We’re quickly approaching an election year, and you know what that means…political ads 24/7. More and more we’re seeing ads launched and tested online where ROI can be extremely high if an ad goes viral. Even better is an online ad that attracts the attention of traditional media. The result is free exposure when broadcast and cable news outlets spend precious airtime talking about or even screening the online ad.
That may be the strategy behind an online ad for Herman Cain, who is running for the Republican nomination to challenge Barak Obama in the 2012 Presidential race. The ad, with more than 1.2 million views and counting, features Cain’s chief of staff Mark Block who, at the end of the spot, takes a drag on a cigarette. You can watch the ad on [Youtube]. This is an unconventional approach, to say the least. As Block says in the spot, “we’ve run a campaign like nobody’s ever seen.”And while Block says the ad is not intended to promote smoking or to send a subliminal message, that’s not stopping media critics and journalists for looking for the subtext beneath the subtext. Some are suggesting that it is defiant gesture towards the nanny-ism of Big Government that wants to tell people what they can or cannot do.
Another bazaar web ad is the long-form, He Carried Yellow Flowers. Conner Friedersdorf at the Atlantic calls it a “Dadaist Meta-Western.” I don’t know where to begin with this one, so I encourage you to watch it on [YouTube] and leave your comments below. What do you think is the message? And does it make you think of Herman Cain as a viable contender for the office of President of the United States of America?
I can see as to why whoever produced this thought that the cigarette puff could be seen as defiant towards big government, but I still dont understand why. Even if the cigarette was meant this way, surely they could not have believed that no one would notice or take offense to the clip. In a world were big tobacco ads are banned from television and watching tobacco use in movies is considered innapropriate to kids and minors I cant believe whoever was in charge of creating this ad allowed that piece to go into the finished product. This obviously drew more attention to controversy over content of the advertisement than to the actual message of the advertisement itself. The video was at almost 1.2 million hits on YouTube when this blog was posted, and i I’d be willing to bet that a majority of those views were out of curiosity over the cigarette rather than caring about what Herman Cain had to say about politics.
It figures that a video like this gets out right at the time where the politics are picking up trying to find somebody to run against Obama. It doesnt surprise me that a video like this gets viral, but when videos like this get out it will happen.
I personally have no idea what Cain is trying to say in these ad campaign. However, with all the negative feedback about it I don’t think that it is effective in a positive way. The video certainly has gotten a lot of attention but I don’t think that a lot of that attention is good. I think Herman Cain isn’t taking a good approach with this ad campaign and I think that this will effect him negatively in the long run.
Herman Cane & company are not the only Republican party hopeful that seems to have made an odd and/or poor decision. The almost awkward smile Mr. Cane provided in his ads, along with rather strange remarks and responses in interviews (like seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WW_nDFKAmCo) set him back. Other Republican nominee hopefuls have made similar missteps. Mitt Romney took Obama totally out of context, as is receiving a great deal of backlash for said campaign ad (a summary viewable here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gjco41RIthw), though members of Romney’s team claim it was taken out of context on purpose. Rick Perry totally blanked in an interview debate when speaking about agencies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gjco41RIthw), giving him a lot of bad press as well. Others, such as Michelle Bachman, have also made questionable remarks and moves, leading me to ask: What have all these politicians been smoking?
Well for the first ad, I thought the underlying message was that Cain is down with the times, trying to appeal to a younger demographic to get their vote because other candidates would never show a guy taking a drag from a cigaret in their ads an that’s what makes them less appealing to younger hipsters. The second ad, I thought at first it was a joke. But ten I saw that it was a serious campaign ad and thought well, his message is that we need to know what goes on behind te curtains. Like how the guy was giving an interview but in the background the African American man was gettin beat up.
I’m going to have to go with the fact that he should not be in office. It really does seem like another ad for cigarettes versus being picked to run as the Republican candidate for the 2012 Presidential elections. All this does is get the dumb rednecks and crazy smokers wild up for him and the anti-Obama clan. If his message is not to smoke, then why the hell does he take a drag of a cigarette at the end, why didn’t he just take that part out? On the other hand with all the news broadcasting stations showing this video is getting him free publication and advertisements which is a very smart idea. They only thing is he needs to choose his words and actions more wisely and give a reason on why he should be the republican candidate.
this is a very interesting ad. when you are running for president and you’re in the election you need to have a postive outlook on yourself. smoking is not very appelaing or attractive role to be doing. i would think he would be doing everything to make people believe he is a good canidate to run the U.S. this is an amusing ad almost, it kind of mad me laugh i never thought i would have seen this. we always talk about sending the right messages in advertisments and how important it is. maybe Cain needs to take media and society 101
This is ad is hypocritical because health issues and health care is a big problem right now in this economy. Why would you place a campaign add that shows someone smoking, Many people are against smoking. Everyone has flaws and addictions but would you want someone representing you that is showing his true colors. If anything this ad hurt Cain’s reputation.
