Quite simply it's because you'd have to be nuts to want that job.
But I disagree with you regarding one candidate: Ron Paul. He's got more brains, honesty and 'talent' in his little finger than any of the other candidates have in their entire bodies.
2007-09-26 04:32:49
·
answer #1
·
answered by skullklipz 3
·
2⤊
1⤋
There's no such thing as political talent. What's really needed is the ability to pretend you are what you think most people want, all the while not ever breaking character so that people have to face what they already know is true: it's all pretend.
As if anything is ever solved by "Political Talent"? Ability to shuck and jive, you mean. Look at Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy. Complete and total frauds, let lauded by their fans.
2007-09-26 11:34:58
·
answer #2
·
answered by dagiffy 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
I think the American political process is like Yahoo Answers in microcosm:
1) The best answers are never picked as best answers.
2) There is favoritism based on God alone knows what odd system of shorthand. (In the politcal world: "I know! I'll elect a guy I'd feel 'comfortable' inviting to a backyard barbecue! I don't want no aig-haid fer pres'dent anyways." In Answers world: "I never give thumbs up to people who cut and paste a correct answer instead of giving their homespun out-the-butt made-up 'I Feel' answer.")
3) And worst of all: the best and brightest aren't even regulars to the site. They have more sense than that. (So tell me: do you think it's the really brilliant people who spend a lot of time answering questions here? Likewise, do you think really brilliant minds sit around -- anywhere but in back issues of Batman and Superman -- and think "Oh to be leader of the world!" Nope. Dumb people with huge egos and ambition think that.)
2007-09-26 11:44:46
·
answer #3
·
answered by Mr. Vincent Van Jessup 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
That's a matter of opinion, I think there are talented and able Democrats running (Biden, Obama), and you never know if another may step up and take the nomination (Gore?)
I'd like to know who you would rather see run in the Republican and Democratic primaries.
2007-09-26 11:32:44
·
answer #4
·
answered by Global warming ain't cool 6
·
3⤊
1⤋
I don't really know if today's candidates are any less talented than previous ones. I just think that we now know more about them, thanks to the media, so we no longer put them on a pedestal like we used to.
2007-09-26 11:35:10
·
answer #5
·
answered by tangerine 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
I wonder... is it really a death of talent or have people almost always not felt they had good choices (with rare exceptions such as Kennedy and the likes).
Reagan was very popular... Clinton was very popular... (not that popularity equals talent.. but to the mind of most voters.. it's close enough)... Good question... but I think we really are just a little pessimistic as a nation.
2007-09-26 11:35:50
·
answer #6
·
answered by pip 7
·
2⤊
3⤋
Money runs out. Reach excedes grasp.
2007-09-26 11:30:59
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
The truth.
2007-09-26 11:29:26
·
answer #8
·
answered by masterplumber1975 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Money
Truth
Justice
Money.....
2007-09-26 11:31:08
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
its still early yet. give it time
2007-09-26 20:33:15
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