A (Belated) Reply to Brother Reusser
"Careful, Mitt," Ricochetian par excellence Scott Reusser wrote in his Friday post, Conservatives' Double Standard. "You're held to a much higher level of scrutiny than your nearest competitor [Herman Cain]. A warning, but also a compliment."
I promised to reply--and then the weekend just got away from me. Here's a brief it's-late-on-Sunday-evening-but-I'll-do-my-best offering:
Conservatives do indeed display a double standard in judging Mitt Romney and Herman Cain. But the double standard strikes me as entirely natural. Even at that, Cain needs to sharpen up his act--fast.
My thinking:
What's Mitt Romney's appeal? That, as CEO of an enormous venture capital company, he started dozens of businesses; that he proved so adept at business that he amassed a personal fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars; that, as governor of Massachusetts, he did what no governor before had ever done--namely, that he enacted a complicated government health program that addressed the specific needs of one state while remaining, for reasons that prove, once again, complicated, not quite right for the rest of the nation; and that, as president, he will pursue a detailed plan--fifty-nine points!--to get the economy moving again.
Mitt's fundamental appeal, in other words, comes down to this--and, yes, I'm caricaturing Mitt's appeal, but I'm doing so to make my point: "Vote for me. I'm smarter than you."
Now as far as it goes, that's fair enough--Mitt is smarter than a lot of us, including, of course, yours truly. But if you set yourself up as the smart kid in the class, then when the teacher calls on you you'd better get every answer just exactly right. Or? Or the rest of the kids in the class will quite understandably start snickering at you and picking apart all your errors. In other words, Mitt himself invites the higher level of scrutiny to which we've been subjecting him.
Herman Cain, by contrast, is running a campaign in which his status as an outsider and an amateur--a talented amateur, but an amateur--lies at the very center of his appeal. "Vote for me," Cain says, in effect, "because I'm one of you. I find Washington just as crazy as you do." What this means, of course, is that Cain gets away with more than Mitt. Voters expect him to. They want him to. They want to see Cain responding to questions more or less as they would respond themselves. If Cain answered every question as comprehensively and with as much factual command as Mitt, he'd undermine his popularity, not increase it.
Up to a point--a point that Cain may have crossed with his by now much-discussed answer to Piers Morgan of CNN on abortion. Although personally opposed to abortion, Cain told Morgan, he didn't consider it the government's business to tell any individual woman what she could or couldn't go with her own pregnancy. I'm paraphrasing Cain from memory here, but his answer was all but identical to the way Bill Clinton used to answer questions on abortion.
Cain's campaign immediately issued a "clarification" that wasn't so much a clarification as a contradiction. Whatever he may have told Piers Morgan, the campaign explained, Herman Cain remained resolutely and completely pro-life.
Now, as I count matters, this is the third time in the last couple of weeks when Herman Cain has said things that would lead any fair-minded observer to conclude he had not the slightest idea what he was talking about. First he said he saw nothing wrong with the Palestinian right of return, clearly unaware that the issue touched on the very existence of Israel as a Jewish state. Then came the debate in Las Vegas, during which Cain, trying to explain the effect of 9-9-9 on state taxes, became (as best I could tell, anyway) thoroughly confused. And now this, Herman Cain, the pro-life candidate, offering a pro-choice answer to what should have been--let's face it--a routine question.
Herman Cain may be the candidate with heart, with personality, with the common touch. But sooner or later voters are going to quit cutting him quite so much slack, insisting that he display at least a rudimentary grasp of the issues.
When will that moment arrive? Beats me. But to say that conservatives employ a double standard for Mr. Cain is not at all to suggest that they have no standards for that good man.
- Comment (76)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Comments :
Aug '11
Re: A (Belated) Reply to Brother Reusser
I would go so far as to say that Herman Cain's "gaffes" are part of his appeal.
Americans are sick of professional politicians who craft every answer to every question so carefully as to be a non-answer. We're tired of fuzz-speaking guys with Trent Lott hair whose only discernible motive is to assure that they arrive safely at the finish line of the next election.
Yeah, perhaps Cain would be well-advised to restrain himself when it comes to making off-the-cuff remarks. But then he wouldn't be Herman Cain.