Not only was that a really badly made commercial that did nothing but make me laugh, it was also a terrible decision for Herman Cain’s campaign, As most everyone has said already, a cigarette puff doesn’t have the same effect on todays society as it did in the earlier years. Today it is seen as more negative. People already see enough of this in movies these days, usually not portraying someone to be super cool anymore. Society is already trying to get it out of the media and not allow children to be advertised to about it. So why would anyone elect someone who freely put a meaningless clip of someone of importance taking a drag? I certainly do not know, and it already draws my vote away from this party…
I’m not really sure what these campaign ads are trying to accomplish but they are sure like nothing I’ve seen before. The ad with is chief of staff smoking is strange at this time because health is a concern. The yellow flowers ad is creative but I’m not really sure what is what it was trying to say. I don’t like to watch political campaign ads because they are usually a bunch of crap. These are no different.
Honestly what kind of message would you want to get out of cains rep smoking a cig right after promoting him in an ad. I don’t think saying that there is deeper message behind it. I feel that they tried to show him as a regular person. but a lot of “regular” people don’t condone smoking anymore especially GOP members. I don’t think that the video will help him get votes. Cain already doesn’t have a good reputation as it is and this video really wont boost his popularity now. The video does have an underlying message and i wouldnt be surprised if this is one of the biggest reasons why he wont win the GOP party.
After watching the youtube video i was speechless. I wasn’t speechless because the fact that the ad was good i was speechless because i was in shock that a candidate running for next election would have someone smoking a cigarette in his ad. Personally to me it was unprofessional and you have to think about what kind of message is that sending across. Cain should have said something about it but wait it was his ad and obliviously he doesn’t care so that makes me think about if he was president. Now you know that some of the people who smoke are going to be hooked in that ad because smokers like smokers.Meaning that the people who smoke and saw that ad are more than likely going to pay more interest in it then someone who wouldn’t. Relating it back to the media even in the post above it says “that’s not stopping media critics and journalists for looking for the subtext beneath the subtext.” Meaning that whoever writes the garbage magazines is going to have a hefty payday because when they see something like this where they can bash any candidates they are going to do it. In the end it does show that Cain has power and he will use it to do great things, because if he can have Mark Block smoking in his ad then he can do anything. Some don’t see it like that but also you have to remember that some people don’t think outside the box. But over all this blog was a good way to look at media and examine it and look at how it is structured, also it shows that by someone smoking a cigarette could potentially hurt you in the long run.
I watched the ad on youtube, it’s quite interesting. It’s not quite as different as people are trying to turn it out to be however. Think about it, political campaign ads normally just show the candidate in an average background area like walking down a normal city street or out in a field. Then the candidate just gives a short speech over their ideals and that’s basically all there is to it. This has the same basic idea, except that it’s the chief of staff reciting the speech. Now, onto the end of the ad, the cigarette part. It’s an interesting twist, and caught my attention along with the song that started playing. Everyone thinks it’s a strange part, but I say it’s a brilliant tactic. If it caught my attention, surely it caught the attentions of others. Another side to this strategy is seriousness. For some reason that simple little action provides a serious feel to the end of the ad. Also, of course there was criticism about the cigarette; it’s a political ad and people will look for any way they can to demonize those if they disagree with the candidate.
I think Herman Cain secretly thinks he’s a bad ass and that’s why he runs such off the wall ads. Mark Block’s closing gesture is a classic “bad ass” signature that indicates that he knows he’s got a dirty old habit, but does he care? Of course not, not this guy! Then the “He Carried Yellow Flowers” ad gives a similar representation. What is especially odd to me is that if Cain was using that actor to be symbolic of himself in any way, why did he have “himself” punching out the black guy? To me, Cain is better represented by the punchee than by the puncher. His campaign is reflective of his outlook and his personality. Perhaps we are not used to seeing our nation’s representatives’ flaws so openly discussed in their own campaigns. This makes me wonder if Cain is just being real with his audience and showing them his true colors right off the bat, or is he so messed up in the head that he thinks this kind of campaigning is normal and it actually gets worse?
