Did the GOP have an electable candidate in 2000?

[LincolnMcGrath]

Every day we are deluged with spin from the Lib`Rull media how so and so isn`t credible, he has no foreign policy experience, he is not electable, this guy stumbles over his words, blah, blah, etc, etc.

Hello? Can you say GWB? Failed businessman, ran Texas into the ground, underfunded unemployment ins., polluted the skies, didn`t know Kabul from Kathmandu, killed more prisoners than any us Gov ever, went AWOL, did coke, drank like a fish, and on and on.

Hell, I think all nine Dems top his resume! Why aren`t we calling the media out when they make those asinine comments?

[the populist]

1. Well.

Should Bush, who didn't even really win, be the standard by which we rate a candidate's electability and the importance of it?

Anyway a lot of what you say made him MORE electable (didn't know Kabul from Kathmandu, did coke, drank) because it contributes to the myth that he's just a simple Texas man. Because a lot of us criticized him for these reasons while the GOPigs were pushing him as a man of the people, this Andover-prep educated, Connecticutt-born Yankee got the Southern vote.

[jsw_81]

2. Yes, sort of

Even though I'm a loyal Democrat, I'm almost certain than John McCain would have won a Reagan-style landslide against Gore in 2000. But you're right about Bush; his candidacy and pathetic qualifications were an absolute joke, and as we all know, he ended up losing to a man that the media tried to say was "unlikeable" and too "boring" to be elected president.