When both look like losers

The Washington Times ^ | 7-15-08 | Wes Pruden

[JZelle]

What happens if it turns out that we've nominated two unelectable candidates for president? Do we get our money back?

This illustration provided by The New Yorker magazine, the cover of the July 21, 2008 issue by artist Barry Blitt, shows Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama dressed as a Muslim and his wife as a terrorist. The magazine says the cover is meant to satirize the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the presidential election to derail Obamas campaign, but Obama's campaign called it "tasteless and offensive." (AP Photo/New Yorker)

Logic, common sense and the Constitution insist that either Barack Obama or John McCain must be elected Nov. 4. Right now it's difficult to see how. This could be the big break for Ralph Nader and Bob Barr. Together they could break 1 percent.

The senator from the South Side of Chicago is too grassy green, the man from the Hanoi Hilton is too old. Mr. Obama continues to demonstrate that lean and lithe or not, he may not be ready for prime-time politics. Mr. McCain looks like he may be past his prime. He delights mostly in needling Republicans, and mavericks are clever only the first time. Mr. Obama threatens to desert whoever brung him to the dance, giving conflicting hints as to who he intends to go home with. The late, great Casey Stengel's plaintive benediction on the New York Mets in their inaugural season applies on any given day to both candidates: "Can't anybody here play this game?"

Mr. McCain gained considerable ground in the public-opinion polls over the past fortnight, with Rasmussen (the current hot pollster), Newsweek and Gallup all saying the race is a dead heat.

[Enchante]

"What happens if it turns out that we've nominated two unelectable candidates for president?"

UH, as a matter of logic and arithmetic, one of them IS going to be elected (assuming it's not really possible for a Bob Barr or Cynthia McKinney to win!!), so it's not plausible to say they are BOTH 'unelectable'.....

[Always Right]

I agree with the author. In any normal election, either of these guys are unelectable.

[TruthWillWin]

Huh? What do you mean “look like losers”?

[JamesP81]

There should be a change in election laws. All ballots in all states should have a ‘none of the above’ option. If, at election time, ‘none of the above’ wins the electoral college, all candidates that ran can’t run again and we have another election.

[Ben Reyes]

“...to desert whoever brung him to the dance, giving conflicting hints as to who he intends to go home with.”

Even I, a practitioner of ESL, can see the problem with that sentence.

[AndyJackson]

In any normal election, either of these guys are unelectable.

There is a big difference between these two candidates. McCain is not exactly everyone's notion of a good conservative, but he is not incompetent to sit in the office of president. He does know the score internationally and knows how the system works. The other guy is clueless.

[Brilliant]

The problem is not that they are unelectable. The problem is that they SHOULD be unelectable.

[johnny7]

Better to face up to it... than to cry in yer’ beer. And better bin Obama than the Beast!

[onedoug]

‘Waiting to see McCain’s VP pick. I can’t vote for two of these goomers.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

There should be a change in election laws. All ballots in all states should have a ‘none of the above’ option. If, at election time, ‘none of the above’ wins the electoral college, all candidates that ran can’t run again and we have another election.

Actually, there is a "none of the above" option in the Electoral College - in the sense that the Electoral College is capable of failing to elect a president. All it takes is a George Wallace or a Ross Perot winning enough electoral votes to deny a majority to either major party candidate.

We then have "another election" - but that is in the House of Representatives, with each state's representatives having one vote. Only trouble is, the Constitution provides that the House select among the three top vote getters in the Electoral College.

[Cicero]

Well, Wes Pruden is not a dummy. He knows that neither Ralph Nader nor Bob Barr is likely to get more than one percent. So, the Democrat or the Republican will be ELECTED. But they are two of the must unelectable candidates it has ever been our bad fortune to see running for office. That much is true.

If Obama is elected, it will be because McCain is such a sorry loser. And if McCain is elected, it will be because Obama is the worst candidate ever to run for POTUS.

In other words, except for the usual swarm of deluded moonbats—maybe 30% of the electorate—nobody is going to be voting FOR either of the candidates. They will be deciding which candidate they dislike and mistrust more, and then voting for the other guy.

What a sorry situation.

[Paladin2]

"‘none of the above’"

Hear, Here. I'm ready for the Constitutional Amendment.

[Paladin2]

Word!

[hermgem]

All’s the same, nothing new.
At every election the yearning for another candidate comes up.
Too old the one, without accomplishments, experience, hollow the other one.
Go for their record on taxation, affiliation, background, persistence, unwavering loyalty to the good old U.S.A.
Got it?

[TBP]

The New Yorker cover was a liberal setup designed to me Obama look like a victim to help him get votes.

[Grunthor]

“Mr. McCain looks like he may be past his prime. He delights mostly in needling Republicans, and mavericks are clever only the first time.”

Bears repeating. Often.

[patriot08]

Those that stay home in protest, those who vote thrid party or write in are helping to put Barack Hussein Obama into the White House. Take it to the bank; every black church, every black organization, every mosque, every Muslim organization in every town and city across the U.S will get their people to the poles to vote- if they have to bus 'em in. McCain is the ONLY thing standing between Barack Hussein Obama and the White House. .

.

[HighlyOpinionated]

This article paints too dark a picture. Describe "unelectable" because obviously a lot of voters set them up to be electable.

The Democrat "problem" this year was that Hilary Clinton decided to run for President. If someone could have convinced her to wait four years, Barack Obama would not have been the PRESUMPTIVE Democrat Nominee. SHE alone took out all the other Democrat Contenders. She shoulda stayed home and waited.

The Republican "problem" was that no one who wanted to be POTUS had created a high enough profile for himself/herself. Republicans were asking of their Candidate-Choices "Who are you? Why have I never heard of you before? What mark on society have you made that warrants nomination to POTUS?"

We ended up with BHObama because of Hilary Clinton. We ended up with JSMcCain because his was the ONLY recognizable name for a majority of Republican voters.

Your Next Assignment, If You Agree To Take It, Is To Publicly Promote Republicans Who Have POTUS Characteristics and Personality: Integrity, Honesty, Leadership and Experience. MAKE POTENTIAL POTUS REPUBLICAN'S NAMES VISIBLE so that people connect positively to that name. ADVERTISE as many Republicans as you can so that they have Name Recognition with voters. And BEFORE you do anything, Check for Skeletons in each and every closet.