Ranking GOP candidates on tech savvy, craziness, and electability

By | September 14, 2011, 5:00am PDT

Summary: Which of the current crop of GOP candidates is better for tech, seems the most nuts, and can be elected? Read ZDNet Government columnist David Gewirtz’ take on the field.

It’s always interesting comparing candidates after a debate. In the past week, I’ve had the opportunity to watch the current eight GOP candidates (Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Ron Paul, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman, and Newt Gingrich) go at each other on issues ranging from health care to social security to jobs.

Rather than take on these hot-button issues, I’ve decided to look at certain general electability factors and compare each of the candidates on attributes like business experience, governance experience, tech awareness, and just how crazy each looks in comparison to the others.

Before I begin, I should tell you that I haven’t decided who I’m voting for, or even if I’m voting Democrat or Republican. Just like the rest of America, I’m looking at each of these candidates and hoping one of them stands out as the next, best thing for America, our economy, our jobs, and our future.

So far, well, my opinion on them all, President Obama included, is that we’ve got a long way to go before anyone stands out from the crowd and distinguishes himself or herself as a clear winner. None of them has yet earned my vote.

Next: Government executive experience »

Topics

David Gewirtz, Distinguished Lecturer at CBS Interactive, is an author, U.S. policy advisor, and computer scientist. He is featured in The History Channel special The President's Book of Secrets.

Disclosure

David Gewirtz

At various times during his adult life, David has voted for both Democrats and Republicans, and has been disappointed by both. He is deeply disturbed by how partisanship has come before patriotism in America, which gives him the freedom to pick on both sides.

David is a frequent guest on TV and radio stations across America and can usually be heard or seen on-the-air at least once a week. He writes weekly commentary and analysis for CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 and has been interviewed by Fox News, CNN, various ABC and NBC affiliates, and Canada’s Global TV. He has been a featured guest on National Public Radio and has also been featured on Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and Radio Liberty where his commentaries on technology, industry, and emerging nations have been broadcast into 46 countries (all in their own unique translations).

David is the executive director of U.S. Strategic Perspective Institute, a nonprofit research and policy organization. He is the Cyberterrorism Advisor for the International Association for Counterterrorism & Security Professionals, a columnist for The Journal of Counterterrorism and Homeland Security and a special contributor to Frontline Security Magazine. He is a member of the FBI’s InfraGard program, the security partnership between the FBI and industry. David is also a member of the U.S. Naval Institute and the National Defense Industrial Association, the leading defense industry association promoting national security.

David is an advisory board member for the Technical Communications and Management Certificate program at the University of California, Berkeley extension. He is also a member of the instructional faculty at the University of California, Berkeley extension.

David’s “day job” is as publisher and editor-in-chief of ZATZ publishing, an online publisher of technical magazines. Other than than his ownership stake in Component Enterprises, Inc. (the parent company of ZATZ), David has no additional industry investments.

ZATZ has many advertisers who do, in part, provide for David’s lush income and extravagant lifestyle. Most of them are IBM and Lotus aftermarket suppliers, some of them make goodies for Microsoft Outlook, and a few make all sorts of strange mobile devices and add-on products. David has been a regular judge of the IBM Awards, but has no formal financial interest in or with IBM.

Because the ZATZ online magazines often review products, David and ZATZ are sent an overwhelming stream of unsolicited, silly, and often useless products to review. Because they’re such a pain to track and ship back, these products often wind up in a dumpster or fill up the corner of a large closet. Although David has no plans to review products in connection to his ZDNet blog, if he does do a product review, he will disclose any relationship completely in that posting.

Both through ZATZ and independently, David derives a small income through various advertising and sales relationships with Amazon.com and Google. These are minor relationships and they will not impede his willingness or ability to chastise either company should they deserve it.

David has many other business relationships, but none of them relate to anything he covers in his ZDNet blog. David does have a bit of the sales-guy bug and if he’s not doing a sales deal with someone at least once a month, he goes through withdrawal. He has a number of consulting clients, but none of them relate to anything he covers for ZDNet (and if they ever do, he will either disclose that fact, or decline to write about them).

