Mike Der Manouel Jr. wrote this commentary for The Fresno Bee on the lack of good presidential candidates in both major parties. The Republican businessman has this observation:
What does it mean that, after the longest presidential primary season in history, a record number of televised debates, hundreds of millions of dollars raised and spent on television, radio, YouTube, MySpace pages, e-mail bulletins, and Web sites, that voters have absolutely no idea who they will nominate for president in either party? Why is it that nobody has emerged as a leader?The answer seems simple to me. There are no great candidates for president.
What am I missing here? It's still 2007, not one vote has been cast yet, and here we have pundits complaining that nobody has locked up the nomination on either side yet? What's wrong with choosing our leaders the old-fashioned way - by electing them?
Mike D: - I am not a pundit, and I am not complaining about anything other than that there are no great, inspirational qualified candidates for President. Is this not true? Are we fractured because there are SO MANY great candidates we cannot select one?
...what debates, Mike?..neither party has the guts, (or intellect) to engage in debates, that's why they went to the 'Q&A' format, "sound bite opportunities" allow one's speech writers to convey the candidates "views" and this time around, they've dumbed it down further to, "may we have a show of hands, how many of you would build a wall around America"?...most Americans, i fear, would fall asleep if a real debate broke out. spin has no value in a real debate and of course, the candidate's corporate backers certainly don't invite scrutiny...sorry, but the P.R. model that re-invented Reagan just wont work anymore, the internet changed that, the new republocrat emphasis seems to be on alienating voters to insure low turnouts on election day.
I agree they aren't having debates because they don't know what they will do if elected. I would just like to know what their platforms are if they have one. They really have to watch what they say because they are all liars and will get caught in their own lies. Right now all they can say is how they will do everything opposite of Bush. Lets just see when they are elected how they can handle the pressure of running a country.
To paraphrase Ed Koch: "Vote for me if you agree with me on 9 out of 12 things: If you agree on 12 out of 12 things see a psychiatrist."
I have a preference, but there is nobody, I really, really like. An observation: Both parties are "soft" on immigration, open borders and terrorism.
It’s going to be interesting, today, to see how the various unscrupulous presidential candidates attempt to spin the assassination of Benazir Bhutto to their advantage.
How are the Demos going to pin this one on Bush? How will the GOP make the Demos responsible for world-wide terrorism? One of the first rules of politics is: It's not enough that I do well; I must also destroy my enemy.
...Mike, I just read an article about Ron Paul, it seems one of the G.O.P. candidates HAS captured the imagination of the people, with unprecidented support ($) from the base, he has become the party's biggest threat, more than any of the dem. candidates, for sure, and I get so amused as the "establishment" tries in vain to marginalize him. But he wont go away!...here's the answer you seek Mike, are you sitting down?...your party is comprised of mostly "Bush haters", and leadership didn't get the memo!
It's not about Bush anymore. He is a "lame duck". The only power he is using now is veto power, which he as used the most of his entire two terms.
Even Republicans are jumping ship and "retiring", moving on to lobbying.
The Bush doctrine is pretty much over, unless the Congress looses it's spine again, supporting an invasian of another country.
Why did Republicans vote for Bush is the question, twice for that matter.
In reflection were Republicans satisfied with his two terms in office?
Since when does 6% in the national polls "capture the imagination" of anyone. Ron Paul is kooky.
Rich, the first time we voted for Bush, we thought he was a conservative, and it later turned out he wasn't. The second time, we had John Kerry or GWB. John Kerry wasn't going to be the President, no matter what our displeasure was with GWB.
No, other than the war on terror, which I support, and the tax rate cuts, which helped fuel the expansion of my business and allowed me to double the size of my staff in eight years, I am generally not happy with the way that Bush handled his two terms.
Given the others running against Bush there simply was no one else to vote for. I still think he has done the best he could under the circumstances of all he has faced during both terms. I still think they should get rid of the electoral college, put all of them on the ballot and just let the people vote and be heard. I would also like all of them to put it in writing what they are going to do and sign a contract that holds them to it or be out of office without a recall.
Jackie,
Nobody is running against Bush, he is termed out.
I hardly here a peep out of Congress and the Senate on how well Bush did "under the circumstances of all he has faced during both terms".
Congressional Republicans praising and supporting Bush (now) is largly gone, and may be considered a "kiss of death".
I think we should be able to sign checks to candidates, postdating them, if they do not follow through with what they promised simply cancel the checks!
I agree on the Electoral College it should be abolished.
Mike, the point I was trying to make is this; if you're not running away from Bush/Cheney, you're running WITH them, and the polling consistantly shows that joining the majority of Americans and seeking impeachment would greatly enhance your chances in '08. if I may...your party needs a clean start, and distancing yourselves from this rouge administration, and it's attendent corruption, scandal, flagrant un-conservative, and anti-constitution agenda, you have a starting point that solves the Ron Paul problem. (We agree he's a kook!)
Mike,
Don't you think the tax cuts have been marginalized by the increase in the cost of health care and gasoline?
Jim