I guess you'd have to say that I'm in a minority here. The American Spectator gave me the impression of being a conservative outfit, so this piece was more than a bit disappointing. You can't fight the whole world, but these guys don't seem have a problem with it if somebody else is doing the fighting. What I mean by that is all of the saber rattling that will encourage that type of argument from the left which is reminiscent of the chicken hawk argument of the Bush years. Are conservatives chicken hawks? Maybe. Maybe that and more if this is any indication.
Still, I don't want to go too far. The thing that bugged me most about the after debate discussion was how Perry's performance was so good and Cain's so weak. What Perry said was not that good, and what Cain said was not that bad. But it is being spun that way and I have to ask why. Perry said that Russia would be left on the ash heap of history. There's a difference between communism and the people of a nation. The way Perry said it was unfortunate. I consider it a great thing that communism is gone - at least for the moment - in Russia. But Russia is still there and I don't think it helps to refer to them in a manner such as that. It plays into the hands of revanchism, which may not be too helpful to us in the years ahead.
I think there are a number of issues with this piece which I will begin enumerating as follows:
- Underestimating Obama: Consider the following quote: "If there is anything America has been reminded of by Barack Obama, it's that the presidency is no place for on-the-job training -- and it's even less so when potential nuclear conflict is involved." So, the main issue with Obama is that he wasn't ready? Does that mean he's ready now after these last few years? Maybe the real problem with Obama is his direction, not his inexperience.
- Over-hyping the brain freeze. I covered that in a previous post.
- Can't win argumentative style with respect to his getting "testy". I examined the video. Cain got "testy" all right, but the questioning was insistent on an issue in which he said no comment. This was not the best possible moment for Cain, but even if he kept smiling broadly thorough out it all, the criticism would just turn to his "stonewalling". It looks like there's a movement afoot to deny him any chance to win. By the way, I stop counting at 10 on the refusal to continue with that line of discussion. Was the interview a little on the aggressive side? So is a conservative publication letting the liberals do their fighting for them? See for yourself below
Update:
Here's what the big deal was on that video:
Reports: Cain spends campaign cash to buy his book
He said on the video that this was being looked into. But the questions kept coming as I mentioned.
No comments:
Post a Comment