I watched both ads and after watching the first I couldn’t believe what I saw. I thought they were both pretty lame especially the first one. The only thing I got out of that was Cain being able to get America back to smoking (sarcasm) and for the second ad I agree with one of the previous comments about it looking like a skit that would be on SNL. Cain’s strategy in my opinion is strange and although sort of captures your attention doesn’t put together a good message.
Block smoked a cigarette and blew smoke at the camera on this ad. Not so long ago, people were smoking cigarettes and blowing smoke at the camera on a regular basis on TV. I think that the Cain committee found some shock value to the public in doing this everyday action on an internet ad. It certainly got the attention of the public, which I believe was the intent of the ad. Of course, after the last couple of weeks worth of news concerning Cain and his alleged actions with women, the smoking of a cigarette seems quite tame !!
I think that if you don’t like the ad, then you don’t like it; and vice versa. I would like to think that the average American is intelligent enough to realize that, and come to their own conclusion.
I cannot say with 100% conviction that there is a subliminal message with the smoking by Block. It could just simly have been his habit whether off or on camera and that is all.
I do believe that in a world where many people are desensitized to bad habits such as smoking, cursing, rude gestures and more – the Cain committee found something that made people talk about him and watch him (now over a million times). Whether you liked the ad or not, it is being talked about and publicity is the name of the game.
Matt, thank you for revealing the brilliant, inane and elementary analysis all us partisan shills failed to recognize.
I’m glad you explained for us that there is a convoluted, subliminal subtext beneath the subtext buried in the Ad. It’s also good to know that you understand the difference between manifest and latent tendencies that this spot may speak to, even though you described not a single one. Of course, everything you’ve heard about the alleged deeper meanings of this ad amounts to sheer speculation, for which there is zero evidence provided by the so called advertising savants you’ve referenced, yet I’m glad to see their pseudo-scientific evaluations and your own have melded nicely:
“”Through this brief portion of the ad the visage of the smoking campaign director puts out the subliminal message of both support and acceptance to members of society recently discriminated against. Of course it can also be argued that this campaign advertisement is tantamount to a cigarette commercial itself.””
You go on to mutter that the campaign denied any such hidden motives, but you resort to writing:
“”While it is most likely true that smoking is not meant to be encouraged, it is in a grey area as to whether they intended any psycological sub-messages with this commercial.””
And with a bold twist of circular logic you add:
“”Though not intended this ad has the negative affect of drawing attention to smoking and connecting it to power.””
So which is it, Matt? Did the campaign intend a psychological sub-message, or not? If so, what are you offering as evidence? Evidence is key here, bub. Your sloppy “grey area” assertion about their intentions epitomizes the type of faulty scientific claims which can only thrive in social science, especially advertising effects research. And you don’t get away tossing out the blanket generalization that this particular Ad draws attention to smoking and effectively links it to power without, again, any empirical proof of your opinion. Therein lays the reason why other posters didn’t focus on this angle for their comment.
It could be that Mark Block is just another tacky Public Relations professional engaging in self-aggrandizement. His cigarette toke might have been nothing more than a poor choice in self-projection, paramount to wearing an ugly neck tie. Kind of like a clown who wears a serious business suit and sports a pair of giant red shoes, honking a loud red nose. There’s no way to prove otherwise.
You are right, Matt. Dr. E’s topic presented two Ads for respondents to consider, one of which you didn’t bother to mention yourself; perhaps because it too was a giant plate of spaghetti, with no congruity for even starting a legitimate analysis. You must of subconsciously recognized that for yourself, that’s why you didn’t “evaluate” it, but who knows. Instead, you opted to parakeet some stuff you heard in class. Good on ya!
What you could have talked about is the continuing trend of PR practitioners who end up becoming as least as famous as the candidates they promote. The success or failure of a political campaign, from a marketing perspective, is an industry test unto itself, and can make or break careers based on the effectiveness of the strategies and tactics they employ. Mark Block has certainly made strides to gaining personal notoriety or infamy; history will decide as to which. You could have talked about the uncommonly known strategists responsible for the success of Reagan’s political campaign. Or, you could have drawn parallels to the professional savvy of Carl Rove and David Axelrod, and how the political promotion industry has grown. Also, you could have noted how Mark Block has set a new precedent for paid campaign staffers personally endorsing his employer in stupid campaign Ads like this one. What an idiot he is indeed, endorsing his own client like he himself is just a regular voter.
