Candidates By the Numbers
By many often hilarious (and many more frightening ones), the Republican presidential field is the weakest, worst informed, most venal, least likeable, and most delusional group of candidates since the UK's Looney Party of 1968. Even after having shaken off the Huckabee-Fiorina-Santorum-Gilmore (YES Jim Gilmore was there! So say 2,000 primary voters somewhere) no-hope glad-to-be-on-stage brigade, they still sported a pretty sad lot. The "Christ am I still in this thing?" candidacy of Jeb! was euthanized solemnly by family members. Ben "Sleepy" Carson quit the race at some point but nobody noticed until much later.
For the remaining acts - I'm not going to add to the circus surrounding the Drumpf candidacy. Yet.
The Ted Cruz experience seems to be hitting it off with the least informed and most judgemental - you know, the "Republican Base." Not so the Marco Rubio show (a sentence which all rhymes, making this blog post actual art). Marco's "nice guy who will steal your money, give it to Wall Street, oppress the oppressed, and bomb brown people indiscriminately" seems to be a bad sale next to the "nasty and obnoxious guy who will steal your money, give it to Wall Street, oppress the oppressed, and bomb brown people indiscriminately" approach taken by Cruz and Drumpf (please watch the video linked above if you haven't already).
Oh, yes - and Kasich. The 'moderate.' Who is for the Gold Standard. And against Unions. and all abortions in all circumstances. And wants to cut taxes on the rich. Ignore global warming. And revoke Obamacare. You know, the 'moderate' who will take a Bush-like chainsaw to any evidence of social progress.
So, now that that's covered, here's my question: how many Americans are better qualified to be President of the United States than any of those Bozos?
Three are about 240,000,000 adult Americans. Let's say 150,000,000 are over age 35 (required to be president). Out of those, roughly half live in states where the teach the crazy (Texas, Alabama, Alaska, etc.). So that's 75 million in low tooth count states, and the rest on the coasts (including Great Lake coasts).
What does it take to be better presidential material than this cohort? I think a few points should cover it:
Reality-Based: I think first a president must accept that facts exist. Science exists. As grown-ups, we all have things we'd like to believe but just ain't so. It would be nice to be able to convince myself that climate change was a hoax and the human race wasn't committing suicide for the enrichment of less than 0.001 of the world population. But he science is there. Bummer. And when your country is attacked and harmed by a tiny coalition of murderous zealots (Al Qaeda - at about 1,000 members at the time of 9/11) you don't declare open bloody warfare on a billion of their co-religionists.
Also, the snake-oil of 'Supply Side" economics that call for deep tax cuts on the rich has been disproven conclusively the best way it could be: we tried it. Eight years of Reagan and four of H.W. Bush - historic deficits. Eight years of Clinton taxation - budget surplus. Eight years of W. Bush - crushing near-depression. Eight years of Obama - record economic recovery.
You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. The president has to get experts and listen to them. Not get "experts" and get them to agree to crazy shit.
Leadership: which is not whooping up your zombie crowd. It's leading the people in a positive, inclusive direction. The two major parties have been able to cooperate to some degree until the W. Bush disaster. He ruled from one side, waving the bloody shirt at every opportunity. And weak Democrats couldn't slow him down. Enter Obama - where weak Democrats could muster the gumption to support him.
The new Bush Republicans of the last 16 years stand for themselves alone. Bush crushed all dissent. The anti-Obama Congress dissented to their fullest power. 16 years of one party absolutism. It's not Leadership, it's the opposite. It's the exercise of raw power over reason. It's favouring your wealthy donors at the expense of all others. It's how you get into a debacle like Iraq.
Horsepower: Does the candidate have the basic IQ, personality, knowledge, life experiences, and behavioral capabilities to do the job? I don't think any of the Republican candidates have this. They are uniformly dumb, selfish, and unlikable. When Drumpf talk about a 'deal,' what he's really saying is 'how to screw the other guy.' That's not statesmanship, that's used car dealership.
Isn't there a Republican who can meet these requirements? I doubt it - if there were, that person wouldn't be welcome in the party.
