I’m still undecided, but Cain is not going to be my choice. His fear of being videotaped at a meeting in NH, or arguing over whether it should be 45 minutes or 60 minutes, and being proud about not being a reader? No thanks.
When did the party of Buckley become so proudly anti-intellectual? Anti-pointy-headed-university-bots, sure, but if we don’t champion reading and intellectual pursuits, we’re doomed.
Wow,
Spoken like a true liberal.
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.
You declare Herman Cain an anti-intellectual with his undergraduate degree in mathematics, masters degree in computer science, and work with the U.S. Navy as a rocket scientist. Thanks for the early morning LOL.
Well it seems Cain will indeed be interviewed in NH to be aired on CSPAN and the “leader not a reader” quote was in reference to Obama’s reliance on the teleprompter. So welcome aboard the Cain Train my FRiend!
I presume you mean the same Buckley who said he'd rather be governed by the first 1000 people taken from the Boston phone book than by the Harvard faculty?
Liberalism ran out of ideas 30 years ago and has collapsed into a resentment driven movement intent on economic leveling, excepting always the nomenklatura, with special interest pandering couched always in terms of "social justice." For the past several decades, every breath of fresh air has come from the right; the left can't even bear to acknowledge the structural problems, because it has no will to address them.
What you are confusing with anti-intellectualism is a grassroots revolt against an entrenched political elite that plays kick-the-can down the road politics while the country rots away. This opens the door for outsider/insurgent candidates whose inexperience can be, and in several instances has been, painfully exposed. What is needed is a highly experienced, fully vetted, veteran pol with genuine reformist credentials. You know, someone like Reagan: the former union president, middlebrow public intellectual, and successful two term governor of California whom the liberals liked to dismiss as a mere actor.
There are such people on our side, but Mitch Daniels, Haley Barbour, Bobby Jindal, Paul Ryan, Jeb Bush, etc. declined to run. Ron Paul has plenty of experience but is lost in libertarian fantasy land. A lot of people thought Rick Perry had the chips, but it quickly became clear that he jumped into the race as an opportunistic improvisation and hadn't bothered to do his homework. Bachman has potential but her inexperience shows; Cain has leadership ability, charisma, and smarts, but is also out of his depth due to lack of experience; Huntsman has just redefected from the dark side and is not taken seriously. So: Mitch or Newt?
Romney is a highly competent, clean, managerial moderate who is unlikely to self-destruct but will not excite anyone. Gingrich can electrify the base but is a high risk proposition; do we really want to spend the next year under a 24/7 media barrage focused on Newt's baggage? Not an easy choice.
Personally, I'll be happy with any of our guys if we hold the House and elect a working conservative majority in the Senate. The dems will filibuster any serious reform, so it will come down to a willingness to use reconciliation to drive the agenda. Since the decision has invariably been made long before I get to vote, I've learned to be philosophical about it.
I know every candidate and how they will govern except Cain because everyone has a track record except Cain and he has backtracked on almost every controversial thing he has said when he was confronted, even on that smoking ad.