Considering the butchery performed when Katie Couric (granted, a hostile interviewer) interviewed Sarah Palin, it would not take much to use the material to harm Cain, just careful editing.
Why bother, when the idea has been to speak with people, not necessarily give someone else--anyone else--control over what comes out or how.
When did the party of Buckley become so proudly anti-intellectual?
When so many intellectuals have become nothing more than overcredentialled idiots, waving their sheepskins while they make decisions and pronouncements which are contrary to common sense.
This is, of course, a product of the Liberal takeover of the university system, and frankly, the disdain many reserve for the intellectual elites is something they have brought upon themselves.
That isn't saying there aren't intelligent and credentialled conservative folks, but they seldom get any airtime.
Since most people get their exposure to intellectual circles from TV, and most of the intellectuals on TV are Liberals, it is natural that people are suspicious or disdainful of those whom they view as 'educated idiots' at best.
I’m going to add to your answer!
I am not an anti-intellectual.
I believe that the intellect is a product of the will, and unless properly directed, completely worthless. The important part is faith, to guide us in the proper application of intellect so that we might better ourselves and better others.
I am sick and tired, of people telling me that faith constrains the intellect, and that we should instead pursue unbrindled studies into whatever fascinates us in the momement, to fixate on the mere trivialities that happen to have letters behind their names.
So what am I in opposition? I am in opposition to jargon, which hampers the conjugation of thought; censorship, which hampers the distribution of thought; political correctness, which hampers the expression of thought; credentialism, which seeks to dictate who can deliver thoughts; sentimentalism, which seeks to reduce thought to mere emotions; nihilism, which argues that there is no such thing as meaning; relativism, which argues that all thoughts mean the same thing.
I am against all the defenders of said regimes, declaring me to be an anti-intellectual, when in fact, I am precisely the opposite, in defending thought against those who would deconstruct it of all it’s fervor and strength. Yet walled up in their ivory sinecures, they pronounce their murmurs as the purest thought and none other may comment that the emperor has no clothes whatsoever.