Back in the 1980s, David held the unusual title of “Godfather” at Apple. He has written and published 40 incredibly simplistic applications for Apple’s iPhone.

Although David is forbidden to disclose the terms of his iPhone developer agreement, he isn’t drinking the Apple Kool Aid, will never be confused with a metrosexual, and feels free to mock Apple, and Apple users, any time the occasion permits, on alternate Tuesdays, or if he’s bored.

Biography

David Gewirtz

In addition to hosting the ZDNet Government and ZDNet DIY-IT blogs, CBS Interactive's Distinguished Lecturer David Gewirtz is an author, U.S. policy advisor, and computer scientist. He is featured in The History Channel special The President's Book of Secrets, is one of America's foremost cyber-security experts, and is a top expert on saving and creating jobs. He is also director of the U.S. Strategic Perspective Institute as well as the founder of ZATZ Publishing.

David is a member of FBI InfraGard, the Cyberwarfare Advisor for the International Association for Counterterrorism & Security Professionals, a columnist for The Journal of Counterterrorism and Homeland Security, and has been a regular CNN contributor, and a guest commentator for the Nieman Watchdog of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University. He is the author of Where Have All the Emails Gone?, the definitive study of email in the White House, as well as How To Save Jobs and The Flexible Enterprise, the classic book that served as a foundation for today's agile business movement.

88
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Ranking GOP candidates on tech savvy, craziness, and electability
Spikey_Mike 19th Dec
@maplexiii A HAM Sandwich could beat Obama at this point.
0 Votes
+ -
What about the 2002 Olympics?
tomogden Updated - 14th Sep
If you're going to give Huntsman credit for experience as an ambassador, what about the job Romney did running the 2002 Olympics, which were under serious duress when he took over?
@tomogden Fair point. Although Ambassador to China is a bit more of a foreign policy credential than head of the Olympics. Then again, Huntsman had to deal with only one country and Romney had to deal with cranky delegates from hundreds.
0 Votes
+ -
bad job doesn't count for much
Professor8 15th Sep
It seemed to me that Huntsman spent most of his time groveling and making concessions to the Red Chinese ruling thugs... granted, just like the half-dozen before him.
@tomogden
While Huntsman seems to be the most sane & reasonable candidate on that side, isn't an ambassador position often known as a fairly cushy privilege? And therefore that credential just gets a shrug.
looney. There fixed it for you.
refuse to actually campaign against him (shades of McCain are dancing in front of my eyes).
0 Votes
+ -
Exactly what I was thinking.
adornoe@... 14th Sep
In all the categories which were in any way remotely related to some kind of experience, economic or otherwise, Obama would come up short against any of the republicans.

With Obama, the only category which matters is "electability", and with his record in almost 3 years and what he is promising for the next 4, he's UNELECTABLE.
0 Votes
+ -
When in Rome...
Robert Hahn 14th Sep
It is difficult for outsiders to tell whether a candidate running for office in Texas who advocates that Texas secede from the Union is savvy or crazy.
@Robert Hahn

I still think its a pretty good idea!
@Robert Hahn
Guess it help if you know if the comment was made in jest or not. The comment was actually made in jest and was to make a point. As usual people take a part of a conversation and run with it and do not bother to look at the facts. Texas gave up the right many, many years ago to secede, but the issue is brought up when we have to deal with people who live in crazy out of control states like in CA or the northeast.
@pdeweese@... Guess it help if you know if the comment was made in jest or not. The comment was actually made in jest and was to make a point. As usual people take a part of a conversation and run with it and do not bother to look at the facts. T


Seem like he has yet learnt the basic rules of media, they will take anything, whether it in jest or not run with it. If he has not learn that by now then he really should not be playing politics.
0 Votes
+ -
Out of control?
LeonBA 5th Oct
@pdeweese@... CA and the Northeast are crazy and out of control? In comparison to Texas, which is doing its best to remove accurate science and history from its school curriculum?
@Robert Hahn
While it may be ok for a Texas governor to shoot off one's mouth and make reckless statements, reckless statements from the President of the United States has consequences.
People should know better, or maybe they don't apply high standards to important positions of power.
0 Votes
+ -
Reckless actions have even bigger consequences,
adornoe@... Updated - 14th Sep
and what we've gotten from Obama have been reckless policies for spending and taxation and regulations. All are very damaging to the economy.