Edited on Oct 23, 2011 at 10:00pmRe: A (Belated) Reply to Brother Reusser
Tom Paine:
Yeah, perhaps Cain would be well-advised to restrain himself when it comes to making off-the-cuff remarks. But then he wouldn't be Herman Cain. · Oct 23 at 10:00pm
Edited on Oct 23 at 10:00 pm
Exactly.
I'm just arguing that sooner or later the costs will start to outweigh the benefits--that eventually Americans will want to feel comfortable with the idea of this man, not as a relief from all the other blow-dried candidates, but as the commander-in-chief.
We shall see, Tom Paine, we shall see.
May '10
Re: A (Belated) Reply to Brother Reusser
A 2:00am surfing session concludes with... Brother Peter!
I wrapped up the comments in that post of mine with the regret that I'd brought up Romney at all, since my concern (OK, exasperation) was just that the man leading in Iowa by ten points desperately needed scrutiny but wasn't getting it. Forget my double-standards whining -- we need high standards; that's all.
But to say, "When will that moment arrive? Beats me," strikes me as too casual, Peter. The scrutiny needs to be intense, and it needs to be now, well ahead of the first primary voting.
Or maybe I'll just respond to that last point with a Cain-ism: "Your analysis is flawed because it is incorrect." Good night. :-)
Update: One touchy subject I hoped you'd address: In the podcast with Sowell, you wrestled for a moment with the suspicion that your rooting for Cain might be, in part, identity based. I suspect there's a lot of that around, including within me. So is it possible we're patronizing Cain?
Edited on Oct 24, 2011 at 12:01amAug '10
Re: A (Belated) Reply to Brother Reusser
I may be alone in this, but I am sick of unprofessional self promoters like Cain and Palin, and of panderers to social conservatism like Bachmann and Perry.
Given a choice between P.T. Barnum and Billy Sunday, denied a choice that will stand against the progressive drift toward despotism, I am stranded in the reality that Romney is the least unqualified and least unelectable of the lot.
Cain is Zig Zigler with Tea Party street cred. He may well be a fine man, but he is utterly unfit for the office.
Perry's pandering to John Hagee and Robert Jeffress and his somnambulant thuggishness in the debates have soured me on him as well.
The rest simply don't matter any more.
I am more interested in how to carry as many down ballot wins as possible to create an environment that keeps Romney honest.
The longer we coddle these also rans, the more foolishness will escape their lips. We desperately need to address the emerging Latino vote and now we have Cain's Giant Mexican Bug Zapper to answer for.
Enough!
President Obama will turn out the base just fine.
Edited on Oct 23, 2011 at 11:57pmRe: A (Belated) Reply to Brother Reusser
Scott Reusser: A 2:00am surfing session concludes with... Brother Peter!
[T]o say, "When will that moment arrive? Beats me," strikes me as too casual, Peter. The scrutiny needs to be intense, and it needs to be now, well ahead of the first primary voting.
Update: One touchy subject I hoped you'd address: In the podcast with Sowell, you wrestled for a moment with the suspicion that your rooting for Cain might be, in part, identity based. I suspect there's a lot of that around, including within me. So is it possible we're patronizing Cain? · Oct 23 at 10:59pm
Edited on Oct 24 at 12:01 am
Midnight in California--and I see Brother Scott!
Re the scrutiny, yes, it needs to be intense, and it needs to take place now. In other words, I agree as a matter of what should happen. All I was trying to suggest is that I have no idea when it will happen.
Re the possibility that we're patronizing Mr. Cain--yup. We absolutely have to address that. But it's a great big issue, one that deserves a few posts of its own. Later this week....
May '10
Re: A (Belated) Reply to Brother Reusser
I watched Mitt give a speech (online) to some conservative organization last year and was impressed with his seriousness. policy questions aside, it was apparent that he was a man of ability who does his homework, more than can be said of a lot of candidates. I could vote for him.
May '10
Re: A (Belated) Reply to Brother Reusser
Oh, I would vote for Romney. I would do so fully expecting a fututre of David Souters and Christine Todd Whitmans.
