What Happened To "Nice Guys Finish Last"?

Fortunately that's not always true. But are Democrats being duped again? They're looking for the nice candidate -- a change from the bad men. Admirable, but is it smart?

If this were a race for Convivial Summer Picnic and Orienteering Chair, the Democratic "Let's not argue" would be one thing. But this is a race for President of the United States -- against a ruthless far right. Mike Huckabee says you have to be willing to shed blood and refers to running for president as a "contact sport" that isn't so much about the "dog in the fight but the fight in the dog."

We live in tough times. Paul Krugman had it right when he wrote: "Anyone who thinks that the next president can achieve real change without bitter confrontation is living in a fantasy world."

Yet, we hear that Democrats want to be charmed, to return to the ideal days of JFK and that Iowans don't like conflict. Clinton can't criticize Obama without being labeled some kind of hardened, success-grabbing woman. Obama can't get aggressive without destroying his message of hope and risking his winning charisma.

There are rough roads ahead. The Republicans may hate Hillary Clinton, but we delude ourselves if we think they're going to be nicer to Obama, Edwards or any Democrat. No way. They're going to be nasty no matter who wins the nomination. So don't we deserve to see who can take the heat and do so with some class?

This is a race for the most important, powerful position in the world. Our national security, healthcare, economy, and the future are at stake. Iowans are still making up their minds, in part because there's been "nothing dramatic or emphatic" happening there. Each candidate is playing it safe and trying to out-nice the other.

At times, harsh words are the best vessels of honesty. Intensity is not the enemy of truth and hardly ever is quietude its most encouraging companion.

Take a lesson from the "beguiling" Mike Huckabee's political rhetoric rulebook. He uses emphatic phrases like, "Not hardly," "That is categorically untrue," "Check the source," "Actually not true," and "Look, nobody is going to do that" after which he explains his view briefly and gives us a memorable proverb or bromide like "We should be glad we're a country people want to get into rather than one they can't get out of." He's loaded with these. He gets to disagree, defend and even attack without losing his cool. He doesn't run around trying to be nice without also clearly telling you what's wrong with Romney -- usually without Romney knowing what hit him.

Politics requires the ability to engage in verbal judo. That's not going to change because we're tired of bad men lying to us.

Every minute wasted on finding the nicest Democratic candidate instead of the most qualified, intelligent, politically astute one who can take political punches is another minute preparing him or her to ultimately lose.

We have a number of nice Democrats in Congress. And look how little gets done. How about a presidential nominee who is perceptive, bright, genuine, generous, devoted to the country, angry at times, tough as nails when required and someone who can meet the opposition's lying-in-wait scum trust head on? Time to put the charm offensives on hold. Besides, if you have to work hard at charm, you don't have it anyway.

Comments

[avergejoe]

they seem to be able to pass glbt legislation just fine.
its wars, and corporations, and human rights
that they seem have problems with.

[23000Days]

"How about a presidential nominee who is perceptive, bright, genuine, generous, devoted to the country, angry at times, tough as nails when required and someone who can meet the opposition's lying-in-wait scum trust head on?"

Does that define Dennis Kucinich, or what?

[Kane]

Most don't expect the presidential candidates to be nice and to play well with others. However, we do deserve for them to be decent and respectable. All too often in this country we reward those who practice agressive behavior. The warmongers are described as having toughness, strength, and leadership, while the diplomats are labeled as weak, naive, and passively nice. This is the same thinking that led Hillary Clinton and others into signing on to the Iraq resolution. In weighing their political options, it was better to put the country into war than it was to be labeled as a weak liberal. That thinking in of itself is weak, and it is dangerous to the country.

It's unfortunate that there are far too many who love the bloodsport of partisan politics. They constantly want to fight the fight for the sake of fighting, with a winner take all mentality. Many in the media not only want to witness a constant stream of political fights, they want politicans who love the taste of their own blood as well as the blood of their enemies, those who "appreciate the bitterness of the battles". These are the same individuals who hailed Karl Rove as a genius. The same talking-heads who questioned Obama's toughness, insisting that Obama must personally attack Hillary to win.

To be sure, Republicans will undoubtedly attack and attempt to slime whoever is the Democratic nominee. But that's no justification for Democrats to slime one another. If we condone the politics of personal destruction in the primary election, we lose all moral highground to condemn the same actions in the general election. And in the end, we don't get the best candidate, we get those who are best suited in destroying others.

[Newfycrat]

The phrase "nice guys finish last" has always peeved me. It should be, "doormats finish last". That a doormat flips to being "nice guy" just shows our constant victimology.
Doormats do finish last, and Kerry looked like a doormat when he didn't stand up for himself against the swiftboat ads. The unanswered question is that if you can't stand up for yourself can you do it for the country?
But, there is a difference between defense and going on the attack. (personal attacks not issue attacks) I don't know how many people saw how nasty the Californian democratic primaries were for governor. For the general election, they used those exact ads against the winner of the primary. It was a very messy year and I hope it is never repeated.

[lanefiller]

Anyone interested in what Huckabee is really like face to face should try this funny (but it actually happened) column:
http://goupstate.us/index.php/lanefiller/2007/11/02/title_14

[Timetheos]

Good post

"The Republicans may hate Hillary Clinton, but we delude ourselves if we think they're going to be nicer to Obama, Edwards or any Democrat. No way. They're going to be nasty no matter who wins the nomination." True, but it's missing a big issue. There are rank and file conservatives that WILL NOT vote for Hillary that MIGHT vote for someone like Edwards. The attacks will be vicious against both, but who will grab independents and some conservatives?