Words can easily be overcome and forgotten. Actions with long-lasting damage, can't be overcome so easily.
0 Votes
+ -
Must have been something wrong with the system
John L. Ries Updated - 16th Sep
I'll keep my last version of the post
0 Votes
+ -
Multiple post (deleted)
John L. Ries Updated - 16th Sep
NT
0 Votes
+ -
Merely cynical
John L. Ries Updated - 16th Sep
@Robert Hahn
Lots of second rate politicians (and that's how I classify Gov. Perry) will tailor their messages and comments to fit the audience on the theory that they won't be heard by a larger audience that might be offended. I think that's what the secession statement (and some others he's made) was all about. What's bad is that I don't think he actually meant it, but was merely playing the current audience.

A similar error ended Trent Lott's tenure as Senate Republican Leader. Another ended former Sen. George Allen's political career. I think it a good thing that such selective messaging is a lot harder than it used to be. The exposure helps to keep our politicians honest.
0 Votes
+ -
Ron Paul sane?
GrizzledGeezer 14th Sep
When he suggests going back to the gold standard, he shows he doesn't even understand basic economics. (Look up LTV and related topics.)
@GrizzledGeezer Sound money, whether it is backed by Gold or some other commodity is the proper way. Basic economics or Austrian economics? If you bother to read End the Fed, by Ron Paul, you'll have a better understanding of the 'Gold Standard' (it was a hastily crafted measure) and Sound Money principles. Ron Paul is the only candidate I'm aware of where the ROOT CAUSE of our economic problems are known.
0 Votes
+ -
PS...
GrizzledGeezer 14th Sep
Having Texas leave the Union -- along with the other Southern states -- would be a blessing for the rest of us.
You should mark any reference to "santorum" as potentially NSFW. Just sayin'... Google it.
0 Votes
+ -
substance
oneleft 14th Sep
do you have any? Or are we supposed to go with these broad strokes? Page after page of telling us what anyone who reads knows already with a little bit of your incredible insight (hey, this guy is likeable enough).

Newt Gingrich would probably make a good one? Well, that's certainly one opinion. Based on what exactly? We're not told. We're not told much of anything except maybe that you're really not that interested in issues, or at least you're not telling us about any that do concern you.

Gee, it's going to be really interesting to see what the candidate does that makes the grade with you. Pomposity, craziness... based on that criteria it's hard to imagine what that tipping point is going to be. I'm sure it will be really really deep.
0 Votes
+ -
@oneleft
His early antics as a back bench member of Congress are a large part of the reason why I'm politically unaffilated (he's the biggest reason why I didn't join the Republicans when I quit being a Democrat). I consider his Congressional career a major factor in the development of the current poisonous atmosphere in US politics.
0 Votes
+ -
Couple of things/questions
spdragoo@... 14th Sep
I'll admit, I haven't been following the debates too closely, as I find that coverage devoted to politics is so overblown & pretty much drowns out anything truly interesting or noteworthy in the news. So, please note that as of yet I haven't made up my mind regarding *any* candidate.

However, I have a couple of questions about this:
1) Michele Bachmann's rating on "appears crazy". Is this because she's made statements based on (or even simply attributed to) her "very religious" philosophy that come off as being crazy... or are we saying that, because she has strong religious beliefs, she's automatically "crazy-looking"?

