A conservative magazine vs social media

You're so dumb. The National Review article specifically exempted generals from the "entry-level" candidates.

 

And we thank you again for your sacrifice.

 

McGovern, if you consider him to have been a serious candidate, trotted out Sargent Shriver as his replacement running mate.

Nader ran as Democrat-ish. He ran because he thought the Democrat wasn't Democrat enough. Or because he (Nader) was a blithering dingbat. One of the two.

As far as other Democratic tickets, I'd have to think on it ...

Oh, wait. Jesse Jackson. NR mentioned him in its editorial.

 

1988, right?

There are three of these numbskulls in every Republican primary field. Jesse Jackson ran for the Democratic nomination in 1988.

Talk about a false equivalency.

 

I guess George Washington was a general, too. Plus there was the whole cherry tree/honesty thing ...

 

It's pretty clear to anyone with a functioning brain (so that excuses old_tony) that the National Review "entry-level" line applied to both parties is incorrect.

The magazine's motives in publishing that error are only slightly less clear.

 

Well, considering the fact that have to have a long list of accomplishments in the real world to reach CEO, that generally disqualifies most Democrats and liberals from becoming a CEO.

 

Don't forget David Duke in 1988. Or Al Sharpton or Lyndon LaRouche in 2004.

This is kinda fun!

 

OK. Fine. Then what fields are these candidates coming from, and who are they? The National Review said that they are polluting both parties' primary fields. I didn't say it. The house organ did.

 

Just kind of a sign of how the times have changed ... If you read McCullough's biography of HST, he goes into great detail about the deliberations re: VP in 1944. One of FDR's fallback possibilities was Henry Kaiser, the famous contractor/shipbuilder.

 

The voters (so that means NOT you) get to decide. Seems like that upsets you.

 

I have no idea what you're responding to.