May '10
Re: A (Belated) Reply to Brother Reusser
Peter Robinson
Now, as I count matters, this is the third time in the last couple of weeks when Herman Cain has said things that would lead any fair-minded observer to conclude he had not the slightest idea what he was talking about. First he said he saw nothing wrong with the Palestinian right of return, clearly unaware that the issue touched on the very existence of Israel as a Jewish state. Then came the debate in Las Vegas, during which Cain, trying to explain the effect of 9-9-9 on state taxes, became (as best I could tell, anyway) thoroughly confused. And now this, Herman Cain, the pro-life candidate, offering a pro-choice answer to what should have been--let's face it--a routine question.
You forgot the one where he said he wasn't familiar with the neo-conservative movement.
May '10
Re: A (Belated) Reply to Brother Reusser
Peter Robinson
Mitt's fundamental appeal, in other words, comes down to this--and, yes, I'm caricaturing Mitt's appeal, but I'm doing so to make my point: "Vote for me. I'm smarter than you."
I don't think that's it at all. I think his appeal is rather: "Vote for me: I know what to do to get us out of this mess."
May '10
Re: A (Belated) Reply to Brother Reusser
katievs
Peter Robinson
Mitt's fundamental appeal, in other words, comes down to this--and, yes, I'm caricaturing Mitt's appeal, but I'm doing so to make my point: "Vote for me. I'm smarter than you."
I don't think that's it at all. I think his appeal is rather: "Vote for me: I know what to do to get us out of this mess." · Oct 24 at 4:32am
For me it's, "Vote for me: I'm viable", or maybe,"Vote for me: I'm taking this process seriously", or last, "Vote for me: I won't fumble."
See, these are the high standards I'm talking about!
Jindal 2012
Apr '11
Re: A (Belated) Reply to Brother Reusser
Carbon taxes, Obamacare (Romneycare), green regulations and investment, higher taxes and government spending will get us out of this mess?
http://klsouth.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/romney-47th-place-in-jobs/
May '10
Re: A (Belated) Reply to Brother Reusser
Viator: Carbon taxes, Obamacare (Romneycare), green regulations and investment, higher taxes and government spending will get us out of this mess?
http://klsouth.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/romney-47th-place-in-jobs/ · Oct 24 at 5:34am
He has pledged to repeal Obamacare.
Regardless, whether you believe him or not, that's the appeal he makes. He's not asking us to vote for him because he's smarter than we are. He's asking us to vote for him because (he says) he knows what to do to get us out of the mess we're in.
May '11
Re: A (Belated) Reply to Brother Reusser
Peter Robinson
Scott Reusser:
In the podcast with Sowell, you wrestled for a moment with the suspicion that your rooting for Cain might be, in part, identity based. I suspect there's a lot of that around, including within me. So is it possible we're patronizing Cain?
Re the possibility that we're patronizing Mr. Cain--yup. We absolutely have to address that. But it's a great big issue, one that deserves a few posts of its own.
Peter!!! What have I missed? Is there something about Herman Cain that might engender patronizing? Is there something inherently faulty about him that might require one to make a special exception for him? Unless you can tell me exactly what it is about Mr. Cain that makes him different from any other candidate (or human) then I think the issue is within the observer not the observed.
The candidate must be judged only on whether (s)he is fit for the intended office. The person must be judged solely on what we can know of the character of that person. A Presidential candidate must be judged both for fitness for office and for character...nothing more.
Feb '11
Re: A (Belated) Reply to Brother Reusser
So Democrats are willing to make an affirmative action hire with Obama. And now Republicans (at least alot of them) are willing to make another affirmative action hire with Cain. Doesn't say much for political activists does it?
Dec '10
Re: A (Belated) Reply to Brother Reusser
Squishy Blue RINO: I may be alone in this, but I am sick of unprofessional self promoters like Cain and Palin, and of panderers to social conservatism like Bachmann and Perry.
Given a choice between P.T. Barnum and Billy Sunday, denied a choice that will stand against the progressive drift toward despotism, I am stranded in the reality that Romney is the least unqualified and least unelectable of the lot.
Cain is Zig Zigler with Tea Party street cred. He may well be a fine man, but he is utterly unfit for the office.
Perry's pandering to John Hagee and Robert Jeffress and his somnambulant thuggishness in the debates have soured me on him as well.
The rest simply don't matter any more.