What you failed to recognize in some of the other posts was a broader discussion of Cain’s political strategy, the credibility of his candidacy, and the momentum impediments he’s facing. What you also failed to realize is that there is nothing to be offered for this topic but OPINION, partisan or otherwise. The next time you join fellow respondents in a blog brain-fart, realize that we’re all simply loosing the intellectual gas from between our ears. It’s part of the point and fun of a blog, to fart in a public forum and get away with it. Sorry if our “evaluations” don’t smell as nice as yours.
The hardest thing for everyone commenting on this article is leaving political opinions behind. The very first thing I noticed looking through these comments is that there is actually very little real evaluation going on, all that can be found here is a whole lot of crusading for mostly partisian opinions. Cain’s campaign manager is smoking, in the spot and as the proverbial smoke cleared there were plenty of questions. Why would a candidate show an ad with smoking including. In America about 46 million citizens are smokers, in a world of no smoking inside, smoke free hotels, and no smoking within twenty feet of the building smokers find themselves more and more alienated, as discussed in class, even movies with gratuitous smoking could be awarded a mature audiences rating (R). With this in mind we must also recall the video viewed in class from the advertising savant, he made the case that most advetising is sucessful not because of manifest tendencies, but latent ones. Through this brief portion of the ad the visage of the smoking campaign director puts out the subliminal message of both support and acceptance to members of society recently discriminated against.Of course it can also be argued that this campaign advertisement is tantamount to a cigarette commercial itself. In a world where smoking is know to be detrimental to health and measures are taken to prevent such ads from being exposed to the minds of children and youth is this ad a severe breach in conduct? The Cain Campaign staff has released a statmente stating that this ad was not encouraging smoking or meant to have any hidden meaning. While it is most likely true that smoking is not meant to be encouraged, it is in a grey area as to whether they intended any psycological sub-messages with this commercial. Though not intended this ad has the negative affect of drawing attention to smoking and connecting it to power. On the positive side this ad used as a commercial with latent messages is, from a mass media perspective is an effective use of such messages to push an opinion. Of course there is the possibility that Cain pushing his campaign for the common man would use something so simple as a smoker, taking up 46 million citizens, as a way to connect with more of the population. This is an interesting ad with many different potential answers, without any involved party being idiots, interestingly enough.
If I believed who the president was mattered I would sincerely hope that Herman Cain would not be considered a viable candidate for office. His campaigning ads speak to his level of professionalism, seriousness, and experience. How does he expect the American people to take him seriously when his ads feature some type of Hollywood mash-up with absolutely no relevance, that speaks about Herman Cain and what he represents for less than 2/3’s of the video?? It all began with Arnold becoming the governor of California, it made making public office a novelty OK, which it is not. Too much is being taking for granted these days. The American people need to realize that if they have complaints about the way that things are run, than they should not elect unqualified professionals, with a take on their job something like Cain’s here. I personally would not want Herman Cain running the country, but since I don’t believe who the president is actually really matters since all the decisions that matter are made by people other than him, I would have to say that maybe seeing more of this ridiculousness might be mildly entertaining, even if it is at the cost of making America look the part of a bafoon.
Leaving aside Mark Block’s awkward regular guy cigarette toke followed with a deviant Herman Cain grin; it’s clear that Cain’s political campaign was assassinated today (11/1/11). He’s now being re-branded as a philanderer, bold-faced liar, and just another wing nut; and his PR team’s buffoonery — as well as his own — is on vivid display, not just because of that stupid Ad, but because of the way they’ve handled Cain’s late communication crisis.
The interesting thing is we don’t know the assassin(s). Was it the mythical Liberal media, or, did upper echelon Republicans expose the sex scandal, fearing that Herman Cain was becoming a spoiler? Cain’s female accusers aren’t the story. This story is that Cain might have been able to capture the GOP nomination, but could he win a national election against Obama? Would the moneyed interests that really run the country this let this cheesy pizza guy ruin their election bid?
