I say, in the comments to on "Rand Paul reveals — in an interview with a 4th grader — that there's a 50-5o chance he'll run for President."
Having quoted Paul saying that the media will "get meaner and meaner when you run for president" and "pick you apart," I add:
And, yeah, the media will get meaner and meaner, so who would you enjoy seeing bullied for the next 3 years?
I think Rand Paul would be a great choice.
As for Scott Walker, we've got to keep him in Mad Town.
पोस्ट्स
४८ टिप्पण्या:
Alternate song.
It's sad that our political system has come down to which two candidates would be the most entertaining. A cynical person might observe that voting for president is choosing between two horrible people and deciding which would do the least amount of damage.
Out of all the potential candidates, I guess Rand Paul is the least horrible. But the presidential debates are all about emotion and trying to achieve a gotcha moment... trying to make you're opponent appear out of touch or whatever, they have little to do with substance or rationality.
I think Ted Cruz would be the most enjoyable to watch -- and he would likely have the most enjoyment doing it.
But I prefer boring candidates, myself. Please, no more messiahs.
"It's sad that our political system has come down to which two candidates would be the most entertaining. A cynical person might observe that voting for president is choosing between two horrible people and deciding which would do the least amount of damage."
I'm not talking about voting. I'm talking about what we're going to be listening to for the next 3 years.
In my view, unless something odd happens, Hillary is destined to win. I am adjusted to that, and I'll decide who to vote for, in the primary and in the general election, when those occasions pop up.
Meanwhile, I'm facing my 4th election cycle of blogging, and I'm trying to arrange my head around it.
There's sooo much campaigning and talking about the campaign. Sooo many debates.
It's madness.
I'm trying to think of who can help us with this madness.
I'm thinking Rand Paul.
He's our only hope.
Ron Paul doesn't cringe, so he's got that going for him..
"I think Ted Cruz would be the most enjoyable to watch…"
Really? I say Rand's more enjoyable. He's lighter, while still plenty serious, and he has a cool voice.
Ted's good too, but heavier and with a somewhat strange voice.
List of declared and potential Repubs
Christie I suppose, assuming nothing more comes from Bridgegate.
They both have plenty of baggage.
Rand can't help but put his foot in his mouth and day demeaning sexist things. It might make for entertaining television, but it won't help the republican party. Walker would probably be a good choice albeit far less interesting.
In my view, unless something odd happens, Hillary is destined to win.
I just don't see it.
Hillary!!! is a deeply flawed candidate. It's true she has shed the problem of Bush Clinton Bush Clinton because Obama got in the way, but Fabulous Press notwithstanding, I don't see much Executive Experience -- successful -- on her resume.
I do think she is the candidate that the Eastern Coast Press (Hello NYTimes, Obfuscating her problems) wants to Ram Down Our Throats.
"In my view, unless something odd happens, Hillary is destined to win."
I would love to read a post about how you reached your conclusion on this.
Hillary is destined to win.
I can't imagine a scenario that makes her President after Obama. Unlike the junior senator from Illinois, she has a record, and it ain't pretty. She also has a history of baking the truth. Which I believe will be an issue in the next election.
Of course, there's always the IRS, and voter fraud....
First woman, free stuff, fawning goose-stepping media. Yes, Hillary is a shoo-in. But her first term is going to be like most president's second-term.
So it's come to this, has it? The TV "Q" factor. Hair, height, weight and voice. Policies? Meh. What would be the chances today for a Presidential run for a Washington, Adams, Lincoln or a Taft--or even Truman or Eisenhower? To name just a few of our better Presidents.
To even ask such a question is to answer it..
"I just don't see it."
Well, exercise your visualization powers more strenuously.
1. Someone will win, so there needs to be someone else you see beating her? Who?!
2. If the GOP controls Congress, or at least the House and then has close to half of the Senate, then Hillary will seem to be a good balance, and her working pragmatically with Congress might seem quite attractive.
3. The GOP is doomed to screw up in the no no no it's not a war on women. They just can't help it. They're gonna do it. I've been trying to help them, but they don't want to be helped. They say: no no no.
Hillary's voice and overall appearance in speeches, etc. is terrible. Her supporters (and that includes those who would vote for her because she's not a republican) seem to be able to look past it but once she gets into full campaign style rah rah mode its going to get fun.
