We have a POTUS whose favorability rating among all Americans is near record lows. Clearly, the right GOP candidate has a wide open opportunity to make Barack Obama a one-term president.

But we have a field of Republican candidates which includes only three candidates that any reasonable person would say has the intelligence, temperament and experience to serve as our president. Of those three, probably only two could reasonably be expected to win the 2012 general election. Yet less than half of Republicans would vote for those three candidates. More than half of GOP primary voters still support candidates who are obviously flawed in one way or another, a couple embarrassingly so, but more importantly hold no chance whatsoever of getting a 51% plurality of Americans voting in the general election.

Why? Is there some reason why the majority of Republicans are still supporting primary candidates who are incompetent to serve as president and hold no chance of winning the general election? Are Republicans so confident that ANY Republican candidate will be elected, even if they are clearly unqualified to serve in that position? That would be false confidence and a really bad electoral outcome, for sure.

Voters have a free choice, no doubt. But why are we continuing to choose and support candidates who are so obviously flawed? Wouldn't Republicans be better served by coalescing behind one or two competent and competitive candidates? Please, try to answer the question and try to avoid attacking me for asking about what is so obvious

That is only your OPINION. Look at 2008 and the dems had to choose from a few incompetents, namely Hillary and Mr. TelePrompter, John, fake war hero, Kerry.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

We have a POTUS whose favorability rating among all Americans is near record lows. Clearly, the right GOP candidate has a wide open opportunity to make Barack Obama a one-term president.

But we have a field of Republican candidates which includes only three candidates that any reasonable person would say has the intelligence, temperament and experience to serve as our president. Of those three, probably only two could reasonably be expected to win the 2012 general election. Yet less than half of Republicans would vote for those three candidates. More than half of GOP primary voters still support candidates who are obviously flawed in one way or another, a couple embarrassingly so, but more importantly hold no chance whatsoever of getting a 51% plurality of Americans voting in the general election.

Why? Is there some reason why the majority of Republicans are still supporting primary candidates who are incompetent to serve as president and hold no chance of winning the general election? Are Republicans so confident that ANY Republican candidate will be elected, even if they are clearly unqualified to serve in that position? That would be false confidence and a really bad electoral outcome, for sure.

Voters have a free choice, no doubt. But why are we continuing to choose and support candidates who are so obviously flawed? Wouldn't Republicans be better served by coalescing behind one or two competent and competitive candidates? Please, try to answer the question and try to avoid attacking me for asking about what is so obvious

Two words. Grover Norquist.

"Is there some reason why the majority of Republicans are still supporting primary candidates who are incompetent to serve as president and hold no chance of winning the general election?"

"Incompetent" is a relative term. All presidential contenders and winners have been "incompetent" in some way or another, because they are human beings, not God.

Many said Reagan and Clinton--two favorites in recent decades--were "incompetent" too, but I don't think they were in the overall picture.

Thinking people look at the whole picture that includes not only a technician's skill in a couple of key subjects such as economy or foreign policy, but also

- character,
- personal integrity;
- diplomacy;
- trustworthiness;
- tenacity in staying true to foundational truths and core principles;
- statesmanship enough to put the good of the nation above his own party's
grip on power, and above the demands of idealogical individuals.

Personally, I don't know how anyone can say that Romney, Gingrich, Perry or Cain (even with his latest speechlessness on Libya) are "incompetent". They have proven experience that clearly states the contrary. They are accomplished people who have personal weakness in knowledge, as anyone would.

Don't forget that major B.S. fills in a lot of knowledge gaps to make most politicians look "competent". It's usually a question of whether you want a consummate B.S. artist and pleaser, or a statesman who is humble enough to look beyond himself for advisement on the major issues.

Originally Posted by ilovetv

"Incompetent" is a relative term. All presidential contenders and winners have been "incompetent" in some way or another, because they are human beings, not God.

Many said Reagan and Clinton--two favorites in recent decades--were "incompetent" too, but I don't think they were in the overall picture.

Thinking people look at the whole picture that includes not only a technician's skill in a couple of key subjects such as economy or foreign policy, but also

- character,
- personal integrity;
- diplomacy;
- trustworthiness;
- tenacity in staying true to foundational truths and core principles;
- statesmanship enough to put the good of the nation above his own party's
grip on power, and above the demands of idealogical individuals.

