A german offers his accurate assessment of the GOP race

An article in Der Spiegel takes on the GOP farcical race:

The US Republican race is dominated by ignorance, lies and scandals. The current crop of candidates have shown such a basic lack of knowledge that they make George W. Bush look like Einstein. The Grand Old Party is ruining the entire country's reputation.


Africa is a country. In Libya, the Taliban reigns. Muslims are terrorists; most immigrants are criminal; all Occupy protesters are dirty. And women who feel sexually harassed -- well, they shouldn't make such a big deal about it.


Welcome to the wonderful world of the US Republicans. Or rather, to the twisted world of what they call their presidential campaigns. For months now, they've been traipsing around the country with their traveling circus, from one debate to the next, one scandal to another, putting themselves forward for what's still the most powerful job in the world.
As it turns out, there are no limits to how far they will stoop.
It's true that on the road to the White House all sorts of things can happen, and usually do. No campaign can avoid its share of slip-ups, blunders and embarrassments. Yet this time around, it's just not that funny anymore. In fact, it's utterly horrifying.
It's horrifying because these eight so-called, would-be candidates are eagerly ruining not only their own reputations and that of their party, the party of Lincoln lore. Worse: They're ruining the reputation of the United States.
'Freakshow'
They lie. They cheat. They exaggerate. They bluster. They say one idiotic, ignorant, outrageous thing after another. They've shown such stark lack of knowledge -- political, economic, geographic, historical -- that they make George W. Bush look like Einstein and even cause their fellow Republicans to cringe.
"When did the GOP lose touch with reality?" wonders Bush's former speechwriter David Frum in New York Magazine. In the New York Times, Kenneth Duberstein, Ronald Reagan's former chief-of-staff, called this campaign season a "reality show," while Wall Street Journal columnist and former Reagan confidante Peggy Noonan even spoke of a "freakshow."
That may be the most appropriate description.
Tough times demand tough and smart minds. But all these dopes have to offer are ramblings that insult the intelligence of all Americans -- no matter if they are Democrats, Republicans or neither of the above. Yet just like any freakshow, this one would be unthinkable without a stage (in this case, the media, strangling itself with all its misunderstood "political correctness" and "objectivity") and an audience (the party base, which this year seems to have suffered a political lobotomy).

The Republicans' Farcical Candidates: A Club of Liars, Demagogues and Ignoramuses - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

Click to expand...

I agree almost totally! 1. The media has spawned this sort of reality TV show, and while picking on individual candidates it loves the SHOW so much that it won't criticize it's baby. 2. The GOP race reflects all that is bad with the party and little of what it claims to stand for. 3. Why does it take an objective observer to see this while our mass media doesn't?

You mean a german offers his hyerpbolic, overly exaggerated, extremely biased, amazingly one sided and narrowly focused opinion.

Meh. I'd more interesting in journalists interested in having an adult conversation about the race rather then this freakshow sensationalized crap

Sadly the German is bang on. I'd welcome your extended review of assclowns running for GOP nomination and would look forward to knowing how each is well qualified and worthy. Why not start with Bachmann.

Stop being a partisan for a moment. Be objective. I'm an Independent and I do consider all candidates. Sell me and tell how the German is incorrect.

Even as the opinion piece creates a caricature of a monolithically inept field based on what some of the candidates have said, one finds the following note at the end of the piece:

Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that Rick Perry's "oops" moment took place in South Carolina. In fact, it happened in suburban Detroit.

That's pretty ironic given the hypercritical nature of the opinion piece.

The reality is that the pre-primary Republican field is diverse. It has its weak (even terrible) candidates. It has its flawed candidates. It also has candidates who are fully capable of governing at the highest level of office. The sorting process will begin in a few more weeks. For a few it has already begun prematurely courtesy of their own self-destructing.

donsutherland1 said:

Even as the opinion piece creates a caricature of a monolithically inept field based on what some of the candidates have said, one finds the following note at the end of the piece:

Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that Rick Perry's "oops" moment took place in South Carolina. In fact, it happened in suburban Detroit.

That's pretty ironic given the hypercritical nature of the opinion piece.

