Skip to comments.The Gaffe That Almost Wasn't
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 Ive 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.
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 isnt about a some candidates 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.
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 Bushs policy of promoting democracy abroad. Suddenly, the interviewer tosses up the question, turning it into one about Obama. He didnt 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 were talkin about the same thing before I say Yes I agreed or No, I didnt 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 didnt 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 Cains 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, its downright ridiculous to think a presidential candidate would be so woefully prepared for the topic. Even prepared, the reporters 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-colonels days were running out. Which of Obamas positions was being referred to? That should set off buzzers in most peoples 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. Cains pauseroutinely billed as being eleven seconds, but I time it at only eightwas taken as evidence that the presidential candidate doesnt 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. (Arent 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 campaigns initial responsethat Cain was tiredonly indicates that Cain wouldnt 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 werent for the fact that the media knows the electorate prefers appearances over substance. The question of context ought to be a natural one, but its not. Instead, a moment of thoughtful reflection, taking the care not to answer an important question blithely, gets contorted into evidence of shallowness and unpreparednessprecisely 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.
Context makes ALL the difference.
In other HC News this morning:
No Toaster for Herman Cain
A Prayer for Herman Cain
Herman Cain says OWS out to “destroy” America
Cain Focuses On Jobs In NH Visit - Cain Chokes Up When Discussing Wife, Faith (Tears)
Herman Cain receives Secret Service protection
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel was playing “Gotcha”. They hate Mark Block, and want to take down anyone associated with him.
When context is applied, Herman usually shows as the opposite of what the liberati herd folks to believe.
Obama versus Cain: A Clash of Theological Proportions
Poll Shows Herman Cain Leads with Female Independent & Republican Voters
Thanks for posting this. It makes a great deal of sense.
Moreover, this was not intended to be a TV interview. It was a news interview for a NEWSPAPER. Presumably, they recorded it, supposedly, so as to get an accurate transcript of Cain’s remarks.
Instead, they carefully edited it, took it out of context, and pretended it was a gaffe. If Caine made a mistake, it was to allow them to make a video record of a newspaper interview. But it’s only a mistake if they twist and lie about it. Which, of course, they did.
Cain, from what I have seen, has more sense on the subject of Libya than most Republican politicians, who have shamelessly remained silent while Obama has ridden roughshod over the Constitution and fought the war on the wrong side, helping to put the Muslim fundamentalists in power all over North Africa. Cain seems to understand that. He is one of the very few Republicans who has been willing to say it.
“...Some conservative talkers declared the Cain-Train derailed,...”
Hew Hewett, on Tuesday evening radio, was declaring the Cain Train dead and over after the Libya interview. He played it a few times, rambling on and on about it.
You know...who the hell needs the Dems to smear us when we have “friends” of our own helping to take our candidates down...
So damned annoying.
I refuse to participate in skewering OUR guys - I absolutely refuse to provide ANY ammunition to the democrat/communist/socialist/liberal coalition in any way, shape, or form. I won’t aid and abet the enemy.
And I hate it when “our” side on the talk radio circuit and out here do it.
The media is corrupt, dangerous, and evil. It’s going to get worse.
Just when I want to believe women’s intuition is sound and they instinctively trust Herman, I am reminded that too many females also supporter a sexual degenerate, sinkEmperor clintoon. But that was a very different stinking fish.
I don't know why anyone would allow himself to be videoed without someone on his own side (or even just a free standing tripod) making another video at the same time. Just imagine how many "carefully" edited 60 Minutes interviews would have to be thrown out if the interviewee could show that the question and the answer were mismatched through editing.
I think the talking heads are just running scared, thinking that Romney is the only viable candidate against ODouche.
Ultimately, WE will decide who OUR candidate will be, and we need do our damndest to make sure it’s the right person and best for the job. No repeat of John McCain.
As far as Hewett goes, I’ve not listened to him much, only a few times, and the times that I heard him, he seemed to be a Conservative. But that program, which I switched on on my way home from work, just frosted me. I found myself yelling at the radio in the car (yeah...I know...but TELL me you’ve NEVER done that too....hahah!).
To my mind, a real Conservative doesn’t ratf**k other Conservatives in the back. If it wasn’t what he was doing, it sure as hell seemed like it.
