Cults (plural) of personality
I know your anger, I know your dreams
I’ve been everything you want to be
I’m the cult of personality
Like Mussolini and Kennedy
I’m the cult of personality- Living Colour
The latest round of polls in the post-Biden announcement era have left me scratching my head yet again. On the rare occasions when I turn out to be wrong, (who… me?) I at least try to make some sort of amends and determine where it was that I went off the beam. Since the end of Hillary Clinton’s presidential aspirations – at least for this cycle – I have been confidently awaiting the slow, perhaps-reluctant, but steady return of her avid followers to the Democratic fold. If these poll numbers hold any validity at all, it simply hasn’t happened to the required degree, and all of Hillary’s exhortations to the clan have not resulted in even half of them signing on to the Obama bandwagon. What went wrong?
During the early days of the Democratic primary, one of the repeated battle cries we heard were the endless accusations that Obama’s followers were a “cult of personality” who were star-struck by an empty suit with no substance. No matter that the two candidates had virtually identical platforms and proposals… Hillary was the candidate of substance who would bring those plans to fruition. She would correct the country’s errant course – set these last eight years by the Republicans, mind you – and do so in effective manner on Day One which the youthful and untested Obama would simply not be able to manage.
We all know how that story ended in June. And now a significant number of these acolytes seem prepared to vote for John McCain. Good news for Big Mac, no doubt, but what sort of followers are you getting in this bargain? If they were following Senator Clinton but are willing to reject Senator Obama who wanted to lead them in virtually the exact same direction, then were they not following the person rather than the issues and ideals? And when given the option, if they turn around and state that the reason for their choice of McCain is based on his readiness to lead, his character, his experience… are they not following a new person rather than the direction? In short, is the quality of being “ready to lead on Day One” still a virtue if your chosen official is prepared to lead you in the opposite direction from that which you purported to desire only ninety days earlier? Or are you just following a new personality, issues be damned?
There are a few exceptions, of course, such as I found during my interview with Silverio Salazar. He told me in quite plain language that he admired McCain’s stance on abortion, energy and the war, among other issues of the day. This is all well and good, but I’ll confess I was still left wondering why he had been supporting Democrats all these years, and Hillary Clinton specifically this season. It really sounds as if McCain would have been a far better fit for him than Clinton right from the beginning.
In short, I’m left in yet another state of confusion when attempting to glean the inner workings of the minds of the voters. Will the real cult of personality please stand up?
Share This
Related Posts
-
NSA Surveillance Coverage from Germany, France, Switzerland, Brazil and Colombia
Posted on Jun 13, 2013
-
Obama’s Data Nightmare is Europe’s (Handelsblatt, Germany)
Posted on Jun 10, 2013
-
‘Hypnotized’ Western Public Wakes Up to Obama Abuses (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Germany)
Posted on May 25, 2013
-
Like the Brits and Americans, Europeans Must Re-Embrace Keynes (Die Welt, Germany)
Posted on May 21, 2013
He told me in quite plain langage that he admired McCain’s stance on abortion, energy and the war, among other issues of the day. This is all well and good, but I’ll confess I was still left wondering why he had been supporting Democrats all these years, and Hillary Clinton specifically this season. It really sounds as if McCain would have been a far better fit for him than Clinton right from the beginning.
You and I both, apparently. See my comment on your previous thread.
Noted, and I didn't disagree with you there, either.
Excellent post Jazz. That's exactly what I was trying to get at with this comment.
I think it all comes down to basic consumer buying behavior. Why do some people buy lousy products and some buy great products, everything else being equal? It's because every person uses different criteria for making decisions that put weight on seemingly irrelevant features (at least to a third party looking at the decision).
There are four types of buying behaviors. Risk Averse, Amiables, Analyticals and Doers.
Some people are risk averse and use that aversion as the basis for making the decision. For those people its the risk of four more years of the same vs the national security protections that a McCain implies. In the case of Salazar, I suspect that that national security risk aversion led him to McCain, because McCain's positions on immigration, the economy etc are so contrary to the standard Democratic position. I think you will find that risk averse voters who are afraid for their jobs, the environment and their economic future shy away from McCain and will tend to be for Obama. In light of this It is not surprising that a retired manager would support McCain.