2) For sales tax, why should it matter whether you buy something from the store in your town or some e-vendor online? Whether for personal or business use, you're using the item *in a particular, physical location*. If the state that item will be located in has a sales tax, then *pay the tax & be done with it*. It's not like it's a new tax, either; most states have had it since our grandparents were kids.
@spdragoo@...
I consider Michelle Bachman crazy because she has publicly and repeatedly advocated (on talk radio, granted, but still in a public forum) shooting people who disagree with her.
0 Votes
+ -
Hadn't heard that
spdragoo@... 14th Sep
@eak2000

Although I thought Perry was the one with the more "violent" comments...
@eak2000

Interesting. I hadn't heard about that either. Where can I find info and documentation of this?
It should be a prominent question, but of course, it's not bein asked. How has GOP policy learned from the past? Do they acknowledge any responsibilty for the economic, military, and foreign policy mistakes of 2000-2008? If they don't, then why vote for them?
Of course the Democratic Party has been dissappointing, but the fundamental basis of the economic malaise of 2009 to 2011 is so deep, that really any fast cure has been highly unlikely.
0 Votes
+ -
And just so you don't look foolish, two things you should know before you start: All spending originates in the house, and deficits and the economy nosedived after Democrats took control of the house in 2006.
@baggins_z
Should be preaching to the choir, but most liberals love spending. I see the conservative congress of Clinton being an asset to his in the black economy and positive approval ratings not to mention Newt was Speaker of the House during the Clinton years. Imagine what trouble the U.S. could have been in had a LIBERAL congress allowed the spending Clinton really wanted. Unfortunately both congress and Clinton bungled a lot signing NAFTA.
When one deliberately avoids to answer an important question in a reasonable manner, and instead hurls insults, that is a reflection on character, as well as the unsuitability for a position of responsibility and making important decisions.
@baggins_z
The deficit increased under GW Bush's tenure, due to the Iraq war (serious mistakes & deceptions are well documented)/increased defense spending. (FYI, the national debt also increased vastly under Reagan, so why no logically consistent complaints about that?)

The deficit complaint about Obama -- coming from the Right, just doesn't have any moral credibility.

The Economy collapsed due to several factors -- the skyrocketing cost of energy, and the housing bubble. While the housing bubble started before 2000, it ballooned to extremely obvious and dangerous levels during Bush's 8 year tenure. Something had to have been done during that time (more regulation), before it the mortgage debt contagion was recklessly allowed to spread throughout the financial markets. However, since Bush hired the former Goldman Sachs CEO Paulson to take the lead on this, we all know ugly the solution turned out to be...

I'm defending the Democrats. However, I am blaming where blame is sorely due.
The deficit increased under GW Bush's tenure,

The deficit has increase under all presidents, especially in the last few decades. But, spending is a function mostly controlled and directed by congress, and congress has been under democrats' hands for the majority of the last few decades. In fact, for a period of about 40 years, it was under democrats control with no interruptions from republicans.

due to the Iraq war (serious mistakes & deceptions are well documented)/increased defense spending.

The Iraq wars were basically paid for by the increased revenue received through the higher economic growth under the Bush administration. In fact, economic growth was so good, that in the last couple of years under Bush, the budget was close to getting balanced. That's before the economic downturn (which was not related to anything Bush actually did).

(FYI, the national debt also increased vastly under Reagan, so why no logically consistent complaints about that?)

Again, Reagan had a democrat congress, and like I said, congress manages the money, and they approve spending and they propose spending.

When Reagan's economic policies produced huge tax revenue gains, the democrats started salivating at the prospect of having so much money to spend. And spend they did. A lot of Reagan's spending had to with trying to save Social Security and Medicare and military spending, and not so much in wasteful spending, which the democrats like to do.

The deficit complaint about Obama -- coming from the Right, just doesn't have any moral credibility.

Nonsense!!!

Obama's spending increased the deficit at about 4 times what Bush's budgets did. 4 Times!!!! That's not even in the same ballpark! And Bush had bigger reasons for spending than Obama, with the war-on-terror and the 9/11 attacks and the recovery which that necessitated, and huge hurricane damage.

