Click the Pic Thank you, JoeProBono
Gary and Harriet Leave the Reception in Their Honeymoon Shells
Follow the Exciting Adventures of Gary the Snail!
Abolish FReepathons
Go Monthly
If you sign up
A sponsor will donate $10
Posted on 10/25/2011 8:42:26 AM PDT by Brookhaven
For the past few weeks, I've had a recurring suspicion that the several gaffes of Herman Cain are in fact "gaffes." As in intentional. Deliberate. Planned.
Allow me to explain.
21 years ago, I watched closely as a complete political neophyte announced his intention to run as governor of Massachusetts. He was John Silber, president of Boston University. Silber was a staunch Reaganite, a native TEXAN, a blunt-spoken anti-activist authoritarian university president, a big-business booster, and a Democrat. And he was running to be nominated by the Massachusetts Democratic Party. What chance, huh?
Well, to make matters "worse," Silber started his campaign with a series of shocking "gaffes." From disparaging gay rights to attacking feminism and peaceniks to questioning why "immigrants from tropical climates" move to the wintry Bay State (of course for it's generous welfare benefits), Silber missed no opportunity to defame the hideous ideology that dominated the Democratic Party of Massachusetts.
Of course the house organ of that hideous ideology, the Boston Glob, responded with off-the-charts venom to these "Silber shockers," as the candidate himself dubbed them. For about 9 months he was lampooned as a joke...until the primary approached...Because Silber was polling about 25% in a 3 way race. Even the NYT noticed in July: "Despite waging an unusual, provocative campaign that has broken many of the rules of politics and offended some women, blacks and the elderly, John R. Silber is running more strongly than expected in the Massachusetts race for governor and could be in position to win the Democratic nomination in September."
The pattern of the "Silber shockers" was firmly established: Silber would make his comment in an interview or debate; the comment would be the focus of attention for 2-5 days; Silber would be righteously questioned and re-questioned about the comment, which he would then repeat in slightly less inflammatory terms, but still defend it; and interested voters would have heard Silber make and repeat his point about 5 times more than if he hadn't made the "gaffe."
But in September he was still down by ~15 points to the front-runner, a career hack named Frank Bellotti, when about a week before the primary, the other establshment candidate, Evelyn Murphy (Dukakis' lt. governor) fell on her sword to "guarantee" the win for Bellotti. "We can't allow even the chance of John Silber winning the nomination." And how did our famous "newspaper of record" report this development? "Ms. Murphy's action therefore appeared likely to deal a further blow to Mr. Silber, a political maverick whose public standing has been slipping in the past few weeks after he made barbed comments that have alienated many voters."
With Murphy out, Bellotti's lead jumped to 23 points in the polls. Those wonderful, wonderful polls. Keep watching those polls, people. The polls are everything, don't you know? How can an old pro like Frank Bellotti blow a 23 point lead in 5 days?
Five days later, Silber beat Bellotti by 10 points, a 33-point swing. The absurdly politically incorrect Reaganite Texan became the nominee for governor of the Massachusetts Democratic Party. And the old grey lady sobbed into her gin-drenched cornflakes: "In a stunning display of voter discontent, John R. Silber, the president of Boston University who peppered his campaign with provocative remarks, scored a major upset tonight over over Francis X. Bellotti, a former State Attorney General in the Democratic primary for governor."
Which is a long way of explaining why my spidey senses are tingling these days when so many people are saying Herman Cain's gaffes are proof his candidacy is doomed. The latest is this extremely unusual--I'll refrain from saying "strange"--ad that just aired during the World Series [embedded above]. OMG, a campaign staffer blowing smoke at the camera?! Can anyone else remember the last TV ad that showed a non-evil character just...smoking...a cigarette? It's just a...SHOCKER!
Mr. Cain is nothing if not a skilled communicator. Yet it seems that, as soon as more eyes than ever are turned on him, that he becomes a fumblemouth. And wasting huge, scarce campaign dollars on a bizarre ad. Even Brit Hume has written him off.
Mr. Cain has come from nowhere, with almost no money, and no political experience, to the top of the polls. Now he's being dismissed as a gaffe machine. But I'm telling you, he's as dumb as a fox.
Uh, Silber still lost. He just didn’t lose as early as the other losers.
It was Massachusetts. Romney would lose Massachusetts.
Right. There was one gaffe too many, lol.
—Well, what is the explanation for picking a church with the biggest potluck? I have been looking for a church for a very long time.—
I’ll synopsize here. He says it tongue in cheek, but it is along these lines: The bible is about two things: Man’s relationthip with man and man’s relationship with God. All of the ten commandments even fall within one of these two. And our relationship with other men involves “community”, and “it takes a villiage*” type stuff in a real sense.
He was basically saying he wants to be a part of a body of believers that enjoy each other’s time together in the Lord and follow the early church example. They love and promote community within the context of His will.
So it is really not about pot luck, but about how inclusive the organization is, from a biblical perspective and how “non-cliquish” it is. Your relationship with God can often be seen in your relationship with others.
I’m speaking off the cuff here. but you get the drift. And yes, ex-patriot, you get the drift of where he was going. :-)
Normally, I would change channels just to catch Brit's opinions, but in this election cycle, he is peddling nothing but 'GOP Establishment viewpoints'. Another commentator who is driving me nuts is Mr Establishment himself - none other than Karl Rove.
I remember him. I found out that Bellotti, who was involved in
helping screw up the MA auto insurance biz and chasing out
companies, got a stake in a newly formed auto insurance
company that inherited a good percentage of expiring policies.
Any way, the bottom line is that I, as an unenrolled voter, took a
Dem primary ballot and voted for Silber. Bellotti also oozed
sleaze, which didn't help him with any non-partisan types that
were paying attention.
(I think at that time, I had to stop at the town clerk's office on the
way out, and re-unenroll myself from a Democrat party affiliation.)
And the point being that the author may be comparing apples and
oranges in this, his analysis.
Anybody will beat Obama in a 2-way race.
He’s locked in @ 42% of the vote.
Some FReepers forget he only pulled 53% against McLame, and a dispirited R party, and running on a record of 100% success verified by the MSM.
By this time next year, most voters will be referring to 2007 as the “good old days”.
The overconfidence people have here is staggering. Hussein will get no less than 45% of the vote, and if we nominate a poor, gaffe prone candidate he could easily win.
Harry Reid was like the most unpopular Senator in the nation, yet he won fairly comfortably because we nominated a flake to run against him.
Hussein will have a billion dollars and the entire mainstream media and entertainment establishment in his corner, he will be very difficult to beat. The overconfidence you and others have is naive at best.
I don’t believe you can extrapolate the Nevada senate race to the POTUS race. Nevada was the one bright spot for Dems of a historic thrashing they took in 2010.
Baraq Hussein Obama is the James Earl Carter of 2012, and the Carville Precept will rule.
Obama can’t even get Democrats to appear in a campaign stop with him, except for the most liberal whackjob districts. His toxic coattails will make Dems a minority party for a long time to come.
You are way, way too overconfident. If you've been involved in politics for any length of time, I'd expect you'd know better. Seriously. Obama will get a minimum of 45% of the vote. Almost half of Americans pay no income taxes at all. Just under half are dependent on government transfer payments of one kind or another. We are a fully blossomed social welfare state, much like Europe at this point. The more we are like them, the more we will vote like them. My guess is this will be a very close election - something along the 2004 model. If we nominate a gaffe machine or someone that rubs the electorate wrong, we will very likely lose.
Maybe we should nominate a guy whose big plan is to tax poor people’s purchases so they’ll have some “skin in the game.”
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.