Other people make buying decisions based on who they like as a person. These people (called Amiables) will primarily use the recommendations of friends to make those decisions. Actual policy positions are almost irrelevant, it is group think that drives the decision. Capture a certain demographic (ie youth vote) and you get a majority of the group who thinks that way. Getting this type of buyer to move in a certain direction can be tough, because you need to tap into a social network. The brilliance of the Obama campaign is in using the internet to access these types of buyers. The problem that the McCain campaign has is that the strongest Republican demographic to fit this category (Evangelical voters) are at risk of not showing up this year. McCain's VP selection could really determine if he loses the social networked buyers that have been historically part of the Republican base.
What is funny is when a candidate attempts to appeal to amiable buyers by doing something out of charactor that is clearly phoney in order to show a sharing of similarities. Like if you were to see Obama going duck hunting. Or McCain at a rock concert (except for ABBA).
Only a small segment of the population are analytical buyers. Very few people analyze a situation to make buying decisions. If you want to know why people vote against their own best economic interest, this is the reason. Politicians who quote long policy positions and expect to win based on their views are only targeting a small segment of the population. Certainly a voter could point to a candidates views as the basis for their decision, but that is most usually smoke and mirrors. Silverio Salazar, in Jazz's prior post is a great example. It is clear that security is the key hot button for him and his national security risk concerns are paramount. The policy issues held by McCain (or Obama) are not specfically ennuciated-he just states that he liked them. I doubt he has a full comprehension or the nuances of those positions and how likely they are going to ever materialize. They just become an easy smoke screen.
The final buying style are doers—By definition they have already made their decision.
What is hilarious are those pundits who knock Obama for his supposedly “short” list of policy positions. Aside from the discussion of whether or not that is true, the reality is that most voters do not base their decisions on a long list of policy positions. It may be used as an excuse to rationalize a decision, but that is it.
The decision is actually alot simpler than that.
The polls are irrelevant primarily because the two biggest demographics that haven't made decisions (Amiables and Risk Averse buyers), tend to be the last to decide. Since Amiables use decision criteria that is already in the works and cannot be changed by the candidates, the only group at play are Risk Averse buyers.
This is why negative campaigning works. Expect alot of it as these campaigns work over the risk averse voters that are in play.
At its best it will be 4 more years of McBush vs the inexperienced Obama.
At its worst it will be the big bad black extremist who you can't trust vs. the early Alzheimers patient who can't keep track of how many kitchens he owns.
Very interesting analysis, joep. I'm going to have to think about that one for a while.
Supposedly is the key word. The policy section of his website seems far more comprehensive than McCain's.
Great comment joep.
One other thing to recognize is that everyone has a dominant and passive buying trait. For example, I am an amiable analytical. I will make my decision based on an analysis and after I have an idea of what I want, I will buy someone I like if they meet that criteria.
When do political “arguments” happen? It's easy. You're an analytical buyer who is trying to convince your risk averse uncle why he should vote for Obama. You throw all of the “logical” policy arguments at him and it doesn't make a dent. You get frustrated and the discussion blows up. If instead you showed how risky the other candidate is based on their terms, then you can turn him. McCain is hot headed and likely to press the button (he so hot-headed that most Senators can't stand him), McCain goes around singing “bomb Iran”, McCain's advisors are paid lobbyists of foreign countries that do their bidding. McCain is out of touch and unable to make a sound decision. No policy discussion because once you go there you get glossy eyes.
The unfortunate thing is that most people can only base risk on a personal level based on their own experiences. This is why politics is a gutter game, because it is fought in the trenches by people who really care to motivate people who don't.
Off topic for a moment here, but I saw Living Colour back in the 80s near Detroit. They put on a heck of a good concert! If my memory serves me, they were opening for the Stones on their Steel Wheels tour… we thought they were getting pretty ancient at the time, but they also put on a heck of the concert. OK, back to your regular program…
I was a Hillary supporter and now I am supporting McCain. I just think Obama does not have the experience to lead our country. I think he and his campaign crapped all over Hillary and her supporters. Obama does not just automatically get my vote after that. I had always said that McCain was the one Republican I could stomache voting for and that's what it will be. This will be my first vote for a Republican but according to the Obama supporters I was just faking being a Democrat for the last 15 years.
So am I picking a personality over issues? I don't think so. I think there's more to it than that.