Forget about Cain for just a second and consider that the two un-Romney candidates, Tim Pawlenty later Rick Perry, were offered to conservative voters and quickly fell flat on their faces: first, Tim Pawlenty’s gutless Fox News debate performance against fellow GOP contender, Mitt Romney, who Evangelical voters hate to love, left a sour taste in right-wing pundit’s mouths. Pawlenty choked when it came to a face-to-face standoff with Romney over “Obomney Care.” As a result of the negative coverage from Fox News and other pundits, Pawlenty’s PR campaign lost all momentum, he stopped being able to raise money, so he tossed the ball to the honky-tonk Texan All-star, Rick Perry, who later “threw up all over himself” in two more Fox debates, according to Fox News’ Brit Hume. Soon Perry’s hyped poll standings plummeted following the debates, leaving Republican strategists dumbfounded. Now, everyone knows Romney has trouble with evangelicals, and Republicans desperately need to re-enchant them to win. A brain damaged Rick Perry doesn’t stand a chance in a debate against an articulate Obama; and don’t forget, the conservative base didn’t turn out for McCain last go round, delivering a modern day landslide to Obama. If Perry’s a dummy that even right-wingers find stupid and Romney is a sociopathic shape shifter who evangelicals despise, what’s left? The remaining pile of GOP candidates is nuttier than squirrel turds, anyway.
Enter the unexpected Herman Cain, still nutty by his own account, a right-wing “entrepreneur” who gives charismatic but shallow speeches to simpleton audiences, enchanting them with gospel serenades to boot. By small margin, Cain’s poll numbers began to top Romney’s, who’s been running for six years, and Perry’s campaign was left on the sidelines. Herman Cain’s campaign was capturing all the PR momentum which Pawlenty, Perry and Romney hoped for; and so it seems the Great Right Hope came in the form of an odd, pizza-slanging conservative superhero, who likens himself to an ice cream flavor called black walnut — conservatives were gobbling him up. That’s advertising hype you can’t make up.
But understand that Cain’s foolish remarks about the minds of black voters’ being supposedly “brainwashed by the Democratic Party”, along with other absurd sound bites, didn’t come off too well on national news. Even though Herman Cain spouts all the bulls#!t white conservatives want to hear a black man say — making him more of a token than a credible candidate — Cain instantly nixed his chances at capturing the black vote. How in the world can a black conservative politician win the presidency without the black vote? He cannot. And all PR pundits (who bloviate on corporate media news shows) know it. So whatever are Republican strategists to do? Watch the millions they’ve invested in (hold your nose) Romney and (punch drunk) Perry go down the drain? I don’t think so.
Herman Cain’s political campaign was assassinated. And don’t be fooled for a second that this was a Liberal media hit job. It’s not about racism coming from the left either. This is about the numbers game. No thinking person believes Cain has the goods to go all the way. The political and corporate elite of this country are trying to stage this election as best as possible, to ouster an irreparably damaged Barack Obama brand in favor of one even more malleable. Obama is an Epic Fail for the country by the way; he’s at once complicit to and has been victimized by the system he serves, but that’s another conversation.
When I first saw the Herman Cain political ad I thought it was fake. It looked just like a skit that would be seen on late night comedy shows like Saturday Night Live. When I finally realized that it was a true political ad I was stunned. I could not understand the need for the cigarette puff, especially in a political ad. The tobacco industry in America is constantly being shown with all of its negative effects. Why would a presidential candidate want to include something so negative in his campaign? The ad also seemed to have a comical appeal, which I think is another reason why it has bothered so many people. There are real issues affecting the American people, and the use of comedy seemed inapproriate for an ad of a potential American leader.
I will say though that Cain’s ad was an ingenious way of reaching many people. I personally don’t pay attention to political ads often, but this one definitely caught my attention. The way this video has gone viral over social media outlets is also a way of getting the attention of young voters who are constantly connected, but I do believe Cain went about this ad in the wrong way using sensitive issues in today’s society.
When I first saw the ad that included the 2 second puff of a cigarette, I honestly did not know what to think. The low film quality was signature of political ads, but the foolishness to include a meaningless cigarette puff flabbergasted me. In response to the ad, officials were saying there was no meaning for the drag off the cigarette, but clearly from a viewers standpoint there is indeed. Herman Cain’s response to the ad was that he delegated the task to one of his campaign partners. Herman did support the ad and made the stance on tobacco and smoking very clear. Being in a leadership position, the biggest responsibility is delegation. To me, this poor judgement on delegating the political ad is vindictive of his overall leadership qualities. I understand that Herman is busy and committed to other things right now, but to delegate such an important task to such a dangerous media environment is absurd. I do not know the message of the cigarette ad, nor do I care. All I know is if I was running for president, I would not have my name attached in any way, shape or form to an industry that has such a bad public image as the tobacco industry. In conclusion, I do not see Herman Cain as a viable contender for the presidential election of 2012. Comparing Herman Cain to other past candidates, he is sub par and his media stunts are questionable as well. I know it is still early, but for these ads to be effective, they must become very viral, and as of now, they are not.
