Sunday, October 07, 2007

The "electability" curse. This time, against the republicans.

Front paged at ePluribus Media and Booman Tribune


It’s a word that we are unfortunately all too familiar with. It is a big reason why we had John Kerry instead of Howard Dean in 2004. and it is a word that was also used quite a bit in 2006 when it came to the Democratic Party “leadership’s” (read: Rahm and the DLC) thoughts on the candidates fielded in the Congressional races in order to win back the majority.

Rarely is it a word that is used in a real glowingly manner. It is a term used almost as a last resort – when there is really nothing else that is praiseworthy enough to get a large number of people excited about. When someone is talked about as “electable”, none of their positions matter much, or are anything really worth praising.

“Sure, we really aren’t excited about [Candidate X], but he/she is the most electable. He/she has the best shot of winning.”


But now, even as the “beleaguered Democrats” are in the news and getting a (sometimes very well deserved) reputation for not doing enough to roll back the Administration’s abuses or bring meaningful action toward ending the sinkhole and occupation of Iraq, it is the republicans who are now using the word “electable” and “best chance of winning” to describe their Presidential candidates.

Well, that and words like “handsome”, “broad shouldered” and other strangely homoerotic/homophobic words if it is referring to Romney.

No more “strong on [issue X]” or “firmly against [any more of Y]”. Just “vote for me because I can win.” Giuliani is telling voters that he has the best chance of winning. Because, of course, the polls that are nearly five months before the first primary tell them so. Never mind the stances he has on nearly every single “values” voter hot button issue. Never mind the fact that most of the country doesn’t yet know how much of a farce and charlatan he actually was with respect to 9/11 – before, during and after. And never mind the fact that once someone meets him or sees him interact with others, he is usually immediately hated.

Interestingly, it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to say that most of the people who do favor “Amuricka’s Mayor™” are ones who don’t know all that much about him.

Yet, it doesn’t end here. Grandpa Fred Thompson begs to differ with Rudy. Hell, it was the very powerful combination of “conservative and electable” that got him to throw his hat in the ring in the first place. And now, he is still being declared as more electable than than the other candidates. Of course, never mind his stances on things that he can’t even remember himself. Or for making his audiences fall asleep. Or his “flip flopping” on some positions. Or the fact that he is called lazy by everyone that ever worked with or for him.

But that doesn’t even begin to describe the depth of this bad news for the republican Presidential field. Getting back to how “electable Rudy says he is, a lot of republican voters would vote for a third party candidate who was backed by the hypocritical theocratic gasbags who run the current form of the republican party over him. And a recent Washington Post article on Guiliani, the republican candidates and “electability” had this scathing indictment of the republican party buried in the article:

Half of those surveyed named Giuliani as the most electable Republican in the field, a slight dip from where he was in earlier polls. More significant perhaps is that no other GOP candidate comes close on an issue of vital important to a demoralized party worried about the elections.

I want to point that out again:

Electability is an issue of vital importance to the republican party – a party that is “demoralized” and “worried about the election”.

This is a far cry from the “permanent republican majority” that was rammed down our throats just three years ago. This is the sign of a party with absolutely no direction, no plan, no core issues to rally around. No values – certainly not the ones that it has trumpeted for (and against) for the past decade as they have continuously been exposed for the corrupt, criminal and hypocritical degenerates that they are.

This is a last resort. When you start hearing about or talking about a candidate as being “electable”, that only means two things:

Your candidate and your party is in big trouble.


Anonymous said...


I'm glad you are enjoying the GOP meltdown, but how electable are any of your friends from the Democrats? Edwards is basically a joke who exploited his wife's alleged ailments to raise campaign funds. Even America, which the left deems stupid, sees through that charade as indicated by his weak poll numbers. Obama, the great light, is too wimpy to take on Hillary and she is wiping the floor with him.

As for Hillary, she indeed does appear to be electable, but for the fact that she has meager experience and a history of corruption. Interestingly enough, it was reported today that Sandy Burger, a man who stole national security documents and destroyed them to cover-up for the Clinton era failures to address terrorism, is advising Hillary on foreign policy. That should provide a lot of comfort to those who claim Bush was been a foreign policy disaster.

In the end, the Democrats are on the verge of nominating a bad President's wife to lead the free world. Despite the obvious disarray with the GOP, I would not get that smug just yet. The Democrats have a long history of blowing elections they should have won. But being that the Clintons are as ruthless as they come, they mighty be successful by following the leadership of the Kennedys and steal the election as was the case in 1960 when Nixon was robbed of the White House, which is well documented unlike Al Gore's false claims about Florida.

In the words of American sage, If the Democrats had any Brains, They Would be Republicans.


clammyc said...


For starters, I haven't been ignoring your comments - just real busy (and frankly you hit on some points that I agreed with anyway. How about that???)

Anyway, I think what we have here is a complete breakdown on all fronts. Period.

I got a press pass to the republican debate at Morgan State University and got a good hard look at those candidates. Frankly, if the republicans were smart, they would get behind Huckabee.

As for the Dems, well, I support Dodd for now - at least until he is no longer in the running. Kind of the Huckabee version of the Democrats.

Edwards, Hillary and Obama don't excite me all that much, and some less than others. It is still early enough in the primary campaign, and money doesn't tell the full story (look at Ron Paul for example).

I don't think that Edwards is exploiting his wife, but there is a reason why he doesn't poll higher. I don't know why but oh well...

You have seen enough of my views on Hillary so we'll just leave it at that.

Also, as sad as it is, once you start using words like "electable", it is all over.

And that is what Rudy (the frontrunner) and Thompson (the savior) are using. So we get a bad president as we have for the past however many years anyway.

If it is a Democrat, at least out of this field, it will be better than the republicans out of their field.

Either way, we all lose.

Anonymous said...


For once I can't disagree with you, except that I would take anyone over Hillary.