The Economy collapsed due to several factors --

And most of those factors were because of stupid liberal spending and stupid liberal social programs.

the skyrocketing cost of energy,

That's a problem created by democrats, and a problem made especially worse by Obama's regulations which prohibit our oil companies from producing our own energy sources.

and the housing bubble.

That again is another problem created by democrats, starting with Carter and made worse by Clinton. Bush had nothing to do with those programs, although he tried to reign in the government agencies that created the problems and the banking and securities companies that took advantage of the sub-prime lending to enrich themselves.

While the housing bubble started before 2000, it ballooned to extremely obvious and dangerous levels during Bush's 8 year tenure.

The falling dominoes effect for the housing bubble had been set in motion before 2000, and that effect did continue under Bush, but, he was not responsible for the continuing damage which came from the CRA and Fannie and Freddie. Bush did try to bring those agencies and the banks under some sort of control, but the democrats shot him down every time he attempted to do something about the problem. If you need somebody to blame, go back to Carter and to Clinton.

Something had to have been done during that time (more regulation), before it the mortgage debt contagion was recklessly allowed to spread throughout the financial markets.

And, Bush did try. But he was shot down every time he attempted to bring the mortgage lending agencies under control. The facts about that are easy to find, and the people who stopped Bush at every turn, were Pelosi and Barny Frank and Reid and other high ranking democrat officials in Washington.

However, since Bush hired the former Goldman Sachs CEO Paulson to take the lead on this, we all know ugly the solution turned out to be...

There was never going to be a solution or any regulations when congress was blocking every move by the Bush administration. Get a clue.

I'm defending the Democrats.

Of course you are.

The democrats cause the damage, and then turn right around and blame others when things go wrong. Never fails.

However, I am blaming where blame is sorely due.

Bad English, and bad analysis.

The blame for the mortgage crisis and the housing downturn, which was the biggest reason for the economic collapse, rests squarely on the policies and programs enacted by democrats.

Before engaging in any discussion which requires that facts be brought up to back up your statements, you should be responsible enough to get those "facts" straight. You failed on all the facts and in all of the finger pointing.

Go study up. It's not that difficult.
0 Votes
+ -
@adornoe
GW Bush was President from 2000-2008, with a republican controlled congress for much of that time. They had no responsibility and they are not accountable for anything? Republicans are not responsible for anything during that time? It's all the democrats fault? The question is what is a Republican President going to do differently than GW Bush? What was learned?

When the Republican President was in charge, he was not in charge nor responsible for anything? And yet Obama is being blamed as being responsible for much of the economic malaise and while being tasked with winding down & cleaning up the longest wars in modern US history?
I don't see the logical consistency.

I'm not going to go point for point, because it's a waste of time. The historical record is self explanatory.

I am not a partisan, because I can blame both sides. I have been a fiscally conservative Republican who voted for GHW Bush. But frankly the last 14 or so years of GOP rhetoric & ideology -- starting with that pointless Lewinsky/BJ-Impeachment scandal were absurd & irrational. The same goes for rejection of evolution and other scientifically based theories (such as Global Warming) as just another belief. The deception behind the Iraq War was the last straw. That merited the highest levels of distrust of the GOP, and its moral credibility, especially since there is no contrition at all for the lies.

The Democratic party has its big flaws, and I don't believe lock step in it. And both sides have their corruption and graft.

I'm sick of the irrationality, the personal attacks, the failure at attempts towards objective, logical, reasoned debate. And the failure of one side or the other to acknowledge mistakes -- just prompts a great deal of distrust.
@voltrarian

The historical record is self explanatory??? You won't go point by point?

First of all, your recollection of history is wrong. The Republican was NEVER in control of congress during the Bush administration. And your declaration that the presidents Bush, Reagan had control of that spending? No not even close. Congress does that job. Obama, having a heavily Democratic congress to rubber stamp his policies, has push this country to the brink of complete ruin.

