THE STUMP NOVEMBER 18, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
After a busy week, I finally got around to picking up T.A. Frank's profile of Herman Cain in this past Sunday's New York Times magazine. Read it. It is the definitive piece on the Cain phenomenon, capturing its absurdity while also trying to reckon with its very real appeal and staying power. The piece appeared the day before Cain's five-minute wipe-out on Libya policy, but it all but predicted it: "To say that Herman Cain has an imperfect grasp of policy would be unfair not only to George W. Bush in 1999 but also to Britney Spears in 1999. Herman Cain seems like someone who, quite frankly, has never opened a newspaper."
That riff has gotten deserved attention this past week. Less noted has been this bit, quoting Cain on his theory of public speaking success: "He said, look, it's very simple. Talk about things you're passionate about. And have three points you want to make. If you have three points you want to make, you can remember those, and you can speak from the heart."
Hmm...three points. Was Rick Perry taking public speaking lessons on the side from Herman Cain? And if so, does Cain owe him a refund?
5 comments
But this still raises a question in my mind, a larger problem. It has become common to accuse the Republicans of being the "stupid party," and certainly they have done a lot to deserve it. Just as certainly, however, there have always been stupid politicians and office holders. But has the overall level of stupidity risen--has the proportion of stupid politicos grown from, say, 35% to 50%--or is it only a media phenomenon, in which the stupid portion gets the spotlight due to Fox News, talk radio, debates, etc., so that it only seems as if the stupidity quotient has risen? Mind you, I define "stupid" pretty much as the Frank piece suggests--the person in question seems to have never opened a newspaper, to which I would only add "or is a certifiable crackpot." I would thus leave off, say, Rand Paul from the list, even though he's a crank, but put on Sharon Angle. So, are there really more Sharon Angles, Sarah Palins, Christine O'Donnells and Herman Cains there relative to the larger political class, or is it all just that they can more easily get notice?
- timteeter
November 18, 2011 at 3:42pm
My favorite part of the Cain editorial board flub was of him searching through his mental rolodex for the “Attack Obama on Libya” talking points. Only thing missing was the “Dammit, I know I read something like that. Think, brain, THINK!” thought-bubble. But no worries, just because the man can’t handle that softball of a question doesn’t mean he won’t be able to effectively discharge the duties of the Presid… Whoops! Lost my train of thought with “all this stuff twirling around in my head.”
- OkiSaru
November 18, 2011 at 4:24pm
At least Cain can make only three points. Democrats? They can make an infinite number of points. And the winner is?
- rayward
November 18, 2011 at 4:59pm
I don't know about Cain owing Perry a refund. There are some students you can do everything for, but they just can't get it.
- ironyroad
November 20, 2011 at 11:20am
Cain is a classic salesman. His Willy Loman moment has not arrived yet.
- skahn
November 20, 2011 at 4:34pm