The reality is that the pre-primary Republican field is diverse. It has its weak (even terrible) candidates. It has its flawed candidates. It also has candidates who are fully capable of governing at the highest level of office. The sorting process will begin in a few more weeks. For a few it has already begun prematurely courtesy of their own self-destructing.

Click to expand...

The fact that you didn't say it has its good candidates is very revealing. The OP story is spot on.

pbrauer said:

The fact that you didn't say it has its good candidates is very revealing. The OP story is spot on.

Click to expand...

Actually, the German story is a bit biased, but it got me thinking..... Why not replace the Democratic party with those Germans. At least they have balls. LOL.

danarhea said:

Actually, the German story is a bit biased, but it got me thinking..... Why not replace the Democratic party with those Germans. At least they have balls. LOL.

Click to expand...

President Obama is calling them out, at least Mittens...

tjinta ibis said:

An article in Der Spiegel takes on the GOP farcical race:



I agree almost totally! 1. The media has spawned this sort of reality TV show, and while picking on individual candidates it loves the SHOW so much that it won't criticize it's baby. 2. The GOP race reflects all that is bad with the party and little of what it claims to stand for. 3. Why does it take an objective observer to see this while our mass media doesn't?

Click to expand...

A Trite piece of writing from some German.

1) The narrative of taking someone from the GOP's past and using them as intentional or unintentional geniuses in comparison with a current crop has been over used. If one points to the same rhetoric being used over the decades, an idiot would reply,"but that's because they have gotten worse!" At best such a reply is from the mouth of a partisan hack, and at worst, a historically and politically challenged twit.

2) Stop using incredibly short remarks from Republicans or conservatives who are disappointed. Realize that this sort of thing has always happened. What is important to keep in mind is why they happen to feel that way. As soon as this happens, the narrative of decline becomes complicated if not problematic, especially after you keep track of which groups of people are pleased or disappointed through the GOP's history. Using one word or phrases to demonstrate the intellectual or moral bankruptcy of the GOP is idiotic.

3) Don't deliberately obscure the details surrounding controversies and "oops" moments. While plausible that some candidates are more prone to do so or are prone to more errors or scandals than normal, keep in mind our media climate and penetration of information at the public level. Also keep in mind or memories. It is difficult to keep track of events that transpire over a year that the media likes to focus on. It becomes even harder to recall them even one year later, let alone years later.

4) Don't think that your circus is better than their circus. Primary seasons are often messy affairs when a seat is up for grabs. It gets a whole lot worse when confidence is low or lower than normal or when a party is trying to in some measure redefine itself. It was not long ago we saw this from Democrats, but by 2007 their message was clearer than in the past. Then remember the nasty and brutish Democratic primary season in 2007-2008. it wasn't long ago we were staring at a lengthy primary slugfest that divided the party before it unified.

I don't think this German should take a look in the mirror. His own country is one of the main causes of the trouble in the Eurozone. Germany was part of designing the Euro, and they are the ones who have stopped any potential solution to the eurocrisis.

However, I am like others very disappointed with the Republican field. Parts of it can be explained from the anti-intellectualism in the Republican party, and the Tea Party. But I think most of the blame can go to the Republican establishment who thought they could force Republicans to pick any candidate, and who has tried to destroy any candidate who challenge Romney. There are many good candidates out there who could have run, if they weren't afraid of the Republican smear machine.

Risky Thicket said:

Sadly the German is bang on. I'd welcome your extended review of assclowns running for GOP nomination and would look forward to knowing how each is well qualified and worthy. Why not start with Bachmann.

Click to expand...

In terms of qualification, beyond just the Presidential ones, based on past modern presidential races, I'd say that every candidate on the stage save for Cain and possibly Bachmann would be "qualified" to be President. Barack Obama is the least qualified President in modern history, and I don't mean this from some emotional plea but purefuly a factual one. He has no executive government experience, no military experience, and a near minimum amount of federal experience that could be had prior to running for election. Every other candidate on the stage has one if not multiple of those components. Cain would not reach that point in any way shape or form. Bachmann is questionable because while she's had more than the minimum amount of experience possible federally for her position before running, her position is in the house which has been historically viewed as a "lesser" position with regards to experience transfering to the office of the POTUS.