Also I think it's worth noting that Biden is everything Obama held against Hillary. He voted for the war and he is a Washington insider. I guess the change mantra and Iraq pullout now goes out the window. And why is no one talking about the war anymore? Do you think they will even bring it up at the convention. Ack. I'm rambling.
Big Mac! [tm] Dynamic, energetic, powerful, transformative…
OK, back to the design center.
As for the sales analogy or metaphor: The GOP “brand,” as is widely said, is old, dead, tired, and unappealing. As I've said, it's the GOP's as well as McCain's basic problem. There is no positive, attractive alternative that people want to “buy.” It's simply a matter of it being normally less defective and unappealing than the Dem brand.
Hey, boudica, I think people are not talking about the war anymore, because Iraq is repeatedly demanding we leave by 2011 and even the Bush administration seems to be working themselves up to it. So Obama's timetable for withdrawal was already mid to late 2010. In the end, you are just left with a few months difference, and that's not going to cause a huge fight. The only things left are then 1) the size of the remaining training forces and bases after 2011, and 2) who made the right judgments in the past. That boils down to 1) the original decision to go and 2) the decision on the Surge.
I'm wondering what exact sorts of policies you liked about Clinton that McCain shares, which Obama does not? The reasons you mention in your comment are all personal/character: Obama doesn't have experience and was mean to Hillary. After all, if McCain uses his experience to crush Clinton's policy positions….
(By the way, if people respond to your comment, you may get attacked by some. I hope you will try to ignore that and respond back, as I'm genuinely interested.)
Hey, boudica, I think people are not talking about the war anymore, because Iraq is repeatedly demanding we leave by 2011 and even the Bush administration seems to be working themselves up to it. So Obama's timetable for withdrawal was already mid to late 2010. In the end, you are just left with a few months difference, and that's not going to cause a huge fight. The only things left are then 1) the size of the remaining training forces and bases after 2011, and 2) who made the right judgments in the past. That boils down to 1) the original decision to go and 2) the decision on the Surge.
I'm wondering what exact sorts of policies you liked about Clinton that McCain shares, which Obama does not? The reasons you mention in your comment are all personal/character: Obama doesn't have experience and was mean to Hillary. After all, if McCain uses his experience to crush Clinton's policy positions….
(By the way, if people respond to your comment, you may get attacked by some. I hope you will try to ignore that and respond back, as I'm genuinely interested.)
This is what we call rationalizing.
This is what we call rationalizing.
boudica, while it's true that Biden voted for the war resolution, he, unlike Clinton, has since said his vote was a mistake. Clinton never did that. As for Biden being a Washington insider, there's no doubt about that. However, except for the plagiarism problem (a mistake for which he admitted, apologized for, and never repeated, and which occurred 20 years ago — back when Obama was snorting coke and well before the Clintons ever got to Washington), he has a clean record. I'm afraid the same can't be said about the Clintons.
It could be argued that except for the Lewinsky incident, none of the charges stuck — and that was about Bill not Hillary. Nonetheless, it can't be denied that Bill and Hillary come as a package (and without him Hillary's own resume is pretty thin). So you know all the old charges would resurface — travelgate, Whitewater, Vince Foster, the various scandals associated with cabinet members, and of course Lewinsky and the rest of the bimbo brigade. I hate to sound like Sil, but this February Vanity Fair reported concerns that maybe Bill hasn't been entirely faithful to Hill in recent years. If more women came forward during the campaign it would torpedo her chances.
Speaking of rambling… lol! Anyway, the point is, whatever experience Hillary brings to the table it comes with considerable baggage.
boudica, while it's true that Biden voted for the war resolution, he, unlike Clinton, has since said his vote was a mistake. Clinton never did that. As for Biden being a Washington insider, there's no doubt about that. However, except for the plagiarism problem (a mistake for which he admitted, apologized for, and never repeated, and which occurred 20 years ago — back when Obama was snorting coke and well before the Clintons ever got to Washington), he has a clean record. I'm afraid the same can't be said about the Clintons.