Those who fail to learn the lessons of history, will be forced to relive them. It's time that you do you research of the real facts and study hard...very hard.
GW Bush was President from 2000-2008, with a republican controlled congress for much of that time. They had no responsibility and they are not accountable for anything? Republicans are not responsible for anything during that time?

We're not talking about everything, are we?

Bush and the republicans will be happy to take credit for the many good things that did happen during the Bush years. Like a great economy, only interrupted by the democrat created economic damages, which brought about the economic downturn.

Also, Saddam Hussein is no longer around to pester the middle-east and to foster terrorism. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda are no longer in charge in Afghanistan. And the terrorists are no longer operating with impunity, like they were under Clinton.

Now, when it comes to the subject which you introduced, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the malignant banking practices that were occurring because of those agencies and the CRA, Bush did try to bring those problems and agencies under control. But, like I said before, the democrats prevented him from even bringing in the matter to congress.

The republicans didn't have enough power in congress, in either house, to do anything if the democrats were just going to stand in the way. With the senate, lately it takes a majority of 60 to get anything of major importance passed, and the republicans weren't anywhere close to that. But, if the democrats had been willing to take up the matter, perhaps the housing crisis could have been avoided, or perhaps it wouldn't have been so damaging.

It's all the democrats fault?

Absolutely!!!

The record or the history can't be denied.

The question is what is a Republican President going to do differently than GW Bush? What was learned?

What Bush did to recover the economy is what's needed again, but the democrats are so hard-headed and dumb when it comes to economic matters, that they're rather see this country completely collapse than admit that is the socialist policies of the democrats that have caused so much damage to the country and the American people.

When the Republican President was in charge, he was not in charge nor responsible for anything?

Who ever said that Bush isn't being held responsible for whatever he did?

What he is not responsible for is the programs which eventually brought the economy to its knees, and those programs had been in effect for many decades before Bush was even in school.
And yet Obama is being blamed as being responsible for much of the economic malaise

It's not an economic "malaise". It's an economic disaster. And, it's Obama that added a lot of spending after Bush was gone, to the tune of more than $4 trillion.

And, it's Obama and the democrats who created a looming disaster to the economy with Obamacare, where the majority of businesses are holding on to their money and refusing to spend and hire, because, with that programs, those businesses will have to pay a lot more for benefits and will have a lot less for spending on growth and job creation.

With Obamacare and the many social programs which came before, it's Obama and the democrats who deserve the vast majority of the blame for the rotten economy and the lack of jobs.

BTW, did you know that, the poverty rate is now the highest it's been since over 52 years ago? And, the real unemployment rate is around 18-20%? And both statistics are getting much worse by the day.

and while being tasked with winding down & cleaning up the longest wars in modern US history?

The facts are that, before Bush left office, he had already instituted a policy of winding down the Iraq war, and what happened is that, Obama happened to be the president when the troops started coming home. So, Obama did no such thing in Iraq.

The Afghanistan war is far from over, and if Obama does decide to pull our troops, then Afghanistan will go back to Taliban and Al-Qaeda control. Is that something that Obama and democrats want to claim as great policy and as a great victory?

I don't see the logical consistency.

Well, since you didn't understand the logic from the beginning, nor the facts, I couldn't expect you to understand anything at all.
I'm not going to go point for point, because it's a waste of time.

That's because, you can't take me on, point by point. You don't have the facts on your side, and to try to rebut each of my points, you'd need to have logic and facts on your side, and you don't.

The historical record is self explanatory.

Yeah, but you haven't learned anything from it, or you interpreted everything in it completely azz-backward.

I am not a partisan,

Yes, you are! Your every word betrays you.

because I can blame both sides.

But, you're not and you won't, because you're a very partisan hack for the democrats and a defender of the worst person to ever occupy the office of the presidency.

I have been a fiscally conservative Republican who voted for GHW Bush.

I call B.S. on that!

