Herman Cain’s Unusual (?) Stunning (?) Ad (NOT!)

I honestly don’t see what the media hype swirling around this Herman Cain ad is all about. It features a boring blurb by Chief of Staff Mark Block that is unlikely to make one voter who doesn’t want to already support Herman Cain decide to support Herman Cain. And monitoring the cable and broadcast talkers yesterday on XM radio (A MUST if you travel extensively by car as I am doing the next 9 months) a huge fuss was made over Block smoking a cigarette. My father had lung cancer and I have other relatives and acquaintances that had it as well. Yet, I don’t watch this and feel OUTRAGE. Some argue that the ad encourages kids to smoke.

So how many kids are going to watch Herman Cain ads or even watch TV beyond Block’s first sentence (“Borrrrrrrrrrring..).

The furor over this ad and the serious news and political talking heads making a huge deal over it underscore how much hype plays a role in our political “discussion” — which will discuss anything except actual issues. Personality and side issues are much more fun (and easier to cover and discussion). It’s easier to do a quick, angry outraged rant against the smoking in this ad or to opine on how it doesn’t help Block but makes Cain look smaller than life than to do a detailed commentary or analysis of his 999 plan or go into detail about the kind of staff he needs to have in place and does not have yet to get the GOP nomination.

And now I get ready to read the lectures in comments about how I support lung cancer by saying the controversy over this ad was overblown and phoney (re-read this post about friends and relatives and cancer and I also do some programs on anti-smoking).

6 Comments

  1. There is no outrage, but it does underline Cain’s stupidity.

  2. Not sure what the point was of having the cigarette in there. It must have been deliberate (too obvious to have been otherwise) but why? No outrage here, but it does seem odd. Also, that oft repeated comment, “take this country back”… just what is that supposed to mean? Take it back from who exactly? Presumably from other Americans, but who aren’t quite the “right” Americans. Bizarre…

  3. Agree with JSpencer on the first part – obviously the cigarette was there intentionally but what possible reason would they have to do that? Just seems kind of dumb.

    On “take this country back” I see the left often assuming it’s directed at minorities but it’s nebulous enough it doesn’t have much meaning. I would guess the OWS wants to take this country back as well although they wouldn’t use those exact words.

  4. Paint me completely befuddled. I can’t think why (no, he is not stupid) he did this, I hope he attempts to clarify why. If he is going after the smokers vote, it makes a little sense. Or, the libertarian vote? WTF, Herman.

  5. Nice try Nick. Politics isn’t that sexy. ;-)

Submit a Comment