It could be argued that except for the Lewinsky incident, none of the charges stuck — and that was about Bill not Hillary. Nonetheless, it can't be denied that Bill and Hillary come as a package (and without him Hillary's own resume is pretty thin). So you know all the old charges would resurface — travelgate, Whitewater, Vince Foster, the various scandals associated with cabinet members, and of course Lewinsky and the rest of the bimbo brigade. I hate to sound like Sil, but this February Vanity Fair reported concerns that maybe Bill hasn't been entirely faithful to Hill in recent years. If more women came forward during the campaign it would torpedo her chances.
Speaking of rambling… lol! Anyway, the point is, whatever experience Hillary brings to the table it comes with considerable baggage.
So, let me get this straight- a bunch of white democrats would rather vote for a white guy who opposes them on nearly every issue over a black guy who agrees with them on nearly every issue, and we're really asking what the subtext is here? Seriously?
So, let me get this straight- a bunch of white democrats would rather vote for a white guy who opposes them on nearly every issue over a black guy who agrees with them on nearly every issue, and we're really asking what the subtext is here? Seriously?
Well after considering this I have to admit that it is about personality not policy. I can't and won't support Obama though. He does not have the experience to be President. He is a great big pander bear. He is a flip flopping flip flopper. He is condescending and pretentious. He is sexist. I just flat out don't like him.
His present votes bother me. His “bitter” comment bothered me. His church's philosophy bothered me. I honestly don't think he even likes our country. I think his candidacy is all about personal aggrandizement not about serving our country. His socialist leanings worry me.
So the question is do I vote third party, stay home, write in Hillary or vote for McCain.
Well after considering this I have to admit that it is about personality not policy. I can't and won't support Obama though. He does not have the experience to be President. He is a great big pander bear. He is a flip flopping flip flopper. He is condescending and pretentious. He is sexist. I just flat out don't like him.
His present votes bother me. His “bitter” comment bothered me. His church's philosophy bothered me. I honestly don't think he even likes our country. I think his candidacy is all about personal aggrandizement not about serving our country. His socialist leanings worry me.
So the question is do I vote third party, stay home, write in Hillary or vote for McCain.
I'm not white but you find me out I'm a big racist. My problems with Obama have nothing to do with the color of his skin and everything to do with the content of his character.
I'm not white but you find me out I'm a big racist. My problems with Obama have nothing to do with the color of his skin and everything to do with the content of his character.
boudica,
If you want to claim to be a Democrat you have some problems. Unfortunately all of your claims about Obama's characters are falsehoods. Out and out lies. Show us where Obama did or said anything sexist. Show where he actually made a complete 180 degree turn on an issue. Tell me what socialist leanings he has that were not shared by Senator Clinton. In other words, if you're going to make horrendous accusations against Senator Obamba, PROVE IT!!
I am just so sick of hearing this kind of stuff from the PUMAs or people who claim that's what they are. Especially when they claim to be Democrats of such long standing and then their entire post reads like the daily dose of Limbaugh, Hannity and the RNC. The socialist line really breaks it open, BTW. Somehow I never heard an actual Democrat accuse another one of being a socialist. Ever. Yet what word shows up in your post?
boudica,
If you want to claim to be a Democrat you have some problems. Unfortunately all of your claims about Obama's characters are falsehoods. Out and out lies. Show us where Obama did or said anything sexist. Show where he actually made a complete 180 degree turn on an issue. Tell me what socialist leanings he has that were not shared by Senator Clinton. In other words, if you're going to make horrendous accusations against Senator Obamba, PROVE IT!!
I am just so sick of hearing this kind of stuff from the PUMAs or people who claim that's what they are. Especially when they claim to be Democrats of such long standing and then their entire post reads like the daily dose of Limbaugh, Hannity and the RNC. The socialist line really breaks it open, BTW. Somehow I never heard an actual Democrat accuse another one of being a socialist. Ever. Yet what word shows up in your post?
Boudica, I was responding to the post- not to you or your comment. Frankly, I couldn't care less about your problems with Obama.
Boudica, I was responding to the post- not to you or your comment. Frankly, I couldn't care less about your problems with Obama.
Jim Satterfield –
Sexist – calling a reporter sweety, saying Hillary “I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal.”
180 degree turn – saying he wouldn't run for President when he won his Senate seat, accepting public campaign financing, FISA,
Socialist – “In America,” Obama says, “we have this strong bias toward individual action. You know, we idolize the John Wayne hero who comes in to correct things with both guns blazing. But individual actions, individual dreams, are not sufficient. We must unite in collective action, build collective institutions and oganizations.”