Somebody that is as partisan as you are, and who is so defensive about the democrats and Obama, could not have possibly been a republican or ever voted for a republican. It would be like Nancy Pelosi suddenly claiming that, Bush and Reagan were right all along.

But frankly the last 14 or so years of GOP rhetoric & ideology

You are so naive.

The rhetoric is not what matters. What matters is policy and, yes, ideology. The ideology of the republicans is more closely related to what the founding fathers envisioned than whatever the democrats have ever proposed. In fact, what the democrats' ideology is about, very closely resembles Marxism.

starting with that pointless Lewinsky/BJ-Impeachment scandal were absurd & irrational.

The scandal wasn't about Monica and the "BJ". It was about a president who willfully and willingly violated the law, and lied to a grand jury. The impeachment had to do with the lying to the grand jury. So, why would a president need to lie to a grand jury if he didn't do anything wrong?

And, a president that is so horny as Clinton, might be putting the security of the country at stake, where somebody could use the case for extortion. One cannot be so dismissive when the whole country could be endangered for a simple "BJ", like the democrats want to reduce the case to.

The same goes for rejection of evolution

Evolution is a theory, and still has many problems. It is not "fact", and is just "logical conclusions" that can be made from "observations in nature". But, Creationism can be just as logical as evolution, and there are many scientists who have gone towards believing in "intelligent design" of creatures and all living things and all of nature.

I used to be an atheist and an evolutionist myself, but, I've come around to believing that, the order that is seen in nature and in living things, weren't just "accidents" of nature.

and other scientifically based theories (such as Global Warming) as just another belief.

"Global warming" is nothing but pure "junk science". That's already been verified by the e-mail scandals and the many former "global warming" scientists who are now disclosing that, the "science" used is not credible at all.

The deception behind the Iraq War was the last straw.

That "deception" is something that the democrats were using years before Bush took office, where they were making the same exact arguments that Bush did to justify going after Iraq and removing Saddam. Look it up. It's on the internet.

But, the world is a lot better off without Saddam; nobody can deny that, and Iraq is not threatening it's neighbors anymore and it's not fostering terrorism.

The democrats threatened to take out Saddam, but it took Bush and the republicans to do it.

That merited the highest levels of distrust of the GOP, and its moral credibility, especially since there is no contrition at all for the lies.

Like I said, the "lies" are the same argument made by the democrats when they and Clinton threatened to take out Saddam. So, which party do you believe to be more credible when they both made the same exact statements, and the democrats made them first and more times than the republicans. Like I said, it's on the record and even you should be able to look it up.

The Democratic party has its big flaws, and I don't believe lock step in it.

Yes, the democratic party is very flawed, and I recognized that a long time ago when I decided to leave it.

You, on the other hand, are even more flawed than they are, because, you defend them at every step and on their every position, even while stating that "they're flawed".

And both sides have their corruption and graft.

That's the nature of politics. It corrupts people. But, not every politician is corrupt, or can be corrupted.

But, the general direction of their ideologies is what one should be concerned about. The general direction of the democrats is one that has led us to destruction. And they don't seem to care, and continue putting party over country and won't do what's necessary to get this country towards recovery.

@voltrarian
To continue adding to your list of mistakes i.e.
adding more wars, allowing aggressive radicals to oust controlling regimes and concentrate on liberal spending programs which are hostile to business which may hire the unemployed I can only see the Left as guilty as the GOP. Not just disappointing but exaggerating the mistakes made by Bush and costing the American economy even more. Quit pointing fingers and realize more blame lies in fanning the flames not suppressing them.
@partman1969@...

It's a simple objective question.
0 Votes
+ -
What you are is an apologist for all the wrong things perpetrated on the American people by the socialist policies of the progressives and democrats.

Being objective would require that you actually be a non-partisan, which you obviously are not.

I'm not a non-partisan, although I was at one time. But, after seeing so much damage caused by so much socialism against the American economy, I could not just stand by and allow that damage to continue without actually putting the blame where it actually belongs.
0 Votes
+ -
adornoe@...
question: "So where's the responsibility and accountability from any political side?"