Personally, I don't know how anyone can say that Romney, Gingrich, Perry or Cain (even with his latest speechlessness on Libya) are "incompetent". They have proven experience that clearly states the contrary. They are accomplished people who have personal weakness in knowledge, as anyone would.

Don't forget that major B.S. fills in a lot of knowledge gaps to make most politicians look "competent". It's usually a question of whether you want a consummate B.S. artist and pleaser, or a statesman who is humble enough to look beyond himself for advisement on the major issues.

ilovetv: Well stated. People also forget that leader at all levels and indifferent occupations can succeed in their professional pursuits but fail in their private lives. That is why a Clinton was o popular a president in spite of his personal indescritions . Voters need to focus on how their candidate will perform in the political arena

A perfect description of our Commander-In-Chief.

Originally Posted by coralway

A perfect description of our Commander-In-Chief.

coralway: And your saying that with a straight face. Geeeez.. God bless your heart. I'll bet your really good at poker.

Originally Posted by coralway

A perfect description of our Commander-In-Chief.

Yea, that was a reasonable description in 1987.

Originally Posted by coralway

A perfect description of our Commander-In-Chief.

No, only this part describes him:

"Don't forget that major B.S. fills in a lot of knowledge gaps to make most politicians look "competent". It's usually a question of whether you want a consummate B.S. artist and pleaser"

- character, - CHECK
- personal integrity; - CHECK
- diplomacy; - CHECK
- trustworthiness; - CHECK
- tenacity in staying true to foundational truths and core principles; - CHECK
- statesmanship enough to put the good of the nation above his own party's
grip on power, and above the demands of idealogical individuals - CHECK

Originally Posted by coralway

- character, - CHECK
- personal integrity; - CHECK
- diplomacy; - CHECK
- trustworthiness; - CHECK
- tenacity in staying true to foundational truths and core principles; - CHECK
- statesmanship enough to put the good of the nation above his own party's
grip on power, and above the demands of idealogical individuals - CHECK

:1 rotfl:

Originally Posted by coralway

- character, - CHECK
- personal integrity; - CHECK
- diplomacy; - CHECK
- trustworthiness; - CHECK
- tenacity in staying true to foundational truths and core principles; - CHECK
- statesmanship enough to put the good of the nation above his own party's
grip on power, and above the demands of idealogical individuals - CHECK

Originally Posted by Loveithere

:1 rotfl:

Coralway, you're making a lot of people laugh today. You should be on the stage. (One is leaving in ten minutes.....ba da dum)

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Coralway, you're making a lot of people laugh today. You should be on the stage. (One is leaving in ten minutes.....ba da dum)

So, you've seen the pizza guy's interview on Libya too, hu?

That was absolutely the funniest dad--dummit thing since .... well .... the Wasilla Quitta told us she can see russia from her veranda.

No - no - no - since The Quitta told us North Korea is one of our allies......

Can't make this stuff up

Originally Posted by Loveithere

That is only your OPINION. Look at 2008 and the dems had to choose from a few incompetents, namely Hillary and Mr. TelePrompter, John, fake war hero, Kerry.

Hilary is incompetent, but Bush was not? Come on...are you for real?

Originally Posted by ilovetv

"Incompetent" is a relative term. All presidential contenders and winners have been "incompetent" in some way or another, because they are human beings, not God.

Many said Reagan and Clinton--two favorites in recent decades--were "incompetent" too, but I don't think they were in the overall picture.

Thinking people look at the whole picture that includes not only a technician's skill in a couple of key subjects such as economy or foreign policy, but also

- character,
- personal integrity;
- diplomacy;
- trustworthiness;
- tenacity in staying true to foundational truths and core principles;
- statesmanship enough to put the good of the nation above his own party's
grip on power, and above the demands of idealogical individuals.

Personally, I don't know how anyone can say that Romney, Gingrich, Perry or Cain (even with his latest speechlessness on Libya) are "incompetent". They have proven experience that clearly states the contrary. They are accomplished people who have personal weakness in knowledge, as anyone would.

Don't forget that major B.S. fills in a lot of knowledge gaps to make most politicians look "competent". It's usually a question of whether you want a consummate B.S. artist and pleaser, or a statesman who is humble enough to look beyond himself for advisement on the major issues.

Newtie does not have character, personal intergrity or trustworthiness.