Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Cain unable after all

BostonHerald.com  By Michael Graham

h/t Instanpundit

excerpts:
  • Republicans also want a winner, not a grinner; a debater, not a deflater; and a butt-kicking vote grabber, not a butt-grabbing . . . well, you see where I’m going. [ Comment:  Very Funny.  He accuses Cain of not being serious and he writes this?]
  • Cain the clown is adding to the general population’s perception that the entire field is a joke. [ Comment: Jokes like the above do not help, if such be the case.  If you want the field to be taken seriously, try acting that way yourself.]
  • When a campaign says, as Cain’s attorney did, that the press should ignore “private, alleged consensual conduct between adults,” at some point the candidate wasn’t wearing any pants). [ Comment: This comment was from his attorney.  So the attorney uses legal language.  This is not an admission of guilt, but is being twisted into one by Michael Graham.]
  • Picking a presidential nominee via TV debates is like picking a husband based on a one-night stand: Anyone can be good for two minutes. [ Comment: Another joke.]
  • Fun time’s over. It’s time to get real. [ Comment: Who says it isn't?  Graham's the one cracking the jokes.  Why not look at all the candidates now, as opposed to being sorry later.]
Comment:  The problems isn't the nominating method, although I don't like some of the dumb questions that get asked by the moderators.  Debates are good, this is the way we can measure the candidates.  The more the better.  Gingrich and Cain had a long format debate.  Why not more of these?

We have a problem in this country and we need to look at doing things a bit differently than before.  The problem is not this series of debates.  I see the problem as a failure of the pundit class to be honest and fair towards the candidates.  This is to be expected from the MSM, but not from the blogosphere.  That's what is really disappointing to me.

Update:

This is why jumping on bandwagons is not such a good idea

Back to Bush’s Big-Government Conservatism - Michael Tanner - National Review Online

No comments: