[freekitty]

Are we voting for personality or the man? LOL

Look what we got when Clinton and Carter were elected? Even Arnold. This should tell you that all the money; publicity; cuteness will not elect the best candidate. And so far; it’s batting a thousand we won’t elect the best candidate. Aren’t some of you atleast wondering why we have the candidates we do and why we are so cynical because we know most of those candidates are running opposite of what they say they are?

We have got to start electing our Presidents and public officials on the basis of issues; not “can they win” electability. This not only destroys good candidates; we also lose our values and goals. Our foundation crumble and our issues are lost.

[vaudine]

We (the people) keep electing "Personalities" and "likable" candidates. Except for Reagan, it has gotten us in deep d...trouble. You have to ask yourself if Abe Lincoln could be elected today? Or George Washington? I don't think they were scintillating personalities--just good on the issues. Fortunately, for them, they didn't have Hollywood and tv to contend with.

This is a Hunter thread, and I picked him and Thompson to support. However, the media is doing the same to both. However, in Thompson's case, the polls BEFORE he announced showed him beating all other candidates on both sides--hence the media put downs since he got in.

I guess in the instance of Hunter's campaign, it is difficult to hire the best people on a shoestring budget. Those heavy duty, scintillating, witty campaign flaks get big bucks. Boy am I glad McCain-Feingold got all that big money out of campaigns so everybody has a level playing field /s

vaudine

[angkor]

>>>>Are we voting for personality or the man? LOL

A man, a personality, some issues, and the times.

If it were merely the issues, a candidate could run on well-crafted position papers.