"It's sad that our political system has come down to which two candidates would be the most entertaining. A cynical person might observe that voting for president is choosing between two horrible people and deciding which would do the least amount of damage."
What do you mean "cynical"? This is a dirt-plain description of exactly what our political system has devolved to in the last several decades.
The only tolerable candidates are those who will never get within 100 miles of the Oval Office. The two major party candidates, having "won" the nominations of their respective parties, by definition have been vetted and approved as acceptable for office by the powerful elites who run the country. We might find a few irascible or rebellious Senators or Congresspersons here or there--Alan Grayson, Elizabeth Warren among the Dems, for example, and whoever the Republican equivalents may be--but they will never never occupy the White House.
(For an example, recall how Dennis Kucinich, running for the Democratic nomination, was largely ignored, ridiculed, and belittled...not so much by his fellow hopefuls, but by the media.)
Who would you like to hear arguing with Hillary?
During the debates I expect we will hear Candy Crowley, or one of her fellow travelers, arguing with Hillary against the Republican nominee.
I'd love to be a fly on the wall when Bill are Hillary argue.
@sostander/
How about the main event on the scorecard: Barry and Michelle? Now THAT I'd pay ring-side prices for..
It is funny how the voice is so important to woman. Studies have been done, and yes, guys with deeper voices get laid more often.
Hillary was destined to win in 2008 as well. Did the eventual winner even have name recognition to anyone outside of Illinois?
Accumulated baggage matters not. If a candidate is baggage free, we'll make some...
If Rubio would come out of the closet, he'd have a great chance against Hillary as the first gay, Hispanic President.
Twofer.
Prof.
Is Cruz even eligible to run for President?
rehajm said...
"Hillary was destined to win in 2008 as well. Did the eventual winner even have name recognition to anyone outside of Illinois?"
True.
The last three Democrat Presidents were guys who seemingly came out of nowhere.
I think Rand Paul will be very skilled at debating Hillary. I agreed with Althouse's point in a recent post, that he seems to be honing his skills. I can definitely see him using tactics to disarm Hillary in a debate.
Since the Clinton's own the media, basically, I think this type of tactic is the only way to defeat her so it would be a valuable asset for the GOP candidate to possess.
If the dems nominate a woman it will be Warren. If they nominate a man it will be Kerry or Bloomberg.
I wrote: I think Ted Cruz would be the most enjoyable to watch...
Althouse wrote: Really? I say Rand's more enjoyable.
Perhaps "enjoyable" is the wrong word. I think Cruz would be more exciting and dramatic -- precisely because he's more pugnacious than Rand.
Pugnaciousness is one of the few reasons Christie is compelling as a Republican candidate. You hope for someone to blurt out the truth. However, Christie is compromised -- not by his less-than-pure Republicanism, but by sheer weariness. He's had to make apologies and amends and he's worn out.
Cruz is still high energy. He's not my optimal candidate for president, but he'd be awfully fun as a campaigner.
* * *
"Watch" is certainly the wrong word. I don't plan to watch any of it. I'll read the reporting and the commentary. If any candidate says anything remotely interesting I'll check the transcripts.
Who could eliminate HRC in the primaries ala BHO?
Declared and potential Dems.
Ben Affleck?! He is pretty after all .
"Perhaps "enjoyable" is the wrong word. I think Cruz would be more exciting and dramatic -- precisely because he's more pugnacious than Rand."
Rand is a fighter but there's something more gentlemanly ingrained in him. He's a physician, not a lawyer. I'd like to see that in action. It's not about shredding the opponent. You need a deft scalpel hand, and Rand Paul is a man who has done surgery on many eyeballs. Often pro bono.
That's the man I'd like to see go up against the woman.
Hillary's a lawyer. I don't want to watch 2 lawyers scrapping.
A debate among those running to be president should not be "entertaining" in the way our "reality" (sic) show are--not because of drama, or sparring, or the theater of the debate. To the degree they "should" be entertaining it should be in hearing serious-minded candidates debating truthfully and at length about their own actual intentions and plans for how to attempt to remedy the myriad mortal ills killing our republic.
When was the last time we ever had debates like that?
Robert Cook-
What we need is a blogged debate. I don't mean bloggers commenting on a TV debate. I mean give the candidates the questions, and a deadline for responses, and have them post their answers. Then they can post replies to their opponent's answers. No space limit, so they can give as much detail as they want. Also, they lose the ability to run out the clock on questions that they don't want to answer.