In regards to Worthy? Its a ridiculous abstract concept that neither you, I, or anyone else can say. Who is worthy to be President is decided by the people as a whole through elections, not by individuals. There is not some magical formula for determining "worthiness" to be President nor some kind of checklist hidden within the constitution outside of the static requirements such as age, citizenship, etc.

Who had solid reasons to vote for them? Well, that depends entirely on ones personal principles and view points. For example, I saw very few "worthy" reasons to vote for Obama in 2008. Because his views and policy beliefs didn't match my principles and views does that make him unworthy? All I can really tell you is why I think they are worthy to me, but it'd be up to the Public as a whole to decide. I'm just going to give a quick summary because I've expanded on many of them in other threads.

John Huntsman was executive over a state with exceptional economic growth and business environment. He has amazing experience as an executive, experience in the white house, and foreign policy experience. He has a solid record of actual accomplishments, not just attempts, at things relating to what the country is facing today. He was a good enough executive to be reelected by his state in significant fashion.

Newt Gingrich lead one half of the governmental force that assisted (along with the dotcom bubble) in bringing about some of the most prosperous times in the past 30 years in this country. He's a shrewd politician that understands how to function within the Washington system to get things accomplished and done, pragmatic enough at times to compromise when needed but often striving for the most feasable conservative option there is.

Ron Paul is a man of deep principle and significant respect for the constitution who I honestly believe first and foremost has the long term belief of what's best for the country in mind rather than personal ambitions. He's routinely shown himself to be someone who will act on what he thinks is the best for the country rather than simply what may be popular or in line with one party or the other.

Mitt Romney managed to win the govenroship in a traditionally democratic state while running as a Republican. After not running for a second term, the Massachusetts public polled more positively of the previous Romney administration than the Democratic administration that followed him, highlighting his across the board appeal. His average approval rating was 47.5%, 2.5% off Obama's average as President, and largely influenced by a distinct downward trend from the moment he announced he would not run for a second term.

Rick Perry has been a successful enough executive of the second most populus state in the Union to be relected not just once but three times.

I think all five are just as "worthy" of the spot as Obama was when he won it.

Have there been scandals? Absolutely. Some of a personal nature, some of a political nature. The same can be said for our current sitting President and multiple past Presidents or candidates. Have there been gaffes in speech? Absolutely. Once again, see my former statement. If gaffes or scandals alone invalidated people from being worthy of being Presidents then Barack Obama, George Bush, Bill Clinton and back we go all wouldn't have been Presidents. Yet, despite their gaffes and scandals the public still deemed them worthy through their votes.

We live in a 24/7 news, Web 2.0, technologically advanced society that is in and of itself unlike anything we've seen before. Just the differences now compared to say the 2004 election is striking with how much more wide spread things can be with the likes of twitter, high quality cell phone camers, youtube, the proliferation and further legitimization of blogs, etc. Looking at a particular field of candidates and the issues that crop up around them without also taking a reasonable and realistic look at the context of the world around them compared to the past as if they are analogs is foolhardy.

The Republican candidates are like many groups of Democrat and Republican primary candidates before them...a group of people with views running the full gammut of political spectrum on their side of the ideological divide who are speaking primarily to their base during this point and time and who are likely to have some types of issues that can "come to light" and gaffes that they will undoubtably make.

donsutherland1 said:

That's pretty ironic given the hypercritical nature of the opinion piece.

Click to expand...

That is too freaking funny and so amazingly ironic. I guess the author makes George Bush look like Einstein.

Fiddytree said:

A Trite piece of writing from some German.

Click to expand...

donsutherland1 said:

That's pretty ironic given the hypercritical nature of the opinion piece.

Click to expand...

Myself, Fiddlytree, and Don all lambast this article. Obviously, its because the three of us are such large right wing Republican partisans.

Pundits are pundits no matter where they live. Germans are by and large arrogant to begin with. Who cares what they say.

