Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Replace all Democrats

I agree, Romney is not the one. He got nowhere in the primaries last time and there is no reason to think he’ll do better this time. In fact the whole field was a disappointment. However, the pubbies have an annoying habit of nominating the “next in line”. I could see why Romney would think he was next.

We need a fresh face, as they say.

And, I’m sorry to say this, but I think the election of Obama, Bush II, and Clinton indicate that from here on out, in the Video driven media age, you have to have at least a modicum of charm. Charisma, personality, whatever you want to call it. And it’s got to be translatable on the tube.

They say Al Gore is quite charming in private, sorry Al, it didn’t come across, for example. Sarah Palin has it in spades, and she will continue to be influencial no matter how much the beltway elites of both partys look down their noses at her.

McCain had none of it. I’m not saying that is why he lost, but I think it is an indispensible ingredient at this time. And it is a born-in gift from God, it cannot be learned or acquired.

So, we better find some charming, telegenic, smart, able, conservative, because no matter how bad Obama is, or becomes, we will not be able to beat something with nothing.

Oh yes, we also need someone who doesn’t give a hoot what the NY Times, et al say about them. Rudi Giuliani has this quality in spades and I think for a republican this quality too is essential.

All names mentioned are for demonstration purposes only.


13 posted on 08/30/2009 10:37:27 AM PDT by jocon307 ( We're dealing with COMMUNISTS here, folks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: jocon307
And, I’m sorry to say this, but I think the election of Obama, Bush II, and Clinton indicate that from here on out, in the Video driven media age, you have to have at least a modicum of charm. Charisma, personality, whatever you want to call it. And it’s got to be translatable on the tube.

I would suggest two things -

First, ever since the passing of the 19th amendment (women's suffrage,) no president has had facial hair.

Second, ever since the passage of the 26th amendment (lowering voting age to 18, the winning candidate has been the candidate from the two major parties generally perceived to be the "least un-cool."

1976: Ford had been portrayed as clumsy bumbler; Carter: New and exciting.

1980: Carter's lack of coolness made even Reagan look cool by comparison.

1984: Reagan may not have been cool, but Mondale was the caricature of the old party hack.

1988 GH Bush was probably the 2nd least cool candidate in history having the good fortune to be running against the all-time least cool Michael "Tank-Man" Dukakis.

1988: Clinton was possibly the slickest candidate ever, and used the democratic party's ownwership of the MSM to perfection.

1996: Few candidates ever had as little grip on public perception as Dole.

2000: George W was never cool - and probably lost the popular vote (we'll never know.) But Al Gore truly thought he was God's Gift, and made W look cool by comparison.

2004: Kerry was the second copming of Al Gore.

2008: From immediately after the 2004 election, Newsweak (with its infamous Seeing Purplecover, and the rest of the MSM, started preparing the US to recognize that there were two kinds of people; the cool and the racist.

I hesitate to guess what awaits us in 2012.

86 posted on 08/30/2009 12:52:35 PM PDT by Castlebar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson