Roger L. Simon: Presidential Candidates as Television Actors with Bad Ratings

Adding to the comedy of yesterday's post, another perpetual (or semi-perpetual) candidate Chris Dodd has complained that those snotty front runners (or semi-front runners, in Edwards' case) Hillary Clinton and John Edwards are thinking of practicing "debate elitism" and leaving out the also-rans.

Never mind that Dodd is not even scoring one percent in the latest Gallup Poll (how much would Paris Hilton score, if she decided to run?) - we have to hear from Christopher.

Okay, Senator Dodd, just what is the cutoff and what qualifies you to run for President, especially since your campaign is generating no discernible interest? Oh, yes, you are a US Senator. Okay, good, but so are 99 other people. And there is some question that being a Senator is even an important qualification for the Presidency, which is primarily an executive job. Corporate CEOs have more experience with that.

Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing Bill Gates or Steve Jobs run for President. They're vastly more imaginative people than anyone we have had in the White House for some time, possibly since the days of the Founding Fathers. (Gates and Jobs really did found amazing companies.) Also, they are forced to find pragmatic solutions to problems and tend not to bloviate. (Okay, they do preen, but they have demonstrably accomplished something, as opposed to most Senators.)

Anyway, enough of that. The basic question is raised: who determines whose campaign is taken seriously? In the final analysis, of course, it's the voters. People who have been running for office for a long while, years in many cases - Dodd, Kucinich, Paul, etc. - and are still only getting around one percent in Gallup should do us all a favor and depart from the scene. They arelike television actors with bad ratings, perpetually dreaming of making a comeback.

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

This is why no one watches these debates. There are too many people up there who just do not belong and that makes it all seem like a sorry little show.

The only thing worthwhile in these "debates" are the hangers on who might, at least, say something provocative or ask the impolitic question.

People don't watch because all politicians say are scripted platitudes and sound bites that are the same as any press release or MSM editorial.

I wish a generalist would run for president. Ya know, not someone who has deep specialized knowledge but someone who, when he talks, you say to yourself, yeah, that guy makes sense.

I wish I could agree with you, AlanC. But I haven't heard much in the way of interesting comments from any candidate on either side... though I did enjoy hearing Rudy call out Ron Paul.

The much publicized philanthropic monopolist
who has given the world the most virus ridden, dysfunctional operating system known to mankind is a candidate for the media's biggest fraud. And those who have more than an amateur's experience with it know it.

I’m torn on this one. Sometimes the only interesting words are uttered by an also-running. But you have to listen through 6 also-runners to get something relevant. How about putting one masked man in there to represent them all? He could be labeled Others.

Paul said what everyone in the world outside of the GOP has been saying for decades: US foreign policy is creating unnecessary enemies for the US. Rather than refuting his comment Rudy replied with self-righteousness and a demand that the non-ideologically sound heretic apologise. Right there Paul said something that desperately needed to be said and Rudy made it clear that he represents politics as usual.

On the subject of executives being the best choice for president, I’m reminded of the great job Peter Ueberroth did at the ’84 Olympics; so good in fact he was mentioned as a presidential prospect. Then he went on to be Commissioner of baseball where he orchestrated a collusion scheme for which he maybe should have been jailed.

Wait a minute. Is that good or bad as a recommendation to be president? I’m so confused.

Might being the operative word. They may not say anything or ask any question that generates a little light or heat, but, I think that the odds are better for the "drek" than for the leaders.

Unfortunately since this isn't reall a debate anything interesting won't get followed up on anyway.

If the format can be saved, which I doubt, I would like to see each candidate present a list of questions to a specific other candidates and allow the questioner to follow up. There needs to be more interplay and discussion and less speechifying.

Everyone? Everyone? Or do you mean most entrenched elite thugs, their families, and scribe hacks that work at either the party organ paper, or government TV and news media, and have a vested interest in keeping the ever revolutionary energies of America away from their little racket countries?

Debates only count when the nominees are chosen and the pressure is on. The Jerry Ford gaffe in 1976 was a disaster for the country but we all saw it. Reagan beat Carter in the debate and the trend reversed for a decade. I would like to see Rudy take Obama on and show what there is inside that suit. I suspect not much. The debates matter but only in the final event.

Ron Paul is an excellent illustration of why libertarians, real libertarians, cannot be trusted with the country's future. They are useful as agitators at the margins but the lack of serious national security credentials, as illustrated by Paul, make them unable to govern. They assume that everyone is motivated by the same concerns they are. It just isn't true. Neville Chamberlain could not conceive of a man who was not concerned with prosperity and peaceful business interest. He was unprepared for Hitler because, like most libertarians, he assumed that everyone wanted to be a successful businessman.

How about forbidding any campaigning, advertising, primaries, or fundraising until one year prior to the election?

Executive experience is regarded as important, which is why every president since JFK has been either vice-president or a governor. If Giuliani were elected, he'd be the exception, but then being mayor of New York City is a bigger job than running most states. It's interesting that of the Democratic candidates, only one with executive experience is Kucinich, who was the boy-mayor of Cleveland in the 1970s and drove that city into bankruptcy. All the others - Clinton, Edwards, Gore, et al - have not run so much as a hot-dog stand.

As for electing a business executive, we tried that once and wound up with Herbert Hoover. My guess is that neither Gates nor Jobs have the temperment to be a politician - to do the dirty work of coalition building, persuading, twisting arms, riding the rubber-chicken circuit. And neither can use the bully pulpit at all well, especially Gates. I'm sure they'd much prefer being in complete command of their personal empires.

July 15, 2007: Presidential Candidates as Television Actors with Bad Ratings

Comments

Post a comment

Email This Post