Much of the media coverage today about candidates, especially the presidential level, is about personality and whether you’d want to “have a beer” with that person. However, what if the presidential race was much more like a competition where we never see the candidates in person nor hear them speak, we can only examine their record and decide who seems most competent. In fact, what if the records were anonymous and the identity only revealed once a decision had been made.

Sounds like the underpinnings of a new political reality show I should bankroll and produce. Unfortunately I don’t think it’ll happen but if someone steals my idea, here’s the post to prove it was my idea first.

On that note, parties and identities aside, who has the best record to run on in 2016? Chris Christie has a fairly mixed record in New Jersey. Recently, a study showed that New Jersey is dead last in fiscal solvency. However, Christie has done well reforming the state in terms of skyrocketing property taxes.

What about Hillary Clinton? She has a record as Senator from New York which is fairly weak based on the numbers. Some of her promises about jobs in western New York around the hard hit areas of Buffalo and Rochester never came to fruition. She blames President Bush for that. Then there’s her tenure as Secretary of State. What positive accomplishments does she have to point to?

Some commenters here point to Texas Governor Rick Perry as having a strong record on creating jobs and fostering economic growth in his state. However, Texas also has shortfalls as well in terms of fiscal solvency.

Most likely in picking a candidate based on their record, nobody gets an A+ but surely there are some candidates with report cards better than others.


  1. It would depend on where you stand in the political spectrum as to who you consider having a successful record.

    My idea for a political reality show is to have a celebrity apprentice like Donald Trump. To take the place of primaries you give them assignments and at the end of the show say “You’re Fired” to the incompetent candidates. From what we have to work with out there however it will have a very short run. Or we could have Chuck Barris come back with the old “Gong Show” and have the voters gong their butts out of contention. You know when I think of it “American Idol” has a lot in common with the “Gong Show”. More talent but the same crude and rude judges.

        • No Bob – Everytime i take the test on I come up at the top with a click to the right – conservative-Libertarian. i’m way too biased unless it were only Libertarians and Republicans i would be interviewing. And Rand Paul just lost a lot of my backing by saying the Vets/VA can take retirement cuts so readiness would improve. How ’bout taking it out of Congressional retirement or illegals gifting or foreign aid or does food stamps ever run out of money?? OohRah!!!

          Wanna know how Libertarians feel about Obama’s NSA bullpucky – I disagree about Snowden – he divulged classified info, he is a dirtybird – needed to get to the public but not that way, even tho the MSM wouldn’t give him the time of day. Candy Ass lefties.

            • I think a very large percentage of our country is Libertarian in nature, but just involved in scraping with monthly bills and raising a family or succeeding in a relationship or sucking up to keep their job; that their heads never raise high enough to really see the direction the nation is going or get past the liberal media. So until it is close to voting time that percentage won’t analyze how to vote and once more the media will have liberal will have controlled our near future (and maybe our permanent future).

  2. Sure sounds like the best of who’s going to screw us the least. Actually i would like to see Condoieezza Rice run. She’s close to a Libertarian and not a RINO. Biggest problem is she’s black – but it would be great to see the MSM twist and turn in figuring out what to do about a black, female republican running for POTUS.

  3. I disagree. (Why doesn’t that surprise anyone?)

    First, a “record” can be deceiving. For instance, you can’t compare results of someone running a troubled state like California or Jersey with someone running a state floating on Billions of free dollars, like Alaska and Texas.

    More importantly, personality IS important: Sometimes more important than what the person actually does.

    We could have gone Nazi or Communist if FDR didn’t have the fatherly presence to reassure people (“the only thing we have to fear. . .is fear, itself”). It’s too bad that Obama doesn’t have that kind of presence.

    LBJ passed the programs JFK wanted, but the country fell apart under him. By comparison, JFK gave us a feeling that we were a young country with an exciting future. A real rebirth.

    He made us feel good, and isn’t that what we really want?

    Same goes for Reagan. If you look at his real record, he couldn’t be elected today–but his fatherly personality was exactly what we needed after the long, national nightmare that was LBJ-Nixon-Ford-Carter. Instead of worrying about war, corruption, inflation, gas lines, confusion, and hostage captivity, it was suddenly “Morning in America.”

    And as much as you may hate Clinton, he did make people believe that he “feels your pain,” and that personality, along with his willingness to compromise (like Reagan) made things work in Washington. (What a concept!)

    Obama is too aloof to give us confidence. Romney seemed way too slick to be trusted. “W” seemed to be lightweight and petty. His dad was a very good president, especially in international matters, but he seemed like another Silent Cal, so he wasn’t re-elected, even after having a 80+ rating a year earlier.

    Nope. IMHO, I think personality is MORE important than record. I cannot believe that the parties can’t see that–and keep giving us geeky misfits like Romney, McCain, Kerry, Gore, Dole, Dukakis, McGovern, Stevenson, and Dewey.

    • Goethe:

      Saying “personality is more important than a record” is a simplification but one that swept President Obama into office for two terms.

      In addition you tend to paint history inaccurately with a broad brush. Circumstances dictated the direction history took in many instances you mentioned above.


    • Goethe – Bob, you didn’t Condi Rice. I have heard some negative before, but she looks as good as any, matter of fact i think Carson and LtCol West are all viable. However, someone made the comment we’ve had our black president, plus the MSM wouldn’t support a conservative black – look at Cain last time.

  4. Does insanity rule here…?!

    To discuss anyone else but Rand Paul — as the only that can save our nation from Big NASTY Brother Gov, that’s already entrenched here; and gaining more power daily, with less liberty for the US Citizens each and every single day?!?!


Comments are closed.