I'm no longer a Democrat. I now consider myself an independent or a reasonable if there only were such a party.
Jim Satterfield –
Sexist – calling a reporter sweety, saying Hillary “I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal.”
180 degree turn – saying he wouldn't run for President when he won his Senate seat, accepting public campaign financing, FISA,
Socialist – “In America,” Obama says, “we have this strong bias toward individual action. You know, we idolize the John Wayne hero who comes in to correct things with both guns blazing. But individual actions, individual dreams, are not sufficient. We must unite in collective action, build collective institutions and oganizations.”
I'm no longer a Democrat. I now consider myself an independent or a reasonable if there only were such a party.
rufus – It just seems to be a common refrain that if you have any objection to Obama, well you must be racist. Like there is no other reason a person could have to not support Obama.
rufus – It just seems to be a common refrain that if you have any objection to Obama, well you must be racist. Like there is no other reason a person could have to not support Obama.
Boudica–
Instead of attacking just Obama, why don't you tell us what's good about McCain?
Make a positive case.
Boudica–
Instead of attacking just Obama, why don't you tell us what's good about McCain?
Make a positive case.
Pretty f'ing weak there. Come back when you got some real dirt.
I'll grant you FISA and the Senate thing…
This is truly asinine. By this definition supporting ANY part of government is socialist.
Pretty f'ing weak there. Come back when you got some real dirt.
I'll grant you FISA and the Senate thing…
This is truly asinine. By this definition supporting ANY part of government is socialist.
Sorry ChrisWWW – I tried. I still think he's sexist. Calling the reporter sweety was condescending and the Hillary thing was definately belittling.
Maybe the socialist thing was pushing. I do think his idea of change will be to make the country more socialist and I don't think that's a good thing.
Sorry ChrisWWW – I tried. I still think he's sexist. Calling the reporter sweety was condescending and the Hillary thing was definately belittling.
Maybe the socialist thing was pushing. I do think his idea of change will be to make the country more socialist and I don't think that's a good thing.
Boudica, I for one thank you for posting what you really think. I've been perplexed as others on this site about the lack of support for Obama by former Clinton supporters. I suspected that a lot of it was personality, but people like Holly have really only been able to repeat one sentence montra's about Obama not being qualified/competent.
I also think that you are perfectly valid for feeling the way you do. I might disagree with you on some aspects and maybe on the overall assessment, but I disagree with a lot of people about their various beliefs and choices. I don't think that you should be attacked for being wrong-headed or incorrect in your decisionmaking process. You don't like Obama, fair enough. Nothing anyone says on this site is going to make you change your mind, I think.
Boudica, I for one thank you for posting what you really think. I've been perplexed as others on this site about the lack of support for Obama by former Clinton supporters. I suspected that a lot of it was personality, but people like Holly have really only been able to repeat one sentence montra's about Obama not being qualified/competent.
I also think that you are perfectly valid for feeling the way you do. I might disagree with you on some aspects and maybe on the overall assessment, but I disagree with a lot of people about their various beliefs and choices. I don't think that you should be attacked for being wrong-headed or incorrect in your decisionmaking process. You don't like Obama, fair enough. Nothing anyone says on this site is going to make you change your mind, I think.
That's it? Two questionable instances where he had a bad choice of words? You were making it sound like a veritable flood of sexist vitriol. You'd better come up with more than that to justify the kind of reaction that the PUMA types have had.
And words just fail me if thinking that there are some things we just need to work together on makes someone a socialist. That kind of attitude is just plain nuts.
That's it? Two questionable instances where he had a bad choice of words? You were making it sound like a veritable flood of sexist vitriol. You'd better come up with more than that to justify the kind of reaction that the PUMA types have had.
And words just fail me if thinking that there are some things we just need to work together on makes someone a socialist. That kind of attitude is just plain nuts.
George Sorwell – Vote for McCain – he's not Obama. lol. Okay seriously, he is willing to cross party lines and take the unpopular stance if he thinks it's the right thing. A definate positive in my book. McCain is definately the more experienced candidate, another good thing. That's all I have for tonight. I'm really not a rah rah McCain supporter. I just think he's the better choice of the two. Maybe I'll just vote for Nadar.