The truly hillarious part about this is that the reason none of these individuals have separated themselves from the pack in the GOP race is because none of them have been CRAZY, ZANY, or OUTRAGEOUS (aka CONSERVATIVE) ENOUGH for most of us on the Right end of the political spectrum.

pbrauer said:

The fact that you didn't say it has its good candidates is very revealing.

Click to expand...

I won't reach any such conclusions until I see how they actually handle themselves in the heat of battle of primary season. Then, it will become, more evident as to who is a good candidate or not.

For now, this is how I see the field. Note: This list is personal opinion and does not concern whether I agree or disagree with their positions on the issues, just their overall fitness for the job of President.

Capable of governing as President:
Jon Huntsman
Mitt Romney

(alphabetical order, not a ranking of any kind)

Reason: Both had reasonably successful tenures as Governor, both have not demonstrated a lack of discipline to date. Huntsman's Pentagon reform plan demonstrated strategic depth in his thinking. Lack of charisma is an obstacle to the nomination. It could also raise issues for their ability to align support for large-scale changes, but a good staff could mitigate those challenges. They are ready to govern.

Falls Just Short of being Presidential Material but Probably Cabinet-Level Material:
Newt Gingrich

Reason: Although he has had charisma and has long been an "ideas" person, he has often been confrontational and undisciplined (e.g., his near self-destruction during the early part of the campaign process). He would probably wind up being a polarizing figure who wouldn't be able to get things done. Washington's lack of capacity to get things done is already causing problems and concern (S&P's downgrade, Moody's and Fitch's negative outlooks). A President cannot afford to be impulsive without risking policy disaster.

Not Presidential Material:
Congresswoman Michele Bachmann:

Reason: Ideological. Few substantive achievements that would demonstrate Presidential leadership ability.

Herman Cain.

Reason: Probably the most unqualified of the field. No gravitas. No relevant experience. Frequently lost at times. No demonstration of a willingness to learn basic details concerning foreign and domestic policy. "Superficial," "hollow," and "tone-deaf" are three adjectives that come to mind. Conduct following allegations of an affair demonstrates an inability to prioritize. IMO, he's already finished, even if he obstinately chooses to carry on with his campaign.

Congressman Ron Paul.

Reason: Ideological and revolutionary. A "prophet" not policy maker. Uncompromising. Demonstrates little grasp that the nation has complex overseas interests, the importance of central banking in general, and macroeconomic/fiscal realities tied to the federal budget. Sees a "3D" world in "1D" or "2D."

Governor Rick Perry.

Reason: His utter lack of preparation for the campaign and repeated gaffes demonstrate that even if he has fared reasonably well as Texas Governor (elected to three terms), that's probably the outer limit of his abilities. With three terms as Governor, he should have done far better. A good President needs to be strategic and knowledgeable on a wide range of issues (domestic and foreign policy). Perry lacks those attributes. No repackaging via advertising will prove an adequate substitute for a product that doesn't fit the task at hand (Presidential leadership).

Senator Rick Santorum.

Reason: Too narrowly focused, almost exclusively on cultural conservative matters (largely outside the purview of the Presidency) and national security (relies on the neoconservative school which, unlike Paul's neo-isolationism/non-interventionism is relevant whether one agrees/disagrees with its core premises). His "economic plan" that assumed 5% real growth demonstrated little understanding of the American economy and the dynamics of such mature economies.

Tigger said:

The truly hillarious part about this is that the reason none of these individuals have separated themselves from the pack in the GOP race is because none of them have been CRAZY, ZANY, or OUTRAGEOUS (aka CONSERVATIVE) ENOUGH for most of us on the Right end of the political spectrum.

Click to expand...

Would be irrelevant, as people with a similar mindset and view point of what conservatism is as yours make up a tiny portion of the population and would not be able to give enough support to "seperate" themselves from the other candidates, especially since such extreme views would polarize the vast majority of the rest of the voting public in the election. If anything such a candidate would have success very similar, if not worse, than Ron Paul had in 2008 which is hardly "seperating" themselves other than seperating themselves towards the bottom..

