Click the Pic Thank you, JoeProBono
Gary, Dropped Off by His Friend, Wends His Way Home
Follow the Exciting Adventures of Gary the Snail!
Donate Monthly
Sponsors will pony up a sawbuck
For each New Monthly Donor
Posted on 11/18/2011 9:43:45 AM PST by justsaynomore
The smear campaign against Cain continues
By now the internet, radio, television, and wagging tongues everywhere are all abuzz over the latest campaign blunder by Herman Cain. But is it really the gaffe everyone says it is? Or was it a selective editing job a la Ed Shultz?
Well, call me cynical, but I’ve seen enough media shenanigans to be suspicious of anything taken out of context and this definitely tripped my radar. In the clip that has gone viral (below), Cain does appear to be caught off-guard by a question on Libya, a topic he ought to have been ready for.
[VIDEO]
My first reaction was to wonder how many clips like this land on editing room floors instead of online. In a world used to hyper-slick video and equally slick candidates, a moment of thought gathering can seem disastrous. Still, this isn’t about a some candidate’s “senior moment.” Rather, it is about a hatchet job gone awry.
This clip was released by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel along with the entire half-hour interview it was taken from. For my part, I think the whole interview is worth watching as Cain performs admirably. But for those who just want to get to the goods, skip ahead to about the 20 minute mark.
[VIDEO]
What a difference a little context makes!
The clip that went viral begins with one reporter asking, "So, you agreed with President Obama on Libya or not?" Seems like a follow-up to a related question. But in the full length video, one can clearly see that Cain was responding to a question about Bush’s policy of promoting democracy abroad. Suddenly, the interviewer tosses up the question, turning it into one about Obama. He didn’t even ask a complete question.
Whatever Cain might have said would have been placed in context of his previous answer. No doubt to make some bizarro equivocation between Bush and Obama. Cain wasn't about to let himself get drawn in and instead tried lay down a different context before answering. When Cain says, “I just wanna make sure we’re talkin’ about the same thing before I say ‘Yes I agreed’ or ‘No, I didn’t agree,’” he is establishing the framework for his answer, not struggling to remember where Libya is on the map.
Did Cain fumble? Of course, he was lobbed a rotten toss. Could he have done something better with it? Hindsight usually tells us "yes." But does this so-called "gaffe" reveal a woeful lack of knowledge of foreign policy on Cain's part? Hardly.
Rather, it seems that this group of reporters thought they were setting up a clever “gotcha” moment that didn’t pan out. One reporter asks the Bush question and another suddenly shifts gears to Obama without touching the clutch. But their little "gotcha" setup didn't produce the desired results. So, robbed of the gaffe they thought they had so cleverly set up, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel was forced to run with Cain's pause as the next best thing.
The video is very amateurish, with lots of shuffling and ambient noise. MJS is a newspaper, so I'm not faulting that. But it does why the so-called pregnant pause was there at all. In the full interview, Cain can be seen and heard speaking freely and knowledgeably about Libya and a range of other topics, including collective bargaining, the economy, finance, ObamaCare, his support among women and African Americans, Occupy Wall Street, and much more. He is shown deftly fielding questions from at least four separate reporters and demonstrating that he is readily knowledgeable about every area he is quizzed on.
But when it comes to Libya, the reporters repeatedly try to put words into Cain’s mouth, (“So, you are saying…”) which he resists. When Cain seeks clarification to the Libya question, the reporter explaining even seems to have some difficulty. That's because Bush never got involved in Libya, so the supposed connection made no sense.
Besides, given how much attention was paid to Libya in the press, it’s downright ridiculous to think a presidential candidate would be so woefully prepared for the topic. Even prepared, the reporter’s vague inquiry would be difficult to answer. After all, in spite of how the story ended for Colonel Gaddafi, the Obama position on the matter changed almost daily as the late-colonel’s days were running out. Which of Obama’s positions was being referred to? That should set off buzzers in most people’s minds.
All the same, pundits of all stripes were quick to pounce in an attempt to ensure that the prophecy which states “no outsider shall be nominated” shall be fulfilled. Cain’s pause—routinely billed as being eleven seconds, but I time it at only eight—was taken as evidence that the presidential candidate doesn’t have a firm enough grasp of foreign policy issues to be commander-in-chief. Others used is as an excuse to drag up the sexual harassment allegations that went nowhere. One of the odder claims was that the entire GOP lineup is now toast. (Aren’t they even going to take a swing at Newt?)
Some conservative talkers declared the Cain-Train derailed, calling his flub an unforgivable embarrassment for the movement. Harder hits suggested that his campaign’s initial response—that Cain was tired—only indicates that Cain wouldn’t be able to handle the proverbial “4 am phone call.” Old attacks on the 9-9-9 plan were dusted off, though sounding hardly more convincing than before.
