2012 Candidates Not Named ‘Herman’

It’s kinda been all-Herman, all-the-time here lately, so let me update you on what’s going on with the non-Hermans:

And finally, Newt Gingrich becomes a punchline:

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled (neutral and objective) reminder to join the online grassroots army at Citizens for Cain.


It’s Hard to Beat a Man …

. . . who refuses to quit. Haley Barbour quit. Donald Trump quit. Mike Huckabee quit. Guess who didn’t quit?

Four years ago at the studios of WSB Radio in Atlanta, I interviewed talk-radio host Herman Cain, who had only recently recovered from cancer. He smiled as he vowed, “Death’s going to have to catch me, and it’s going to have to run fast.”
Cain is smiling more than ever now, and running strong with a Republican presidential campaign that has surged to national prominence since the May 5 debate in Greenville, S.C. In a Fox News focus group of South Carolina GOP voters following that debate, pollster Frank Luntz asked for a show of hands: “How many of you think Herman Cain won the debate?” More than half the participants raised their hands. Luntz was flabbergasted, calling the result “unprecedented.” Luntz then went around the room, asking what it was that made the retired restaurant executive so appealing.
“He’s likeable,” one man said, summarizing a key factor in Cain’s campaign that seems to elude pundits. For the past two weeks, the political intelligentsia has struggled to understand how the former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, who has never held elective office, could have suddenly emerged as a contender in a crowded Republican 2012 primary field. It’s never been a mystery to Cain’s communication director Ellen Carmichael.
“When people meet Herman, they like Herman,” she explained in a phone interview a few weeks before the Fox News debate in which 2 million viewers met Cain for the first time. . . .

That’s from my latest American Spectator column and you should read the whole thing. And you should watch this wonderful video:

Herman Cain: A Real Leader
MONEYBOMB

Jonah Doubts the Cain Magic

Jonah Goldberg got some blowback about a column on the 2012 campaign that didn’t mention Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann or Herman Cain:

As for Herman Cain, I’m also catching a lot of grief for not discussing him. For the record, what I’ve seen of Cain I like. I certainly respect the guy, though I was less impressed with what I saw of his debate performance than Frank Luntz’s focus group was. And I am far from convinced he’s the right candidate at the right time.
I didn’t mention him, or Michele Bachmann (who, I’d predict, will do better than Cain in the primaries if she enters the race), because they didn’t fit directly into the thesis of the column, particularly given space constraints. I can tell from the comments and e-mail that Cain’s fans are already trying to make support for him into some kind of litmus test. I’m not buying any of that. But I look forward to seeing how he does in the weeks and months ahead.

So he doesn’t believe. Yet.

VIDEO: Iowa Loves Herman Cain

This 4-minute video features an interview by Lynda Waddington of the Iowa Independent. But never mind that part: Pay attention to the enthusiastic reaction Herman Cain generates from the grassroots GOP in Cedar Rapids, Iowa:

You see what I’m talking about? People love this guy. He is a people person. And that makes a huge difference at the retail-politics level, which is what the Iowa caucuses are all about. And by the way . . .

 HERMAN CAIN MONEY-BOMB!

UPDATE: Cain surges ahead in Daily Caller poll.

UPDATE II: “Insidious,” says Ace of Spades: “For the first time in my life, I’m proud to be an American.”

Don’t Overthink It, Byron

Byron York has a wonderful interview with Herman Cain, keying off the South Carolina debate:

Republican pollster Frank Luntz conducted a focus group on Fox News and found near-unanimous agreement that Cain was the winner. “I’ve done maybe 35 or 40 of these debates for Fox, and I’ve never had this kind of reaction,” Luntz said. “Something very special happened this evening.”
Many political insiders viewed the debate mostly as an opportunity for former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty to move up into the first tier of GOP candidates. Instead, people left Greenville’s Peace Center talking about Herman Cain — a result that few participants, including Cain himself, could have predicted.

