites don’t have. LIV’s know him, like him and root for him. He fights back. If he survives all that incoming fire and makes it to the presidency, he will be proven.
BTW, his two position papers on Illegal Immigration and the 2nd Amendment are concise, logical and good. Check them out.
I never expected I’d be defending Trump, the buffoon, and clown, but Sundance opened my eyes to how the game is rigged. There is a similar plan on the other side, and some of the same elites are stating to wonder about Hillary.
Shes obviously touchy about that subject, which lost her the CA Senate race.
——————-
No, it didn’t. She lost the CA Senate race because there was an R next to her name instead of a D. If you look at the big four statewide offices that were voted on in that election, the only one that doesn’t follow a consistent ratio of Dem votes vs Rep votes was the vote for State Attorney General. And that’s because the Republican running for that office was Steve Cooley, the popular DA for LA County. He got a lot more votes than the other three candidates did.
And he still lost.
With the partial exception of votes for Cooley, people voted the party line in the 2010 California election. Very few people were swayed by “issues”.
PatD: You’ve nailed it.
They’re going after Trump for one reason — to force Jeb Bush on us. And they will attack in turn every other challenger: if Fiorina gets too much altitude, they’ll turn the flak guns on her.
Their game plan is for Jeb to be the last “man” standing. If they succeed, how many of us will tune out and drop out in absolute disgust/despair? Which they will welcome, of course.
In the primary I’ll vote for the candidate I believe is least likely to further expand the reach of government and has a chance of winning the Presidential election. At this point I’ll settle for limits and look for reduction in government after we’ve achieved the limits.
PatD Says:
September 19th, 2015 at 1:45 am
I never expected I’d be defending Trump, the buffoon, and clown, but Sundance opened my eyes to how the game is rigged.
Some still don’t get what is going on err … emotionally:
Megyn Kelly SHUTS DOWN a panelist: Obama is NOT a Muslim and,
‘Are You Uncomfortable?’ Megyn Confronts Pro-Trump Guest over Muslim Question…
La Kelly doesn’t get it: We.are.not.in.this.together.anymore.
Do not keep any Libtard pets, do not be any Libtard’s pet.
One that one thing is missing from most of the candidates is a confidence verging on hubris. It is what is mostly required to attract women to men and men to men.
If a person (male or female) projects an aura of confidence and competence and has the bearing of a leader, people will invariably favor that person. It helps to be tall but height is not crucial.
I feel the same as you with regard to Walker. He just doesn’t look the leader that he obviously is. Trump projects confidence and is adept at verbal sparring. Which is why he is ahead in the polls (see Scott Adams blog http://blog.dilbert.com/ for an interesting take).
Fiorina is clearly a leader. She absolutely projects confidence. Bush is in great trouble as he seems so tentative and low energy. Carson is clearly accomplished and has some of that leader shine but at times he seems out of his depth or area of expertise.
Right now it’s all about being perceived as a leader as opposed to the particulars of policy. Polls in favor of Trump show a discontent with the Republican party (it’s position on illegal immigration in particular) and a vote for the most confident of the outsiders.
Yawrate Says:
September 19th, 2015 at 10:41 am
Trump projects confidence and is adept at verbal sparring. Which is why he is ahead in the polls (see Scott Adams blog http://blog.dilbert.com/ for an interesting take).
Scott Dilbert the man who though his way out of a cubicle….
Trump outside their box. They only know how to go after people inside their box. Plus Trump
more accomplished , smarter, thinks on his feet very well, etc. and has no limitations. He has
already explained that pols are stupid.
Right on:
When Wives Attack – Trump Persuasion Series.
Riding the Ying/Yang.
The problem his competitors have is … they all look effete … except for Fiorina who’s robotic.
I’m looking to vote for the best candidate who can win. When I figure out who the best or the acceptable candidates are, I look for experience, the right policies, and character. (Trump, by my calculations, missed on 2 and a half of them.) Only after I’ve chosen the acceptable ones do I consider which ones are most likely to win, and charisma and leadership play a role there.
So for me, it goes like this:
Carson, Fiorina, Trump fail on experience. (Walker scrapes by.)
I don’t trust Christie’s or Huckabee’s character.
Bush probably gets scratched off my list on policy, while Kasich scrapes by.
I’m left with Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, Walker, Santorum, and Jindal. They’re ordered roughly by likelihood of getting the nomination.
Oops – I forgot to state my point.
My point is that we currently don’t have to choose between a good candidate and an appealing one. There are people you can vote for with both your head and your heart. I’d like to see some of them doing a lot better, but they exist.
“Politics” isn’t a program that entitles you a smorgasbord of satisfying choices.
If you don’t like what is being served, you can always cook your own and invite guests – if you can attract any.
I wasn’t recommending Christie. I said I like him, and I said why. I certainly wouldn’t expect anyone to vote for him on the basis of my statement “I like him; he reminds me of the people I grew up with.” That was just to explain myself.
