Battered Constituent Syndrome often manifests itself initially with denial, followed by attempts to excuse and protect your abuser. This is closely followed by protestations along the lines of the following: ‘But…he’s the best I can get, and he’s better than that other guy. Did you see him??’

All of this only leads to further degradation, campaign season after campaign season.

I can only urge you to seek help. Please. Do it for the children.

Very good point. Probably the only one that would convince me to vote for him if he’s the nominee.

Wilson - governor
Taft - governor-general of the Philippines, Secretary of War
Roosevelt (Teddy) - governor of NY, VP
McKinley - governor of Ohio
Harrison - brigadier General war hero & senator
Cleveland - governor of NY
Arthur - VP
Garfield - Major General war hero & congressman
Hayes - governor of Ohio & Major General war hero
Grant - Supreme Commander war hero
Johnson - VP
Lincoln - one term in congress - so he’s in the JFK class, (that McCain, Clinton, & Obama want to be in)100 years before JFK
Buchanan - senator, congressman - an experience-free zone when it comes to running anything
Pierce - Brigadier General war hero & senator
Fillmore - VP
Taylor - Brigadier General war hero
Polk - governor of Tennessee
Tyler - governor of Virginia
Harrison - governor of the Northwest Territory & war hero (War of 1812)
Van Buren - VP & governor of NY
Jackson - war hero & Territorial Governor of Florida
Adams - senator, and sec. of state - no experience at running anything
Monroe - governor of VA
Madison - Continental Congress, wrote the Constitution; never ran anything
Jefferson - VP & governor of Virginia
Adams - VP
Washington - commanding general war hero.

So, I shall repeat: we do not like people who have not demonstrated an ability to run something. There have only been 5 of them fromt he ranks of the congress or the senate: James Madison, who wrote Federalist Papers and the Constitution, which counts for something, I suppose; J. Q. Adams, who did little as President; Buchanan, who was a mess as President; Lincoln, who was probably a mess in terms of policy but sure was eloquent; and JFK, all mess.

We have had 20 governors; 13 VPs (if you count Coolidge, Van Buren, and Jefferson, who were both); and 9 Generals, (including Harrison, Hayes, and Jackson, who were Generals and governors).

We seem much happier with people with a demonstrated executive ability - which Clinton, Obama, and McCain do not have.

I suspect Romney may be trying the same tactic to an extent. It is high risk. The media will jump on him for being “mean” to a war hero if he is really aggressive; particularly if McCain can hold on to his temper through the primaries. But, if he gets desperate enough then he should let it fly.

I agree. If McCain is the nominee I will vote for him–for the specific reasons I posted.

We like VPs; we like governors; we like the military (which was a part of the JFK deal too), and that’s pretty much our preference. We do not like or elect people who’se only experience was either congress or the senate: we like people who’ve established they can run something.

Recent history:

Bush - governor
Clinton - governor
Bush - VP; ran the CIA, war hero
Reagan - governor
Carter - governor
Ford - VP
Nixon - VP
Johnson - VP
Kennedy - senator; war hero (sort of)
Eisenhower - commanding general war hero
Truman - VP
Roosevelt - governor
Hoover - headed the Commission of Relief for Belgium from 1914-1919; served as Director of Wilson’s Food Administration and ran European relief post WWI - so he ran things.
Coolidge - VP, succeeded upon Harding’s death

And so it mostly goes.

We don’t much have a lot of use for people who only know how to hire someone to run their senate office. It happens, sure - practically anything does - but it isn’t our first choice.

Don’t forget to add LBJ to your list.

I’m supporting Romney. However, sitting out the election is just as bad as supporting Hillary or Obama. It would be an abdication of my responsibility as a citizen. I grew up in Europe where too many people took that same attitude (why bother voting?) and now they have just about lost their democracy and begun the slide into fascism. If the outcome of the election is bad, at minimum I can say that it wasn’t because I defaulted. That, I can live with (I hope).

Sometimes, the choice is between bad and worse. In McCain’s defense, I neither think that he is fundamentally corrupt Left-wing totalitarian (i.e., Hillary), nor do I think that he is a socialist utopian (i.e., Obama). And, bottom line, I may disagree with McCain on a number of policy issues but I do not question his love for country (vs the “European” one-worlders. Obama and Hillary).

Here’s a man who essentially is a NOTHING - he has precisely the same executive experience Hillary or Obama does: zero. He’s up against a man who has run a business very successfully, and run a state very successfully. This in a country where we do not like to elect as President people who’ve never run anything. (Kennedy was the last from the senate, that’s 48 years ago; I can’t remember who it was before him. Even Harding ran a newspaper!)

And not only is he a nothing, he is, I was reminded again in last night’s debate, a fairly snotty little bastard, too. And will lie cheerfully aboiut both his own and anyone else’s record.

And now that he’s the front-runner, you will see condescension and arrogance right up there on a plane with Hillary’s - you watch.

I’m afraid a lot of Republicans (Republicans being principled people) are going to sit it out if he’s the nominee. They did in 2006; it isn’t much of a stretch to see them doing it again this year.