Owning up to their weaknesses as candidates
We haven’t seen the overall numbers for the GOP debate in Iowa, but the telecast handily won its time slot in some key swing states. So it looks like GOP voters are still paying a lot of attention to these performances. We’ve been watching them too. And one of the things we’ve noticed is how poorly many of the candidates have handled their weaknesses as candidates.
Of course Exhibit A is Herman Cain, the best recent example of why it’s often the second time you run for president that you’ve got a shot. After his surprise showing in Florida, he needed to do a full Clinton, or at least say, “I’ve broken eight of the Ten Commandments over my sixty-six years, and I’ve repented. Assume I am as flawed as Thomas Jefferson. Now let’s get moving to fix this country.” It couldn’t have worked worse than what he actually said.
Rick Perry was once the front runner. Remember that? Half the new jobs created in the US since 2009 have been in Texas. But Perry can’t string two sentences together. He could have tried this, way back when: “I know a lot about being a government executive who makes decisions that create jobs, but I can’t debate for spit. So I’m using my executive ability to designate Newt Gingrich as my designated debater against the president in the general election. We agree on most things, as do most of my fellow candidates, and I’m going to spend my time campaigning, not debating.” It couldn’t have worked worse than what he did.
Then there’s Mitt Romney. He has a better memory than the current president, so he doesn’t need a teleprompter. He can access his talking points about most subjects at will. His comeback to Gingrich on the career politician criticism was smooth, because he had prepared for it. But for some reason, Romney becomes very rigid when it comes to certain criticisms, whether about changes he made in a book, changes in his views about healthcare mandates, or who he hired to mow his lawn. He could have finessed the issues by saying, “I disagree, but even if you’re right, so what? I’ve made a lot of wrong decisions. You know where I stand now on what’s important.” His need to defend a stick-figure of himself has not served him well.
Finally, there’s Newt Gingrich. He has plenty of well-documented problems as a candidate, but seems untroubled by most of them. His vast knowledge and his Lincoln-Smile-Simple Plan has been working rather well for him in the debates. One of his main weaknesses is that many of those who know him best say he’s a terrible executive. It’s pretty hard to see a board of directors making a guy like that CEO unless he was paired with a very strong operating executive as COO. Gingrich would do well to address this huge negative. The country may have bad problems, but it’s hardly England in May of 1940.
Not a single vote has been cast, and we have no idea what will happen, though we expect some strange unanticipated turns in the months ahead. That said, it’s puzzling that the various front-runners haven’t owned up to their weaknesses more aggressively — making, as best they can, a virtue of necessity. Always best to address these on direct examination, not cross examination.
December 13th, 2011 at 12:19 pm
Agreed. All the candidates are far from perfect/ideal.
I find your England May 1940 reference to be an interesting one. Suppose we had another Churchill running for president in this country but he had a similar 250,000 casualty Gallipoli disaster on his resume? Why, the Press wouldn’t have to hound him out of the running, the Republicans would do it themselves. Such a candidate would be branded a loser.
The point being that one of the candidates could emerge to be great, even with blots on their record, if we give them the chance. We won’t know until they sit in the Oval Office.
I would add that we are not electing a dictator, there are limits to what the president can do without help from Congress. It is essential to get to 60 in the Senate.