Ï would have put Romney and Gingrich in the same category. Romney has many problems that you completely ignored. For instance his tendency to avoid questions and interviews, that he gets mad if anyone ask him a difficult question, his lack of support and enthusiasm from the base and his lack of trustworthiness.

But there are something else that is just as important. How will he will affect the future of the Republican Party. Here Romney will be a disaster if he loses, because he will create massive conflict within the Republican Party. Gingrich won't and Republicans can find a better candidate in 2016.

Screw that German.

He has nothing to do with our elections, our candidates or our country.

I suggest he take a flying leap into the cesspool of his own mind and wallow in it.

A German op-ed bad mouths the GOP? :lamo


Ohhhhhhhhh, the irony!

Zyphlin said:

Would be irrelevant, as people with a similar mindset and view point of what conservatism is as yours make up a tiny portion of the population and would not be able to give enough support to "seperate" themselves from the other candidates, especially since such extreme views would polarize the vast majority of the rest of the voting public in the election. If anything such a candidate would have success very similar, if not worse, than Ron Paul had in 2008 which is hardly "seperating" themselves other than seperating themselves towards the bottom..

Click to expand...

Just realize that there are not enough Moderate-Right Independents to make up for the entire Far Right walking away from whichever of these candidates gets nominated; which I believe has a very high potential for happening.

Meh, tell Adolph to shove it up his butt.

tjinta ibis said:

An article in Der Spiegel takes on the GOP farcical race:



I agree almost totally! 1. The media has spawned this sort of reality TV show, and while picking on individual candidates it loves the SHOW so much that it won't criticize it's baby. 2. The GOP race reflects all that is bad with the party and little of what it claims to stand for. 3. Why does it take an objective observer to see this while our mass media doesn't?

Click to expand...

You call yourself an "objective observer" when you agree that the GOP's winnowing of candidates is a freak show? When the candidates are all called "dopes"? When you buy into the caustic and silly hyperbole?

Because I'm not a self-loathing American, if I cared a little more what German pundits thought, I might be offended. But I don't, so instead, I'm going to forward the link to friends who will appreciate it (for one reason or another ).

Ignoring the usual and expected "shoot the messenger" responses I am pleased to see that there are Republicans who can view their dismal field with some objectivity. Granted Obama was very inexperienced, as compared to Clinton and Biden, but he had a message and he stuck to it and not too many oops moments or flip flops, and most importantly of all he spoke to the majority. This crowd is, with the exception of Romney and Huntsman, a far right crowd that appeals to small segments of the idiot fringe. I don't remember the Democrat field being far left. Let's face it when we have a bunch of people who don't believe in global warming; evolution; taxing the very rich; who want to kick out all immigrants; build a trillion dollar wall; oppose green energy; oppose medicare and social security and health care being a "right" for all "pay in" citizens, then you have a bunch of people who do not represent the majority of sensible voters. As we shall see come November 2012.

tjinta ibis said:

Ignoring the usual and expected "shoot the messenger" responses I am pleased to see that there are Republicans who can view their dismal field with some objectivity. Granted Obama was very inexperienced, as compared to Clinton and Biden, but he had a message and he stuck to it and not too many oops moments or flip flops, and most importantly of all he spoke to the majority. This crowd is, with the exception of Romney and Huntsman, a far right crowd that appeals to small segments of the idiot fringe. I don't remember the Democrat field being far left. Let's face it when we have a bunch of people who don't believe in global warming; evolution; taxing the very rich; who want to kick out all immigrants; build a trillion dollar wall; oppose green energy; oppose medicare and social security and health care being a "right" for all "pay in" citizens, then you have a bunch of people who do not represent the majority of sensible voters. As we shall see come November 2012.

Click to expand...

LOL, yeah, that's objective.

Why in the world would anyone care what a German thinks about our political candidates.....ever?

It's like getting child rearing advice from Charles Manson.

Your post screams of how socialism and statism takes over the mind like a cancer. Your so dependent on your government for everything, you can't function if the spicket slows down a tick. It's why your part of the world is but a shell of its former self.

tjinta ibis said:

Granted Obama was very inexperienced, as compared to Clinton and Biden,

Click to expand...