So by my own arbitrary math, 20 million adults in the backward-belt are likely to be better candidates, and 50 million in the grownup parts of the US. So - and I really believe this - I think there are at least 70 million Americans who would be better presidential candidates, and if elected would be better presidents, than any Republican currently running.
How did we get here? Democracy isn't supposed to work like this.
For the remaining acts - I'm not going to add to the circus surrounding the Drumpf candidacy. Yet.
The Ted Cruz experience seems to be hitting it off with the least informed and most judgemental - you know, the "Republican Base." Not so the Marco Rubio show (a sentence which all rhymes, making this blog post actual art). Marco's "nice guy who will steal your money, give it to Wall Street, oppress the oppressed, and bomb brown people indiscriminately" seems to be a bad sale next to the "nasty and obnoxious guy who will steal your money, give it to Wall Street, oppress the oppressed, and bomb brown people indiscriminately" approach taken by Cruz and Drumpf (please watch the video linked above if you haven't already).
Oh, yes - and Kasich. The 'moderate.' Who is for the Gold Standard. And against Unions. and all abortions in all circumstances. And wants to cut taxes on the rich. Ignore global warming. And revoke Obamacare. You know, the 'moderate' who will take a Bush-like chainsaw to any evidence of social progress.
So, now that that's covered, here's my question: how many Americans are better qualified to be President of the United States than any of those Bozos?
Three are about 240,000,000 adult Americans. Let's say 150,000,000 are over age 35 (required to be president). Out of those, roughly half live in states where the teach the crazy (Texas, Alabama, Alaska, etc.). So that's 75 million in low tooth count states, and the rest on the coasts (including Great Lake coasts).
What does it take to be better presidential material than this cohort? I think a few points should cover it:
Reality-Based: I think first a president must accept that facts exist. Science exists. As grown-ups, we all have things we'd like to believe but just ain't so. It would be nice to be able to convince myself that climate change was a hoax and the human race wasn't committing suicide for the enrichment of less than 0.001 of the world population. But he science is there. Bummer. And when your country is attacked and harmed by a tiny coalition of murderous zealots (Al Qaeda - at about 1,000 members at the time of 9/11) you don't declare open bloody warfare on a billion of their co-religionists.
Also, the snake-oil of 'Supply Side" economics that call for deep tax cuts on the rich has been disproven conclusively the best way it could be: we tried it. Eight years of Reagan and four of H.W. Bush - historic deficits. Eight years of Clinton taxation - budget surplus. Eight years of W. Bush - crushing near-depression. Eight years of Obama - record economic recovery.
You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. The president has to get experts and listen to them. Not get "experts" and get them to agree to crazy shit.
Leadership: which is not whooping up your zombie crowd. It's leading the people in a positive, inclusive direction. The two major parties have been able to cooperate to some degree until the W. Bush disaster. He ruled from one side, waving the bloody shirt at every opportunity. And weak Democrats couldn't slow him down. Enter Obama - where weak Democrats could muster the gumption to support him.
The new Bush Republicans of the last 16 years stand for themselves alone. Bush crushed all dissent. The anti-Obama Congress dissented to their fullest power. 16 years of one party absolutism. It's not Leadership, it's the opposite. It's the exercise of raw power over reason. It's favouring your wealthy donors at the expense of all others. It's how you get into a debacle like Iraq.
Horsepower: Does the candidate have the basic IQ, personality, knowledge, life experiences, and behavioral capabilities to do the job? I don't think any of the Republican candidates have this. They are uniformly dumb, selfish, and unlikable. When Drumpf talk about a 'deal,' what he's really saying is 'how to screw the other guy.' That's not statesmanship, that's used car dealership.
Isn't there a Republican who can meet these requirements? I doubt it - if there were, that person wouldn't be welcome in the party.
So by my own arbitrary math, 20 million adults in the backward-belt are likely to be better candidates, and 50 million in the grownup parts of the US. So - and I really believe this - I think there are at least 70 million Americans who would be better presidential candidates, and if elected would be better presidents, than any Republican currently running.
How did we get here? Democracy isn't supposed to work like this.
posted by fiduciary at 1:39 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home