Well, I may not be one of those “political insiders,” but having predicted Cain’s South Carolina debate victory in advance, I’m surprised that Byron York didn’t give me a call to say, “Stacy, how did you know? What is the secret of your insightful prescience?”

Never mind the un-asked questions, however. Byron then whips out the Rorshach inblot analysis:

A mostly unspoken but possibly consequential factor in Cain’s appeal to conservative voters is his race. Cain is a black Republican — a pretty rare thing in itself — seeking to challenge the nation’s first black president. . . .
[M]any Republicans have internalized the Democratic/liberal criticism that they oppose Obama because he is black and that whenever they attack the president on this or that issue, the real motivation behind it is race. Herman Cain, they believe, could take it to Obama without all that racial baggage.

Byron, you’re thinking too hard, man. Leave the psychobabble to the liberals, who specialize in that kind of stuff.

People like Herman Cain because — wait for it — they like Herman Cain.

He’s an immensely likeable guy, as was obvious to anyone hanging around the lobby bar before CPAC:

After Cain arrived last night, he was quickly surrounded by CPAC attendees eager to shake his hand and get their photos taken with the guy I introduced to my friends as The Next President of the United States.

You don’t have to be a “political insider” or a Ph.D. psychologist to see that kind of stuff. Ordinary Americans don’t think like intellectuals think, which is why the alleged experts are so often mystified by simple phenomena. (Basic economics, for example. Paul Krugman’s got a Nobel Prize and still can’t figure out why Keynesianism doesn’t work.)

If we have to “go there” with the race issue, I like what Andrew Breitbart said in his Heritage Foundation speech:

Breitbart . . . wants radio host Herman Cain and Freshman Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) on the 2012 GOP ticket. . . .
“The only way to defeat political correctness and cultural marxism and multiculturalism is to aim straight at its head,” Breitbart said.

The beauty of the Breitbart approach is that liberals see a quote like that and say to themselves, “Give me a break. They wouldn’t actually do that, would they?”

Because it’s too damned simple. It’s like the fullback dive on fourth-and-goal. But the fullback dive is the perfect play, if you have confidence in your team. Forget the razzle-dazzle — just give the ball to the fullback and run it right at ’em.

There’s no point worrying about the psychological symbolism of a Cain candidacy when you consider the likely alternative. What all the clever GOP pundits like Charles Krauthammer want to do is to re-run the Bob Dole ’96 campaign: Find some bland non-entity, hire a bunch of speechwriters and consultants, and run a boring, predictable campaign that ends in defeat so that, four years later, Republicans nominate somebody named “Bush.”

Screw that noise. Here’s what I wrote on Nov. 13, 2010:

[I]f you want a successful businessman for the 2012 GOP nomination, how about a dark horse? . . .
Yeah: Herman Cain. Having backed a few can’t-possibly-win underdogs in the past couple of years — I went all-in for Rubio when he was 35 points down — I’m taking a long, hard look at that dark horse.

People thought I was crazy. Mainly because I am crazy, but sometimes the smartest move you can make is to do something that everybody else says is crazy. Now here we are, six months later: Herman Cain won the first big GOP debate, he’s got Andrew Breitbart in his corner, and Byron York is making the pilgrimage to Atlanta to interview the candidate that none of the experts thought would be a major factor in 2012.

Somebody ought to hit the hell out of my tip jar. This kind of insightful prescience has got to be worth something.

Holy Freaking Crap: Time Magazine’s GOP 2012 Chart Omits Herman Cain!

Da Tech Guy points out that Time magazine’s resident political “expert” Mark Halperin has a chart giving odds on candidates for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, a chart that completely omits the hands-down winner of the first debate in South Carolina.

Halperin also omits Rick Santorum and gives thousand-to-one odds against Michelle Bachmann — and Bachmann, whatever the odds, is (a) much beloved by Tea Party activists, (b) a Midwesterner, which certainly can’t hurt in Iowa, and (c) about thirty-zillion times more likely to win the nomination than Barack Obama’s Favorite Republican™ Jon Huntsman, whom Halperin rates at 20-to-1.