The question itself is objective. Hostility to an objective question and its asker, rather than a calm reasonable, logical response is a sign of intellectual dishonesty.
and you can't even recognize that.

All that you are doing is defending the indefensible, that being Obama and the democrats.

You're as partisan as anybody could be.
0 Votes
+ -
Jobs
scripter 14th Sep
I think it's a mistake to reference Romney's experience at Bain Capital as a point in favor of "people who've created and saved jobs," since many of the companies Bain invested in experienced widespread layoffs under his tenure. A few (Staples, e.g.) did add lots of jobs, but Bain is best known for its leveraged buyouts, which have generally resulted in restructurings, consolidations and offshoring. His work may have added millions to Bain's bottom line but quite a few of those deals resulted in massive layoffs.
Saving jobs oftentimes comes in the form of restructuring companies, which if that didn't happen, those companies could've gone out of business and all the jobs lost instead of a few.
An entertaining and sometimes well-reasoned article. However, your strong regard for Newt Gingrich makes the rest of your judgments a little suspect. I'll give you that Newt is smart, but being smart and acting smart are two different things (as I often tell my 8-year old daughter.)
I don't recall the adjective "craziness" having been used in connection with the Democrat party candidates in the last election cycle. Or any previous one. That and the fact that you can't turn around on most of the CNET site without bumping into ads for a President who clearly has given up on trying to actually fix things (amidst plummeting job ratings) and now seems to be just trying to see how big a crater he can dig, marks CNET as, if not outright shills, than at least less than trustworthy on any subject that has political ramifications. And these days, with an ever more intrusive government, how many subjects don't have any?

I do realize that Mr Gewirtz et.al. are closer to being editorialists than reporters, but I have to wonder why they continue to support politicians who are actively trying to put the folks who employ most of their readers/viewers out of business and the readers/viewers themselves out of jobs.

My complaint isn't so much that they play up the craziness in the GOP field, but they consistently fail to comment on the (at-least-) equal-and-opposite nuttery on the other side. Culminating in the conspicuous absence of any curiosity whatsoever, during the last campaign, about the current President's background, associations, and writings.

But then, CNET is a chip off the old CBS block. And that organization hasn't exactly been having to defend itself against many accusations of political impartiality in the last few decades, has it?
@rocket ride

You make some fair points. Although I was researching my White House email book during the last election, I didn't have a political commentary gig back then, so I didn't write about the much wider Democratic field. As for this election, were there other candidates on the Democratic side beyond the President (or if we get some), then you can be sure I'll look at them as well. The GOP doesn't have a lock on crazy by any means.

As for the ads you're seeing, none of us who write here have any control over them, and I'd venture, neither do our editors. CBS is a big (BIG) company and I'm sure they sell blocks of ads to anyone who'll buy. The content of the ads have nothing to do with anything we do here (although, perhaps, the advertisers think they'll appeal to YOU).

Speaking personally, I am grateful for the advertisers, because they allow me to keep doing this job, so I'm glad when any advertiser appears on the page.

Thanks for the comments. Keep them up.
Anyone who wishes to be taken halfways seriously stating that he doesn't know whether he'll vote Dimocratic or Republican has doomed his wish before getting off the starting block.
There are two political philosophies to choose between. One is that of Constitutional governance, as visioned by the Founding Fathers and practiced with astounding success since, and the other is that of Marxist misgovernance, which has yet to produce a single success, however trivial, in its entire history.
I'll leave it to the reader to figure out which party is which, but to be indecisive when faced with such a stark pair of utterly opposed choices indicates a political immaturity too naive to credit.
@iouzero Actually, I'm quite dismayed by both parties. When I see either party putting America first instead of party politics first, then I'll consider affiliating with one or the other. Until then, i'm looking for the lesser of many evils.
@maplexiii A HAM Sandwich could beat Obama at this point.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix