Republican Rivals Share One Bond: All Losers

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

<img src=http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/7141/CrazyRonPaul.jpg>

Quote from ratboy88:

yeah... and your choice, "Obamillary" is going to save the day? they are both CFR backed and will do what they are told.

 

[Kingofposters]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Bush Jr. was a governor of a very large state, and we have all seen how much damage he has done...

However, your strawman response to the initial article in this thread is duly noted...

Yeah, damage to the liberal psyche being the chiefest of the damages. lol

I do believe the medical term is Bush Derangement Syndrome. (BDS) lol

 

[ratboy88]

Quote from ratboy88:

yeah... and your choice, "Obamillary" is going to save the day? they are both CFR backed and will do what they are told.

i hesitate to post this because i know ZZZzzz will start drooling:

 

[dddooo]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Bush Jr. was a governor of a very large state, and we have all seen how much damage he has done...

And John Kerry was a junior senator from a liberal state and we all saw how electable he turned out to be even though he was running against arguably the worst president ever.

PS the article is plain silly, they've lost some states so they are losers. Yawn.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from dddooo:

Just to put thinks into proper perspective, DEMOCRATIC RIVALS SHARE ONE BOND TOO, THEY HAVE NO LEADERSHIP EXPERIENCE


A Democratic Field Without an Executive
By David Broder

WASHINGTON -- It was fascinating to watch the three top contenders for the Democratic nomination discuss their concept of the presidency during Tuesday night's MSNBC debate in Las Vegas. But it was also stunning to realize that the three current and former senators who have survived the shakeout process -- Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards -- have not a day of chief executive experience behind them.

By contrast, the Republican field is loaded with people who are accustomed to being in charge of large organizations. Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee were governors of their home states of Massachusetts and Arkansas, Rudy Giuliani served as the mayor of New York City, and John McCain, as he likes to remind audiences, commanded the largest squadron in the Navy air wing.

In the past, voters have preferred to entrust the White House to those with executive credentials. John Kennedy was the last sitting senator to be elevated into the presidency. Since then, the former governors of Georgia, California, Arkansas and Texas have dominated the list of successful candidates.
...
All of this places an unusually heavy burden on the three Senate Democrats to show they can do more than talk a good game of leadership -- and actually lead.

The burden of proof of readiness to be president is heaviest on those who have never borne executive responsibility. And that is something voters will have to weigh, whichever of the Democrats is the nominee.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/dems_lack_the_executive_experi.html

Excellent point. If you were hiring someone to run your business, who would you choose? A career pol with no real world experience or someone with demonstrated leadership skills and accomplishments? If voters want "change" as desperately as they claim, why would they ever want to pick career pols, particulalry ones who had spent the last 20 years in Washington, DC?