Obama was less experienced, with regards to primary and secondary relevancy to the job, than any President in the nations history not just compared to Clinton and Biden.

but he had a message and he stuck to it and not too many oops moments or flip flops, and most importantly of all he spoke to the majority.

Click to expand...

Mmm, this is a matter of opinion. He had his share of stupid vocal gaffes. He had a few issues with regards to his comments and support of things in the past (such as being in favor of banning handguns) and his rhetoric in the actual campaign. He had a number of "scandalous" type things as well.

But by and large, Obama ran an INCREDIBLY good campaign. However, it seems you're in part basing your definition of "worthiness" off of running a good campaign which frankly highlights my point earlier in regards to how worthless of a word it actually is in this context.

This crowd is, with the exception of Romney and Huntsman, a far right crowd that appeals to small segments of the idiot fringe.

Click to expand...

First, lets determine how I view the genreal left right split. Each side has their Very, Solid, and Moderately ideological. Then you have your left and right leaning independents. On either side of the two ideologies you have your fringe people.

Newt is not far right, though he balances out to likely be solidly conservative. Rick Perry also, not "far right" over all but rather solidly conservative with a few more moderate ideas and some more far right social ones. Cain, again, not far right.

I'd give you Santorum, Bachmann, and Paul as being far right. I'd give you Romney as a Moderate. I'd give you Huntsman as another solidly conservative. Indeed, Huntsman is likely more conservative than Newt and similar in totality likely with Perry.

I don't remember the Democrat field being far left.

Click to expand...

Well, one thing to take into account is a particular side of the aisle is always going to view the other sides people as more "extreme" in their slant then they would their own side and vise versa. For example, while as President I feel he's pushed a solidly liberal agenda and actually passed a relatively moderate liberal agenda all told, during the actual primary I would've said that Obama was solidly liberal to even verging to far left. Hillary ran solidly liberal by and large as well as edwards. Biden ran somewhat moderately.

2008 was not a year with a lot of far left in the primary...actually it reminds me a bit more of 2008 for the Republicans with McCain, Huckabee trying to play populist, Romney, Guiliani, Fred Thompson, etc.

The Republican 2012 primary matches up closer with the 2004 one of the Democrats. You had Kucinich, Al Sharpton, Howard Dean, Dick Gephart, John Kerry, etc.

Let's face it when we have a bunch of people who don't believe in global warming; evolution; taxing the very rich; who want to kick out all immigrants; build a trillion dollar wall; oppose green energy; oppose medicare and social security and health care being a "right" for all "pay in" citizens, then you have a bunch of people who do not represent the majority of sensible voters. As we shall see come November 2012.

Click to expand...

And so we begin our entry into hyperboleville...

The "belief" in global warming amongst the various candidates differs, especially since you didn't say man made. Ditto for evolution since you stated evolution in general and not the specific notion that we, through completely circumstance, evolved from single cell organisms to humans over the course of history. There’s not a single one of them, besides perhaps Paul, who I’ve seen advocating not taxing the “very rich”, though they have issues RAISING taxes on the rich to pay for further spending. Few if any have stated any desire to “kick out all immigrants” but I’d love for you to back up that bull**** claim. Link to those in favor of building a “trillion dollar wall” cause I’ve not heard that. I’ve heard very few of them directly “oppose green energy”, I have heard some of them oppose the government subsidizing it or forcefully hamstringing non-green energy. Yes, some do oppose medicare and social security in their current form, however its entirely your opinion and not in any way a factual statement to suggest that such a stance is not something “sensible” for a voter to hold.

You want to continually and repeatedly throughout this thread insult people and their intelligence based on nothing but extreme bigotry towards a political ideology while at the same time celebrating an utter piece of ironically awful and factual devoid article such as the one posted and spitting out exaggerated, fraudulent, fallacy laden statements about the candidates and republicans in general. Frankly you should examine yourself rather than feeling so confident in the need to enlighten us as to what an your belief of an “objective” and “accurate” assessment of things are.