And no, the people I’m talking about from my youth whom he reminds me of were most definitely NOT all liberals. There were about 40/60 liberal/conservative in my immediate community when I was growing up. My relatives and my parents’ friends were mostly liberals, but they were not in the majority of the people in the district where I lived.
I saw a Christie appearance not too long ago, in person. It was a question and answer format. I went because I thought it would be entertaining. In fact, I was very surprised by Christie. Although I’ve been familiar with him for years, he was much more impressive than I expected. Incredibly intelligent and articulate, well-informed and able to rattle off facts with logic and flair, emotionally appropriate and sincere, warm, and tremendously funny. It was a tour de force.
Oh, and he was about 99% strongly conservative, although I realize he definitely has some less-conservative leanings as well.
I realize that those who detest him (and they are legion) won’t buy what I’m saying. But that’s the way it was, for me.
Kissy Christie.
Very err … curious.
Why take a big fat chance.
Then there was this, a few days before the Romney/Obama elections no less.
Yuck!
George Pal,
Thank for your response. I have to agree with virtually every point you make.
I fear the only solution is to extirpate the (hard) left
root and branch. They destroy everything they touch.
George Pal,
Doh!
I meant “Thank you for…”
I’m gonna have to fire my editor!
😀
I feel the same as you with regard to Walker. He just doesn’t look the leader that he obviously is.
I’d like to mention that Walker must have found out what the Left were doing to his supporters, so he is probably considering the consequences of his run, on his own family and friends.
The fact that Walker didn’t do anything to back up his supporters, whether he was ignorant or just powerless, must also plague him. And if it doesn’t, the Left will find something else to hit him with.
A HEAD’s UP of interest, here:
Actor James Woods has endorsed Fiorina – and is narrating her campaign biography, “Citizen Carly.”
MORE, here
http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2015/09/18/actor-james-woods-endorses-carly-fiorina/
With regard to Trump; if he is nominated the Republicans can say goodbye to Florida because of the Latino vote. Without Florida the very slight chance of a Republican victory disappears.
Emotions: cold anger …
The Coming Storm.
I walked away. No talking with Libtards no more.
JEB BUSH IN A DRESS: Top 9 Fun Facts About Carly Fiorina
A recitation of her past.
The cackle.
@0:17 … whoé¢! Catty!
Jeb Bush Posing With “Republicans For Bernie Sanders” Supporters….
Yo! These people running to rule us are nuts…
The Aristoc.rats …..
G6loq:
Those “fun facts” are either completely untrue (as an example, the very first point—“she supports open borders”—is simply untrue, as that site’s own link demonstrates), mostly untrue, out-of-context distortion of the truth, or irrelevant (such as, for example, that she appears on some lists as one of the worst CEOs; we already know there are people who detest her, of course).
Some of them I’ve dealt with before on this blog. I’m not going to waste more time on it, but I’m surprised at you for posting something of that caliber.
Let me add that I could easily find a bunch of “fun facts” about Trump that ought to make your hair stand on end. In fact, it’s been done: see this, this, and this.
As for her comment about Boxer’s hair, it was said not for the record but in a live mic situation when she thought she was chatting privately. I find her comment fairly innocuous, human, and (it just so happens) spot on about Boxer’s hair. If you think there’s anything the least bit unusual about that sort of talk when people think they’re not on camera, you are sadly out of touch with people, including politicians. The difference with Trump is that he makes his catty remarks on camera or to reporters, fully aware they are on the record. A lot cruder and ruder. I can only imagine what he says when he thinks he’s in private or off-the-record, considering what he thniks it’s okay to say in public.
Insulting a woman’s hairstyle =/= insulting a woman’s face. Let’ not pretend they’re anything near equal.
Nick:
That’s a good point. But an even bigger difference, in my opinion, is doing either in what you think is a private conversation, versus doing it publicly to a reporter in the guise of what you think is bona fide political commentary.
Virtually all of us are guilty of the first. Very few of us would be guilty of the second (other than Trump).
néo-neocon Says:
September 21st, 2015 at 12:27 am
G6loq:
Those “fun facts” are either completely untrue
Hmmm… tight on time today but went through some of it again. On immigration I perceive a lot of word smithing…. Anyways, here another recap piece by John Hawkins: The Conservative Case Against Carly Fiorina
He gets flamed in the comments.
I’m not sentimental about these politicos.
One never has all the facts and in the end it oftentimes comes to an ‘intimate conviction’.
She makes me nervous. We’ll see.
I think she’s a very good presenter and her experience handling Wall Street financial analysts’ questions serves her well in the current context.
She might win. Then … what?
I don’t … feeeel … she’s a conservative. More of an establishment/Chamber of Commerce type:
A Reader Says To Follow The Fiorina Donor Money
Trump: yes, nasties and mucking about with nits but … that’s the world of business deals. No deals, no business for drones to get a take home pay.
I’m surprised at you for posting something of that caliber.
Well, stretching the truth, twisting facts, jumping to conclusions and, running down self-agrandizing fluff spouting candidates is hard, depleting work …