S.P. Gordon at Cain’s Corner asks a relevant question:

If Herman Cain is such a long shot for the election, why are ALL the major broadcast media running in fear from him?

Don’t outsource your political thinking to a bunch of know-it-all pundits. To quote Da Tech Guy’s favorite Yankee general: “Ride right through them, They’re demoralized as hell!”

UPDATE: Linked by Little Miss Attila and If You Seek Peace — thanks! — and welcome, Instapundit readers!


Newt? No Problem.

While I usually quote Time magazine’s David von Drehle only to mock him, he’s inarguably right when he says:

The main problem Newt Gingrich faces in his campaign for President is not going to be the number of liberals who don’t like him. It’s going to be the number of conservatives who don’t like him.

Von Drehle quotes John Podhoretz among others, as Gingrich’s rightward opponents. His problem is perhaps not so much that conservatives don’t like Newt — who is now, as always, an extremely articulate critic of liberalism — but that they don’t trust him. He is a distinctly slippery politician, whose ideological commitments are not entirely solid and sound. His 2008 global-warming ad with Nancy Pelosi is a case in point:

If Gingrich could be forgiven for that stunning lapse of judgment, there are yet other lapses to explain:

Callista Bisek’s friends from rural Wisconsin were stunned when, well over a decade ago, she confided that she was secretly dating an older, married man: Newt Gingrich.
Still in her 20s when they met, Ms. Bisek had been raised in a town of 1,500, the only child of a meat packer and a secretary. A churchgoing Roman Catholic, she had attended a Lutheran college where she practiced piano five hours a day. “Is this the wisest course for you to be taking?” Karen Olson, her best friend, recalled asking.
Today, Ms. Bisek is Mrs. Gingrich, married for 11 years, but perhaps best remembered for the six-year affair that contributed to her husband’s political downfall. His critics cast Mr. Gingrich, the former House speaker, as a hypocrite who sought to impeach a president over infidelity while engaging in it himself with Ms. Bisek, who was a Congressional aide. . . .

Set aside your moral outrage over adultery, and focus instead on this Capitol Hill rule: Members don’t date staffers. Period.

Congressional staffers are hired at taxpayer expense to conduct the people’s business, not to serve as “comfort women” to lonely politicians. In the hierarchy of D.C. sins, dating a Hill staffer is not as bad as shagging an intern — interns are absolutely off-limits — but it is still a breach of trust, in part because of its demoralizing influence on other staffers. Granted, the future Mrs. Gingrich worked for Rep. Steve Gunderson, so Newt wasn’t her boss, but still: It simply isn’t done.

Despite all that, however, I feel no need to mount an anti-Gingrich campaign, for the simple reason that I don’t think Gingrich has a realistic chance at winning the nomination. He will be an important voice in the 2012 debate, but I don’t see him sparking a grassroots brushfire of enthusiasm. In fact, at the Georgia state GOP convention, Gingrich was at risk of being overshadowed by another 2012 candidate:

MACON, Ga. — It had all the trappings of a homecoming. Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker who helped Republicans rise to power in this once-solid Democratic state, returned Friday deliver his first speech as a presidential candidate before thousands of state GOP delegates.
But ahead of Gingrich’s scheduled address Friday evening, party activists were buzzing about another favorite son — Herman Cain.
“He doesn’t talk political,” said Jeanette Bean, a Gwinnett County delegate who was passing out Draft Cain stickers. “He talks straight. He doesn’t mince his words and says it how it is. It’s so refreshing,”
Plenty of other attendees seemed to agree. Kicking off the two-day convention, Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss gave a shout out to both Georgia natives. “We’ve got Newt Gingrich,” he said, which earned a whistle of approval from one member of the audience.
When Chambliss added, “We’ve got Herman Cain,” loud whoops, cheers and applause were heard.

Read the whole thing.

UPDATE: “Georgia Republicans to Newt Gingrich: Sorry, but you’re no Herman Cain.” I believe the word is, “Heh.”