Of course, none of this would get the slightest credence if it weren’t for the fact that the media knows the electorate prefers appearances over substance. The question of context ought to be a natural one, but it’s not. Instead, a moment of thoughtful reflection, taking the care not to answer an important question blithely, gets contorted into evidence of shallowness and unpreparedness—precisely the opposite! Cain, ever the gentleman, seems to be taking the event in good humor, saying he is flattered that the media now scrutinizes his pauses since they cannot attack what he actually says. He may be the first candidate to actually be above the finger-pointing and name-calling that the current gaffe-master-in-chief so bemoaned four years ago.
The fact remains that Herman Cain is an intelligent and qualified outsider that the media--liberal and conservative alike--feels it is their duty to destroy. If it takes a few lies and misrepresentations to do it, so be it.
Ayn Rand’s Fountainhead
What a silly spin. The question was perfectly logical. The subject being discussed was promoting democracy and overthrowing dictators. Asking if he supported Obama’s policy on Libya was a perfectly loglcal follow up, and Cain clearly either didn’t know about what has been going on there, or more likely just couldn’t recall. There is nothing “gotcha” about it. It was a momentary Cain-train-brain-drain. Blaiming the media is absurd. But Cain and his crew seem to always blame someone else.
The liberals read Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War” and took it to heart.
Some on our side are still reading “Winnie the Pooh” and are content to see the world as just another Blustery Day...and play by whatever rules the other side sets.
I call that ignorance, born of cowardice.
“...we assume these oh so earnest assassins are GOP...”
They’re liberals first, and anything else second.
You obviously didn’t watch the whole interview.
If you have legitimate complaints against Cain, fine, but stop smearing him based on lies.
Never got involved? One of Bush's foreign policy successes was getting Gaddafi to end his weapons programs and improve relations. That sure looks like involved in Libya to me!
The topic was about the current conflict in Libya.
Try and keep up.
What’s really sad is that all the Perrybots jumped on that smear bandwagon to help the libs in their efforts. We all know who those Perry trolls are.
So instead of watching the video and understanding the point of the article you went straight to regurgitating the same old bullshit.
Gingrich and Perry supporters both.
So, being a gentleman, Cain refrained from responding, “What the HEL* are you talking about, you idiot?”
WHOA! Context, context, context. This has to get out there. The lib msm is up to their low gutter tactics AGAIN with this.
Watch the video. It’s plain as the nose on your face he didn’t fumble anything.
Aw fiddlestix, don’t go there. There is no need to paly a race card. I’m a Newt Gingrich supporter. But that doesn’t prevent me from see the strong characteristics of Herman Cain as a capable conservative. This riping the other candidates to establish your candidate by default serves Milt Rominy and Barry bassturd, not Herman Cain or newt or Rick or Michelle. In fact, when you spittle forth trashing the other candidates, if readers know whom you support you get a negative added to your candidate’s reserve.
This brings us to the actions of Charlie Sykes a “consedrvative” talk show host on Milwaukee’s WTMJ am 620. After hammering Cain for the last 3 weeks has come out today 11/18/and endorsed Romney. He began his attack the day before Politico went after Cain.
Party members who don’t believe in social issues and support a given candidate (Romney) opposed to Cain will be using material developed by liberal MSM this to advance their guy..
Sykes opened up on Cain 10/26/11,going after Mark Block, Cain’s chief of staff as arrogant , and inept and warns Block will wind up embarrassing Cain alledging Mark Block’s mishandling of funds in a Wisconsin race
Sykes claimed the ad depicting Block smoking a cigarette was pure ego and the focus would be on Block. Sykes is the kind of guy who doesn’t see smoking bans as a goverment intrusion.
Now Sykes was very helpfull in uncovering the shenanigans of the WDPO (Wisconsin Democratic Party Operatives) and to a great extent highly influential when Wisconsin voters went to the polls and threw out the democrats state wide..
But Sykes is a middle of the road eliteist. A kind of Repbulican Blue Blood. He may claim he isn’t but he is.
Sykes is one of several talk show hosts and RINOS who are infulenced by MSM positions particularly on social issues.When the subject of the Keyes vs Obama race for Illinois US senator, Deleware’s O’Donnell or the Nevada Sharon Angle US senatorial races comes up he will decry the conservative position on social issues these candidates took..
But will never bring up the disasters in California where most of those statewide and US candidates took middle of the road positions and sunk like lead balloons to the bottom of the water closet.
In the 08 presidential Sykes endorsed NY mayor Rudy Giuliani . Sykes was almost a loss for words when Romney refused to reply to the Ohio union question raised by a reporter. Needless that lack of support went as they say viral. In fact his reaction was amusing to those who loyally follow him but have a pretty good idea where he’s comming from promoting a guy (Romney) who couldn’t call Obama a socialist during a debate.
But Sykes timing for his attack on Cain should be pointed out as well as whom he finally acknowledged he is supporting which is Romney.
Most conservative? I would say that characteristic is more likely Michelle Bachmann # one, then Rick Santorum, then Herman or Rick Perry, then Newt Gingrich, then maybe Jon Huntsman, then Rue Paul, and I wouldn’t even put Milt Rominy on the scale of conservative.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.