I am more interested in how to carry as many down ballot wins as possible to create an environment that keeps Romney honest.
The longer we coddle these also rans, the more foolishness will escape their lips. We desperately need to address the emerging Latino vote and now we have Cain's Giant Mexican Bug Zapper to answer for.
Enough!
President Obama will turn out the base just fine.
Should be a standalone-post.
Oct '10
Re: A (Belated) Reply to Brother Reusser
Peter Robinson
Now, as I count matters, this is the third time in the last couple of weeks when Herman Cain has said things that would lead any fair-minded observer to conclude he had not the slightest idea what he was talking about.
As one of the writers over at NRO said, I wouldn't hire Herman Cain to run a pizza company. Looks, he's an earnest and interesting fellow, but this is a job that requires that person who takes command be fully ready before the first day. If you have to learn the job on the campaign trail, you aren't qualified for the role. We just got done making this mistake with Barak Obama. He was clearly unqualified, but we collectively ignored that fact and ended up with the present mess. There isn't any reason to make that mistake again with Cain when there are better candidates available.
I also have to admit that I'm having a Rob Long moment now with this field. Someone remind me again...why not Gingrich?
May '10
Re: A (Belated) Reply to Brother Reusser
Peter Robinson
Then came the debate in Las Vegas, during which Cain, trying to explain the effect of 9-9-9 on state taxes, became thoroughly confused.
Actually, he just botched his metaphor in this case (that whole apples and oranges thing). He rationale made perfect sense. He openly admitted that the federal tax would go on top of state taxes, however, that is not under his control. People in State A are going to pay B% of state sales tax (oranges in his metaphor) regardless of what or how the federal government taxes them (apples). That their total sales tax rises is irrelevant, because, presumably, they will pay less federal taxes elsewhere. To me, the whole 'paying extra sales tax' is just a disingenuous attack to distract from the totality of Cain's plan. Unless, that is, it becomes clear that Cain's other claimed reductions don't carry muster.
Frankly, his answer should have just been: "Well, that's between the residents of Nevada and their state representatives".
His other responses, however, were definitely trip-ups, and I agree that he'll need to clean up his act some more to stay in the game.
Edited on Oct 24, 2011 at 7:04amOct '10
Re: A (Belated) Reply to Brother Reusser
I suspect that would be the case for me as well. I swore I would not vote for McCain this last time around because he was...well...McCain. I remembered his previous failed campaign where he thought it would be a winning strategy to run for the Republican nomination...by appealing to Democrats and Independents. Oddly enough, that didn't work for him so he pretended to be some sort of conservative long enough to get the nomination.
The weekend before the election I decided that thanks to the nominating processes of the two major political parties, one of two incompetents was going to be president next time around and no amount of sulking on my part was going to change that. So I voted for the incompetent that I thought would be less damaging to the nation and Western Civilization in general.
Romney, at least, is a competent executive even if I don't trust him or care for his politics. He would be a clear improvement over McCain.
May '10
Re: A (Belated) Reply to Brother Reusser
Pilli
Is there something about Herman Cain that might engender patronizing?
Yes: he's black. And regrettably blacks are sometimes patronized by compassionate whites, even smart conservative ones. Sad but true. Listen to Sean Hannity interview Cain and see if you detect it. I do.
Pilli
A Presidential candidate must be judged both for fitness for office and for character...nothing more.
No doubt, which is why a little intropection would be wise to make darn sure we aren't unwittingly patronizing him.
(And delicate issues such as this shouldn't be beyond discussion.)
Dec '10
Re: A (Belated) Reply to Brother Reusser
I think the root of the double standard is this: every candidate is being judged almost solely on negatives (Romney's Romneycare, Perry's inarticulateness, Gingrich's personal failings) while Cain is being judged solely on his positives (sunny disposition, bold tax plan, etc.) My biggest complaint in the process is we seem to lack a standard measuring device by which to assess the candidates. Of course Romney is going to look horrible if all we see is Romneycare (granted, that can actually block the sun...), and Cain will look like the second coming of Reagan if we only focus on his positive demeanor, but we need a much more balanced, and dare I say mechanical, approach to evaluating the candidates. We should use our heads first and our hearts to break any ties.