Conan O’Brien made fun of Mark Block’s smoking in one of his sketches. It was a parody of the Cain ad, and there were a couple of other spokespersons doing different sorts of drugs: one doing cocaine off his arm, another lighting up a bong, and so on.
If there really is no subtext to the smoking in this ad, then I can just see it as some attempt to appeal to the common people, as most of them are druggies too. There were much better ways to demonstrate such an appeal, if that is in fact what they were going for.
Needless to say I’m not looking forward to the upcoming election.
It’s all too obvious that Obama won’t be returning for a second term; the only fight here is which old ignorant Conservative gets to take his place.
The all-around hatred for Obama really does anger me, for he is despised for the stupidest reasons. Obama’s inactivity is not his fault, but the fault of the entire Congress that despises and turns down everything the president has put out.
And as for the Yellow Flowers ad, it’s just confused me so much.
It’s so hypocritical in its ways of having an actor telling us to get real, making promises that a candidate will live up to his word, yet he that doesn’t even appear for more than five seconds. The start of the ad demonstrates a return to simpler times, and perhaps it would have been best to end the ad there. Everything beyond was a mistake.
The message here is just more of the same from the GOP and their latest tornado of shame, AKA Herman Cain …
Once again the Grand Old Party and it’s supporters have made no qualms about endorsing a nominee who engages in sheer political lunacy, and really just lunacy in general. Shades of Sarah Palin have far been eclipsed by some of Cain’s most enduring moments to date, which have included exceptionally eyebrow curling comments about immigration policy (I believe his solution was “building an electrical fence that would kill them [Mexican Immigrants]”), the president of Uzbekistan (or in Cain’s vernacular, “U-beki-beki-beki-stan”), disbanding social security, abortion rights and of course, his hallowed 9-9-9 tax policy, that after careful analysis by legitimate economists like Paul Krugman, was basically deemed a huge scheme to shift the most of America’s tax burden from the rich to the poor….
Add to all of that the brand new allegations that emerged yesterday via the Politico website, that Cain may have a history of sexually harassing at least two former employees at his trade group and you have a glorious disaster on your hands and maybe a clearer picture about who Cain really is.
While he may escape the dirt digging that is forcing public explanations out of him, Cain can’t escape himself. He’s predictable.. he’s a business man and with all business men the bottom line is capital. Generating it, hoarding it and whoring oneself out for it. Enter into the equation the mega-rich Koch Brothers, who in essence are the entire reason that no matter what happens with his fiasco of a presidential nominee run, Cain will win, monetarily speaking of course. The Koch brothers, Mark Block and Cain all know what really revs the engines of conservative voters. It is without question their pseudo-freedoms, that whether or not may be biologically, ecologically or environmentally heinous, they cling to like rabid dogs a carcass in the middle of a barren desert.
That ad makes a play for the worst in conservatives and most of them will become more and more receptive to Cain because of it. His subliminal posturing that suggests “hey, I’ve got an illicit playground full of small government, let’s take America back so we can get into some REAL fun”, might as well run at the bottom of the ad’s screen. Only problem is that Cain neglects to mention just who he wants to take America back from…and yet again another subliminal message that right wingers love to pump to their minions bubbles to the surface. The overtly hostile, anti-Obama, treat-him-like-a-foreigner attitude toward our commander in chief seems to pervade all of their stances consistently.
Fully expect Cain to continue to gain popularity amongst his legions of know-nothings. They will ignore how irreparably damaging his tax plan could be for them if ever installed, his radically moronic approaches to hugely imperative policies, and even the glaring fact that during most of the Republican debates to date his commentary has come off something reminiscent to the fevered ramblings of a syphilitic brain. He is the poster boy for the wrong direction and that political ad that Mark Block constructed for him easily registers as the worst one ever this side of the infamous Willie Horton ad that H.W. Bush ran in the late 80’s…