Skip to main content

View Diary: CBS/New York Times: Herman Cain and Mitt Romney maintain top two spots in Republican field (63 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Bad politician, more likely. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I know it is great to pretend that people you don't like are idiots, but you don't end up successful in business for 20 years by being an idiot.

    The skillset required to be a national political figure and navigate the twisty maze of personal conviction, base pandering, and general electability is a different beast than the one required to turn restaurant franchises around. Saying that makes someone an idiot or dumb is like saying Bill Gates is an idiot because he can't fix the transmission in your car.

    hetoric is one thing, but the slide away from political discourse and into disingenuous blathering is annoying to see here.

    •  I beg to differ, someone as unqualified to be (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      President as Cain, would never have come this far without being a good politician, or a good con man.

      Take your pick.  

    •  exactly. Cain is pandering to idiots (0+ / 0-)

      It is a great Republican tradition.

      •  Good post. (0+ / 0-)

        You really added something to the discussion and furthered my understanding of the political process.

        Pick a position and yell about it while calling everyone else idiots. If the other side has picked a position first, take the opposite one. They are idiots, so clearly their position is wrong.

        •  please tell me what positions that Cain supporters (0+ / 0-)

          agree with that indicates that they are thoughful, intelligent voters.  Thanks.

          My point is that we know Cain spews out incoherent irrational non sequiturs to pander to his base.  so if that stuff sells to voters, those voters are idiots.

          If Cain were coherent and well reasoned in his proposals you might have a point. But he is not so you don't.

          •  Oh now it makes sense. (0+ / 0-)

            You took a reply to a post about Herman Cain being an idiot, where I talked about whether or not Herman Cain was actually a stupid person, and then started replying about how his supporters are idiots.

            The reason you did this I can only guess at.

            •  Sorry it was not clear. I agreed with your (0+ / 0-)

              post about Cain not being an idiot.  Here is what I said:

              "Exactly.  Cain panders to idiots."  I thought that was pretty clear.  I was agreeing with you.

              I agree that folks often dismiss dangerous right wing demagogues like Cain, Perry, Ginrich, Bachmann etc as "idiots". they are not idiots. They are dangerous deceivers of idiots.

    •  Successful in business? Really? (0+ / 0-)

      I don't really want to speak to the virtues of Godfather's balance sheet or their pizza but I've been reading that Cain's handling has resulted in dubious results for both.  

      My main point is, I don't give a damn whether or not someone was good at business.  Those are not the best and only skills needed to be a president.  Businesspeople are beholden to a select few people within the organization.    Further their chief concern is money first, second, third,.......... and eventually people (they know personally). I don't want that mantra coming along with a president who should represent all the people.

      I'll take a community organizer any day of the week for president, their priorities are usually more aligned with helping the entire group, in this case our nation.

      And on the 'idiot' front, yes, yes he is.  Listen to him speak and you can see he just suffers from having too many intellectually vapid yes men around him for his entire life.  That can work in a board room just fine as long as nepotism is in full force.

    •  Cain is no idiot, agreed (0+ / 0-)

      and I don't think it's a politically smart line of attack against him either-- at least in the Republican Primary. Michael Tomasky's editorial the other day questioning Cain's intelligence was both an unconvincing stretch and a disappointing hit piece from a writer I usually like.

      What I would argue instead is that Cain is clearly unqualified to be president, lacking any experience with or knowledge of foreign policy. And his bold proposals haven't been thought through and indicate a lack of seriousness and preparation.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site