One Team, One Fight. The ENEMY is the liberal/democrat/communist/socialist coalition facing us, and always has been - with the emphasis on the “Liberal” because we have them on our side of the aisle as well.
Ahh, Pogo!!! Remember it well.
But “we” aren’t the enemy.
Liberals amongst us are, and always have been.
They’re the ones who sneak down in the middle of the night and open the gates to let the barbarian hordes in ...sorta like they’re doing right now on the border...
...walk up and plant a big, wet sloppy kiss smack on the lips of a fat, cancer-ridden communist Venezualan dictator....
...or another kiss on the lips of a little ChiCom pr*ck in a businessman’s suit as he sells us down the river...
THAT’s the enemy, brother. And always has been.
WE’RE what makes this country work; THEY’VE spent all their lives trying to erase us.
And have NOT succeeded.
Everyone should watch this, especially the sheeple who keep jumping on the GOP establishment & media bandwagon to knock Cain down a few notches. I marvel at my fellow Conservatives that are so quick to jump on Cain and refer to him with terms as “clueless or inept” solely based on short sound bites being spoon fed to them from the media. Cain is what he is: A self made successful businessperson and a political outsider who has made a big splash with his inspirational story and bold economic ideas but is understandably prone to making some Rookie mistakes on the campaign trail. If he does gets the nomination he will be a far improved Presidential candidate having been thouroughly vetted, like no other, in the Primaries.
Bankruptcy is the correct route to take to enable productive resources and personnel to be handed over to capable new managers.
If that means MSM reporters have to suck candidates into not speaking for 11 seconds, then that's going to happen.
Here's a trick ~ the RNC Chairman should assign a staffer to the duty of determining which MSM reporters MAY NOT interview Republican candidates.
Their names would be on a list for everyone to look at ~ and AVOID.
This would be kind of like Nixon or Obama's enemies list but you have to start somewhere.
Hence the mistake ... we assume these oh so earnest assassins are GOP. Even Romney’s slugs are not GOP, they’re romneybots. We also have a small squad of DNC operatives who saw how they could use the risingire in GOP and Tea Party folks to assassinate Sarah. Freepers can see that the enemy (the deviant media serving as propaganda arm of the DNC) works to dividie and then their commie demigods can conquer us. The promoters of the circular firing squad are workign for Romney and the DNC, wittingly or unwittingly. Johnnie seems to be unwittingly herded into their service.
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 dont 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, Cains 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 doesnt 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 isnt 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, Delewares ODonnell 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 hes 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.
Take off your biased blinders and see the TRUTH !
We should invite vetting of all our candidates.
But the media has been mostly silent on Romney.
We cannot let the media choose our nominee. Obviously they are fearful of a Herman Cain nomination.
I did watch the portion of the video with the question leading up to the Libya question. It was a discussion of the Bush policy of promoting the overthrow of dictators. Cain answered to the effect of of they are happy with their system we aren’t going to try to talk them into democracy. Libya was an obvious question, since it was pretty obvious that people weren’t “happy” with their dictatorship. Not that I’m sure how you determine if people living under a dictatorwhip are “happy”. Rather than try to determine their happiness, I would prefer judging based on what’s in our national security interest first. But in any case it shouldn’t have been a hard question to answer. He either had a brain freeze (happens to everybody, and he said things were “twirling around in my head”), or he hasn’t been following what has been going on there.
BTW, I get pretty sick of you Cain supporters saying anyone who disagrees with you is lying. You are entitled to your opinion on the video, but if you accuse me of lying you ought to have the brainpower and decency to spell it out as to what you think is a lie. Or read the rules for posting on FR.
I never said you lied. I said I am tired of smears based on lies. The media who is the ones who are lying and misrepresenting Cain, but there are some folks on FR who are carrying forward those lies as truth.
If you have a problem with that, please go ahead and ping the moderators or Jim Robinson.
I am impartial. You clearly are seeing what you want to see. I don’t see anything edited, other than cutting out a question and answer verbatum. Editing would be the kind of thin 69 minutes does, showing the answer from one quetion as an answer to another, or cutting out part of an answer or question. I don’t see any of that.
That’s normal. Grow up or get a hanky.
B U M P
Hewitt is a caspar milquetoast RINO
Yeah I kind of got that impression, too.
He just wouldn’t stop with the slams against Cain. It was very irritating.
Hewitt, and a whole host of others, sad to say.