POLITICAL observations & opinions

* none of the Republican candidates for president have complemented their hyper-inflated images of themselves to a vision of what the country needs … but watch Huntsman in NH

Posted by Lew Weinstein on December 4, 2011

******

******

Michael Tomasky writes in Newsweek (12/5/11) …

  • In the end, it was Herman Cain’s ego, not the women, that killed his campaign.
  • Now, all politicians are arrogant to one degree or another. And to seek the presidency, you pretty much have to be.
  • Newt Gingrich is a megalomaniac who truly thinks on some level that he is Lincoln and Churchill and Teddy Roosevelt rolled into one—and America is doomed unless it elects him.
  • Mitt Romney walks with the casual superiority of a man who’s made a quarter of a billion dollars.
  • Rick Perry has that Texas swagger (and not much else).
  • And it certainly took some stones for a certain senator with just two years in office under his belt to decide in 2006 that he was ready to be president.
  • Vanity can be all right—for this job, it’s a requirement. But the crucial point is that it has to be matched with something else.

Credible and successful candidates for president

are those who are able to marry their hyper-inflated images of themselves

to a vision of what the country needs.

  • Putting aside how well or poorly he’s performed since taking office, Obama got this exactly right in 2008: a clear majority of voters agreed that he was the best person to lead the country in a very different direction. They liked the story he told about himself; they liked even more the story he told about America.
  • What this year’s candidates completely lack is a story about society that’s remotely compelling to anyone outside the conservative base.
  • Inside that base, it can be controversial even to acknowledge that something called society exists, since it implies paying for common goods.
  • Of the lot of them, only Gingrich is really capable of thinking big thoughts, but many of his ideas about society—this recent notion that children should be janitors because child labor laws are “truly stupid”—are mad. So we’re stuck with advertisements for themselves.

And off to stage left, the president, despite his wobbly approval ratings,

is smiling.

 read the entire column at … http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/12/04/what-really-killed-herman-cain-s-campaign.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=cheatsheet_morning&cid=newsletter%3Bemail%3Bcheatsheet_morning&utm_term=Cheat%20Sheet

 ******

LMW COMMENT …

Only Romney and Huntsman can be imagined by any thinking person as an occupant of the Oval Office.

The Republicans hate Romney … largely because when he’s not pandering to the far right base, he seems like a pragmatic and reasonable person.

Huntsman is the most competent and experienced of the lost, and he polls 2%. But watch Huntsman in New Hampshire. If there is any surprise coming on the Republican side, that might be it.

******

Advertisements

5 Responses to “* none of the Republican candidates for president have complemented their hyper-inflated images of themselves to a vision of what the country needs … but watch Huntsman in NH”

  1. Herman Cain has turned himself into the laughing stock of the Austrian school, hard money wing of the Tea Party movement.

  2. Lew Weinstein said

    In terms of ability to get anything done, and in terms of being beholden to campaign contributors, there is little to choose between Republicans and Democrats, at least for now, while neither has control of the government.

    In terms of their beliefs, there is a world of difference. The Republican proposals to add to the wealth of the top 1% while increasing taxes for 160 million working Americans is reprehensible. Democrats are far more inclined try to use government to benefit the majority of citizens, not just the wealthy.

  3. Lew Weinstein said

    You are among more than a few people in this country who are intent on seeing nothing good in President Obama’s performance and no difference between Republicans and Democrats. I think you have to have your eyes completely blinkered to reach such conclusions, which fly in the face of many rather obvious facts. But, heh, it’s a free country and everyone is entitled to their opinion.

    I would urge you, however, to shake off your totally negative attitude, which leads nowhere, and try to see what’s really going on. True, we have serious problems. True, Obama has not done everything he might have. But much has been accomplished in spite of a Republican party determined to prevent any Obama initiatives being passed into law, and, despite some distressing similarities, the differences between the parties has never been this stark.

  4. Chris said

    In 2008 voters voted for a change. What changed? I fail to see a major difference between democrats and republicans. The performance of Washington DC is a complete and utter failure. The economy, wars, Bill Rights taking a worse shellacking then under Bush & Cheney.

    • Chris said

      I am not intent on seeing nothing good in president Obama’s performance I am judging on those actions or lack of. I have opened up to see the faults of past administrations which they are many. It is not about their ideals or what they believe or thier core values. It is about the complete inability of both parties to govern effectively
      How anyone believes that the republicans are any worse than the democrats fails to see the reality. Both parties have put a stop to any reasonable functioning government. Both parties when in control fail to produce actual meaningful change. While using insider information for profit and exempt themselves from the rule of law.
      Negative is seeing no good in this. I do see good in all this. More and more people are waking up and taking an interest. People are questioning and acting that is good. I am reading watching and see what’s going on. The information leads me to the conclusion that we are in big trouble! So that makes me negative. Some would say that makes me a realist.
      I am curious, what would be your response if President Bush had claimed the right to kill an American citizen suspected of a crime, set TSA and Boarder patrol check points up inside the US stopping all travelers for searches, hold any American with out charge indefinitely, started a war on a lie and because the UN said it was ok without ever seeking congressional approval?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: