Posted on 10/14/2011 5:40:45 AM PDT by IbJensen
Karl Rove doesnt think Herman Cain stands a chance of being POTUS. Bushs number one consigliere said as much on Fox Thursday night.
But is he right? I sure dont know, but I certainly have a suspicion why Karl thinks what he does. The Herman Cain candidacy is a direct threat to his occupation. Rove arguably the reigning monarch of political pros went on to register his disapproval that Cain was wandering around Godforsaken places like Tennessee flogging his book, when any serious candidate should be pressing the flesh where it counts to wit, Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.
Worse yet, the candidate isnt raising any money (or not enough to have flashing neon signs that say 9 9 9 like Burma-Shave along every highway in America not that we have to be reminded).
Now I have no beef with Rove. In fact, I rather like him, having interviewed him for PJTV. But its obvious that times have changed and that Herman Cain is running a very canny media campaign virtually all by himself. Yes, I know he has a staff, but you do get the sense this man is his own thing, which is part of the tightrope walking fun. Can he make it to the other side Pennsylvania Avenue without falling? Whatever the case, Rove and others like him (the sorry David Axelrod, the Carville-Matalin duo, etc.) are in danger of becoming, if not extinct, at least more marginal than previously assumed.
Heres another data point: A couple of months back, Newt Gingrichs entire campaign staff including Dave Carney, the putative next Karl Rove split and decamped for Texas, soon to join Rick Perrys campaign. What happened? Today Gingrich is rising in the polls apparently on the strength of his debate performances and Perry, who started strong, is, at least for now, in trouble.
Again, I have no beef with Carney. Ive met him too and he seems to be a fine fellow. Quite bright.
So whats going on here? The more powerful the political pros, the worse the campaign? Or is it really about the candidate in our non-stop media world? I tend to think its the latter. Given the amount of coverage they all get, its hard to imagine they need help in getting exposure. Maybe they need help in getting a little anonymity. (Thats particularly true in the current presidents case.)
And what about money the legendary mothers milk of politics? Well, it too might not be as important as it is cracked up to be. Cain, as noted, has spent very little (at least until now) and Jon Huntsman is the richest guy to run since, well, John Kerry. Maybe Huntsmans even richer. And look where its got him, duking it out with Rick Santorum for the privilege of keeping Gary Johnson out of the debates (unfairly, in my estimation).
We may all hate our media they are even less popular than politicians but they are ironically diminishing the importance of money in politics. No money? No pros? Whats next? Actual democracy?
Of course, I have overstated it, but I think not by a lot. What also may be going on is that the American public at least on the Republican side is very engaged. They know we are in a crisis and they are paying strict attention. They dont need pros and they dont need advertising to attract their eyes. Their bank accounts already woke them up and if not that, a friendly reminder from the neighborhood jihadist.
Does this mean that the candidates should all strip down and fire their advisers? (Be like Herman, not like Mike.) Well, in one sense, that wouldnt be a bad idea. But in these dire economic times, with everyone so concerned about jobs, putting all those political pros on the unemployment lines could be heartless. And no candidate Rick Perry would be glad to remind you wants to be accused of that.
Except that Bachmann actually put herself into the fight.
Since his record is only TALK, soon enough his opponents and the media would go after his TALKING record throughout the years as a talk show host, as a pastor, and as a politician. It is going to get very ugly for the TALKER Cain.
You spend alot of time on these threads. Who are you voting for?
Pray for America
Agreed. That’s the wonder of having no political record. Never had to work with an opposition, you can talk about anything you want and not have to worry about backing it up, it’s a free ride.
..everything I know about Cain I was Able to read in the Bible.
Love it....next thing you’ll hear “Cain the job killer”...destroying GOP pundit jobs.
(AP) Herman Cain has single handedly destroyed a number of overpaid GOP inside the beltway executive level positions to the delight of his fans and supporters.
The Hermanator as he is known to his friends and supporters has forced Karl Rove to corner of 7th and Pennsylvania Ave. Holding a sign saying “I will Pundit for Peanuts”
It is based on the principal that I do not fall for TALKERS. Sorry that is just me.
I think what is meant by the Cain = Huckabee comparison is that he plays the same role in the race—the longshot/underdog who, because of the debates, is catapulted into a contender position.
BINGO!
My have has no use for Rove goes back to his Bush daze spkeman when there were repeated attacks on that administration and no response to those attacks...
Copying Huck out of courtesy.
Huck strikes me as a “Paulite”, or maybe even more radical liberatarian than Ron Paul, bordering on anarchism.
His threads criticizing the construction of the Constitution are a huge insight into his orientation.
I hope your initial analogy ends up wrong, but I would add both Cain and Huckabee are former Church Ministers who use their personal communication skills effectively.
Welcome to Free Republic!
Freeping since Sep 21, 2011.
Like Huckabee, Cain is an insurgent campaign, trying to appeal to the base. Huckabee also was a Fair Tax guy. And they both are skillful pitchmen.
The big difference between the two is that Cain has no record, because he's never held elective office. So his talk has never been tested. Had Huckabee run with no record, just based on his talk, he might have won it.
That's not to say Cain would govern the way Huckabee governed, it just means it's easy to say the right things when you've never had to prove it.
If Cain draws significant base support, but not enough to win, then he ends up like Huckabee did--in second place. Cain has to clear the conservative field to compete. That means Perry, Gingrich, Bachmann, and Santorum all have to go away by the time votes are being counted. If not, Romney still has a chance.
I for one am totally enjoying watching the political pundits go crazy over the thought that Cain is bypassing them and going straight to the American people and making tremendous headway while they sit and insist it is up to themselves to choose for us (uneducated, unsophisticated). It is totally beyond their belief that we, the unsophisticated, could or would choose someone that they have not “vetted”. Herman Cain was able to turn around two big corporations, I hope he gets the chance to turn around the US, it after all will be much the same when all is said and done......spend less than you take in.
I know that nothing in Cain the TALKER resume qualifies him to be President as I pointed out in my previous post. You can vote for the TALKER, I would not do so under any circumstances neither in the primaries nor in the general.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2792217/posts?page=3
Kristol told me just after Perry entered the race, a development that essentially ended [the more radical Michele] Bachmanns brief ascent. Establishment Republicans may prefer Romney to Perry, but their assumption is that either man can be counted on to steer the party back toward the broad center next fall, effectively disarming the Tea Party mutiny.
Huck=ignorant clown
Not so much funny haha but funny in an embarassing sad kind of way?
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.