Mark Halperin gets to occupy real estate on the op-ed pages of the New York Times, while confessing to a level of stupidity that can only be described as mind-boggling:
MORE than any other book, Richard Ben Cramer’s “What It Takes,” about the 1988 battle for the White House, influenced the way I cover campaigns.
I’m not alone. The book’s thesis — that prospective presidents are best evaluated by their ability to survive the grueling quadrennial coast-to-coast test of endurance required to win the office — has shaped the universe of political coverage.
…
For most of my time covering presidential elections, I shared the view that there was a direct correlation between the skills needed to be a great candidate and a great president. The chaotic and demanding requirements of running for president, I felt, were a perfect test for the toughest job in the world.
But now I think I was wrong. The “campaigner equals leader” formula that inspired me and so many others in the news media is flawed.
Who woulda thunk it? What a shock to find that the ability to fool most of the people most of the time does not correlate with presidential competence.
Post a Comment