George Sorwell – Vote for McCain – he's not Obama. lol. Okay seriously, he is willing to cross party lines and take the unpopular stance if he thinks it's the right thing. A definate positive in my book. McCain is definately the more experienced candidate, another good thing. That's all I have for tonight. I'm really not a rah rah McCain supporter. I just think he's the better choice of the two. Maybe I'll just vote for Nadar.
Boudica–
If you're going to go all third party on us, why not support Jazz's choice, Bob Barr.
Come on–make somebody on this thread happy! ; )
Boudica–
If you're going to go all third party on us, why not support Jazz's choice, Bob Barr.
Come on–make somebody on this thread happy! ; )
“The Republican party has failed them. It didn’t cut spending. It wasn’t honest. It hasn’t controlled immigration. On issue after issue it didn’t do what these voters expected.” Mr Luntz says that this political remigration of Reagan Democrats — which if realised next month would represent a profound change of the American political landscape — is occurring across the Midwest, where the economy is arguably an even greater issue than Iraq.
The facts are that in 1980 Regan Democrats migrated to Reagan on promises of economics and not on social issues. As the GOP failed them the last 8 years they have indeed returned to the fold.
I am a Reagan Democrat. There are many like us. Many who do not care for social issues but are much more concerned about other issues that are of concern to most Americans. Many of us have Left the GOP and returned to the Democrats only to find that……………….Listen to me……………Listen.
We dont give a flying flip about abortion, Gay rights, seperation of church and state, Religion or all of these emotionally charged issues.
We care about food, and gasoline, and paychecks and trade barriers. We care about our lawns, our houses, our hometowns, our families. We care about immigration and keeping our jobs safe from Illegals.
We care. We just dont care about the same things that you care about. That is what makes us Reagan Democrats and its what has betrayed us.
Both parties have run off on a tangent about social and emotional issues when what we really care about is bread and butter. Not Hope and faith.
Hope and faith doesnt feed the family.
“The Republican party has failed them. It didn’t cut spending. It wasn’t honest. It hasn’t controlled immigration. On issue after issue it didn’t do what these voters expected.” Mr Luntz says that this political remigration of Reagan Democrats — which if realised next month would represent a profound change of the American political landscape — is occurring across the Midwest, where the economy is arguably an even greater issue than Iraq.
The facts are that in 1980 Regan Democrats migrated to Reagan on promises of economics and not on social issues. As the GOP failed them the last 8 years they have indeed returned to the fold.
I am a Reagan Democrat. There are many like us. Many who do not care for social issues but are much more concerned about other issues that are of concern to most Americans. Many of us have Left the GOP and returned to the Democrats only to find that……………….Listen to me……………Listen.
We dont give a flying flip about abortion, Gay rights, seperation of church and state, Religion or all of these emotionally charged issues.
We care about food, and gasoline, and paychecks and trade barriers. We care about our lawns, our houses, our hometowns, our families. We care about immigration and keeping our jobs safe from Illegals.
We care. We just dont care about the same things that you care about. That is what makes us Reagan Democrats and its what has betrayed us.
Both parties have run off on a tangent about social and emotional issues when what we really care about is bread and butter. Not Hope and faith.
Hope and faith doesnt feed the family.
Neocon–
I hear you loud and clear.
But I'm sure you know that on all those issues you don't care about, there are plenty of other people who care. And they've chosen sides. And they're loud about it .
And they're not gonna go away.
Any more than you are.
Neocon–
I hear you loud and clear.
But I'm sure you know that on all those issues you don't care about, there are plenty of other people who care. And they've chosen sides. And they're loud about it .
And they're not gonna go away.
Any more than you are.
Sure, there are lots of reasons that a person could have not to support Obama. And I have no intention of arguing about your reasons.
But the flip side of this is that a common refrain among *some* NObama democrats is that Obama falls short of a standard that they are simply not holding McCain or Clinton to. He alone can't change his positions, attack his opponents, or misspeak without it revealing some fatal flaw in his character that it does not when McCain or Clinton do the same. So, I don't think it's pushing the limits of plausibility to suggest that the reason that the black candidate has to work twice as hard to convince *some* white democrats that he is as deserving as the white candidates he's running against might have something to do with race.
But, yes, of course, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to find him wanting.