Links to supporting facts would be encouraged. Third party candidates would be welcome to participate.
How do we make this happen?
Love ya Cook. Seriously. Hardly agree with you on most things I'm sure, but I'm glad you comment here.
Well Ann, even if you don't find some of his comments on women to be disparaging, you must admit he needs to establish a more coherent and consistent ideology. Against domestic drones then for them. Against the civil rights act then for it. Snowden is a hero now he should be punished. His foreign policy views have been even more all over the map.
I think he is a promising guy, but he needs more work before running for president.
If the dems nominate a woman it will be Warren
If we're talking best theatre, the Warren/Clinton Democratic debate is it. Which candidate can turn farthest left? Which can top the other in inauthenticity?
Meanwhile, I'm facing my 4th election cycle of blogging, and I'm trying to arrange my head around it.
And you would think by now you would have learned not to make ridiculous predictions almost three years before the election.
Look at your record on predicting presidential candidates (and winners). Frankly it sucks. Almost as bad as Dick Morris.
SteveR said...
Hillary's voice and overall appearance in speeches, etc. is terrible
That won't matter. They will find a way to make her campaign at least as much about nostalgia for the Bill Clinton economy, and that combined might work.
That's why we have to get the 'Bill as sexual predator and harasser' meme out there good and early.
Perhaps they will decide not to run, if they expect too much heat.
What we need is a blogged debate.
This would be awesome -- although you know the candidates themselves would not be the ones doing the blogging, but it would be the hirelings.
More back-and-forth amongst candidates is what we need, and sort-of unfiltered via a blog would be excellent.
I hope that Walker, Cruz, Christie, Paul, Ryan, Rubio, Santorum, and Huckabee all run. And that governor from Louisiana who's not one of the stupid ones. At this point, it looks like all of them are considering it, and at least five or six of them probably will go for it.
Then, the GOP needs to find someone to occupy the spot held down in years past by Cain/Keyes...maybe that nice doctor who was getting such raves some months back. And maybe Martinez, Haley, or Ayotte, because...well, you know. Heck, why not all three!
Whoever goes against Hildebeast, just remember don't invade her personal space.
MadisonMan said...
...although you know the candidates themselves would not be the ones doing the blogging, but it would be the hirelings.
Great. That would make the debate performance an even better indicator of how well their administration would run.
TV debates test skills that are basically never used in actual governance.
I'm hoping for a Hillary! vs. Christie cage match.
I can see them both in old fashioned unitards with Hillary eventually winning after surprising Christie with her signature move, the Hilary Heimlich!
That Scott Walker tribute video, being not a spoof but in earnest, is one of the most ridiculous things ever. Not just talking about political ads here.
And the ridiculousness only has a little bit to do with the fact that it's about Scott Walker. Even if it was about Oxygen, it would be bad,
What's the best theater?
If theater is to be a selection criteria, I would go with Ted Cruz.
Part of the theater is the reaction of the crowd.
I would really enjoy seeing and reading all the openly racist stuff that will come out of their mouths about Ted Cruz.
Or any woman GOP candidate.
They always go racist and sexist when faced with non-PC minorities and women.
Rand Paul being a white guy would just get the Usual Treatment.
We've SEEN that play before. How boring will that be?
That Scott Walker tribute video, being not a spoof but in earnest, is one of the most ridiculous things ever.
You'd be surprised how many kool-aid drinkers there are in Wisconsin. More like a cult.
No more Senators. Cruz, Paul, and Clinton should try and govern a state first. Maybe they could accomplish something. Elizabeth Warren would be a disaster. Senators are talkers: they should stick to bullshitting and scapegoating.
Mark Warner is the only Dem who might make a good President. He actually was a pretty good governor and is a practical guy. He would make a better President than most Republican governors. If Repubs were smart, they would encourage him to run and vote for him in the Dem primaries.
I didn't know this, we have a right to disagree with the administration. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJxmpTMGhU0
It is funny how the voice is so important to woman. Studies have been done, and yes, guys with deeper voices get laid more often.
Tell that to Justin Timberlake. . .
Who would I want to hear arguing with Mrs. Clinton? Bill?
Or, perhaps, someone who would point out that her to “remold society by redefining what it means to be a human being in the 20th century,” crosses the line between idealism and misanthropy.
To the degree that human nature cannot be changed, the desire to change it is, by definition, misanthropic.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा