Posted by Tina
This ad intrigues. I thought it might be fun to see what you, our faithful readers, think about the wisdom behind it. What does this ad say to you? What message, beyond the obvious solicitation for support, does it convey? Does it offend you? does it inspire you? What?
I find the cigarette interesting, what the point of that is, I do not know. As far as that ad energizing me? No not really. I am energized by the fact that any of the republicans running will do a far better job than Obama. I will be energized on election day.
Horrible ad. Should be yanked immediately.
Message: 10
Delivery: 0
Why? Don’t shake your head to convey a positive message. That body language is a “NO” and distracts from if not ruins the message and says “phony”.
Never smoke in a campaign ad, you dork.
Herman needs some better front men. Stay out from in front of the camera, Mr. Block or get a clue. Block needs some advisers.
Yank this ad NOW.
There was nothing particularly interesting about the commercial until the very end. Until that point it’s just a close-up of a guy talking into a camera in a sort of monotone. But then he randomly starts smoking, and blows the smoke directly at the camera? I have no idea what that was supposed to convey or whose decision it was to include that in the commercial, but it was a little bizarre. Neither inspiring nor offensive, just weird. lol.
Incredibly bad. The cigarette smoking is beyond stupid. Even Obama, who actually does smoke, knows better than to ever be caught on camera with a cigarette in his hand. Are you sure this is not a dirty tricks sham by one of Cain’s opponents?
Toby you and I are on the same page…the only poll that really counts is the election day poll.
“I find the cigarette interesting, what the point of that is, I do not know.”
Curiously what came up for me about the cigarette was…are you fed up with the left telling us what to do and how to live, what can be said and what can’t be said, picking winners and losers? Elect Cain/conservatives next November and put your feet squarely in the rugged individual camp. Lets toss the bizzy body nannies and their control freak ways and bring back smaller simpler more efficient government and FREEDOM!
The nanny stuff began with the anti-smoking campaign in the seventies. What started as a health warning quickly devolved into a jack booted movement that used the power of government to control behaviors and spaces. It’s the same with the environmental movement and everything else progressives take on. They always become tyrannical…this ad says f-that!
Of course maybe it’s because that’s what I wanted it to say.
I find it interesting that so many lefties love Europe so much…people smoke like stacks over there even in restaurants!
“The nanny stuff began with the anti-smoking campaign in the seventies.”
But the fact is: smoking will kill you … notwithstanding the tobacco industry’s valiant attempts to persuade people to do it anyway.
Tina, why are the nanny government’s efforts to persuade you to prolong your life less virtuous than some capitalist’s efforts to persuade you to use his product … and hasten your death?
Seriously … explain it to us.
Ol’ Herm is no longer worth discussing. He is done.
Tina, I kind of had a feeling you’d interpret it that way. Maybe that was the point; if so, I think it could have been much clearer.
Libby: “But the fact is: smoking will kill you…”
That’s what they say. I don’t have a clue as to how much the science was a matter of consensus…contrived…to nfeed the lawyers…The lawsuits were ridiculous! But that isn’t the point I was making.
I don’t mind a warning label on the product. I don’t mind banning smoking in some public spaces. I do mind imposing smoking rules on private business where people are free to choose whether or not they work or trade there. I do mind laws that ban people from smoking in open air spaces or their own backyards and houses. I also think if the government really believed this product was that dangerous they should deem it a poisonous or dangerous substance and make it illegal. Of course then they wouldn’t do that because then they would have to give up the tax revenue they rake in yearly.
“Tina, why are the nanny government’s efforts to persuade you to prolong your life less virtuous than some capitalist’s efforts to persuade you to use his product”
The government goes beyond pursuasion. Choice is taken out of the picture and taxes, fines and fees are maximized. The new light bulbs are a good example. The nanny state is forcing bulbs that it turns out are more dangerous when broken, being filled with mercury. They used the force ofd law to put incandescent light bulb factories out of business and once again denied the people choice.
Of course control is what progressives are all about. They are willing to trample all over freedoms and choice, cause prices and taxes to go sky high for their various causes and what’s stupid is in the end they often deliver an inferior product or choice. Governemnt doesn’t know what is best and people can look out for their own best interests. Government has been overstepping its charter.
The point is…GET YOUR GOVERNMENT OFF MY FREEDOM (Lars Larson show)
Tina that “nanny state” thing was the first thing I thought of also. I also thought of Obama smoking and then I just thought what a dumb thing to do. I like Cain but I fear this may have done him in.
The good thing about Perry, he doesn’t need my $50, lol. I will also add I will not vote for Romney he is the next McCain and not what the Country needs.
Tina: “That’s what they say. I don’t have a clue as to how much the science was a matter of consensus…contrived…to nfeed the lawyers”
If conservatives have come to the point where they are now doubting the science behind the extreme health risks of smoking, then they have officially jumped the shark.
Chris: “If conservatives have come to the point where they are now doubting the science behind the extreme health risks of smoking, then they have officially jumped the shark.”
A. I speak for myself; conservatives are individuals; we don’t do single-minded communal thought.
B. There is a reason to doubt the science since the science community has shown itself to be agenda and concensus driven.
C. Lawyers too have shown themselves to be more than willing to use science to further the agenda of the le3ft and make big bucks in the process.
D. I wasn’t questioning the health risks so much as the left’s incessant need to control what people do about it.
Thank you for illustrating the point.
Toby: “I also thought of Obama smoking…”
Good point and what a hoot. The left media apparently went nuts over this simple short ad with a guy taking a quick drag at the end…but the guy who was their preferred choice as a candidate, the man who would represent them on the world stage…no problemo!
“The good thing about Perry, he doesn’t need my $50”
Hey…Cain would be happy with $9.00…I don’t think this will do him in and I have a great deal of respect for Brit Hume who said he thought it would. It’s early…which is why I don’t worry too much about much of anything that goes on now.
Right. Deny fact … change the subject … but don’t answer me question.
Why is our government’s anti-smoking campaign less virtuous than the ciggie industry’s “let’s-nail-them-thirteen-year-olds” campaign?
Come on. Let’s hear it.
Libby: “Deny fact … change the subject … but don’t answer me question.”
I answered the question you asked. Government goes beyond pursuasion; that is the difference. Try asking the question you want answered! Don’t blame me for your vague query.
“Why is our government’s anti-smoking campaign less virtuous than the ciggie industry’s “let’s-nail-them-thirteen-year-olds” campaign?”
Ah so…that’s the question.
Well dearie, isn’t it progressives who always say it’s up to parents to monitor what their kids do?
Besides, that entire Joe Camel smear was so much trumped up crap. Joe Camel was not deliberately created to target kids…young adults maybe but not kids.
The PC thought police created the horror because once the PC minions bought into their fantasy they could use it to control tobacco advertising even more…and open the door for more whiners to say, “Joe Camel made me do it”. Cha ching for the trial lawyers!
You people are something else. You really believe that the folks, as our ex-smoking President would say, don’t have the capacity, good sense, or discipline to look out for themselves when given information. You musr race to the rescue and save them! What incredible egos!
You also make sure that they are excused from taking responsibility for bad choices or stubborn refusal to act in their own best interests. You inspire and support the folks to remain infantile!
Tina: “A. I speak for myself; conservatives are individuals; we don’t do single-minded communal thought.”
True, but your comments do point to a disturbing anti-intellectual trend in the conservative movement. Members of your movement largely do trust scientists and a big part of that is based more on your own misunderstandings than on any misconduct on their part (such was the case in “ClimateGate.”) Many conservatives still find evolution controversial, for God’s sake, and that’s the cornerstone of modern biology and anthropology.
“B. There is a reason to doubt the science since the science community has shown itself to be agenda and concensus driven.
C. Lawyers too have shown themselves to be more than willing to use science to further the agenda of the le3ft and make big bucks in the process.”
And as we know, the tobacco industry has no agenda whatsoever, and has never used scientists or lawyers to their purposes…
“Good point and what a hoot. The left media apparently went nuts over this simple short ad with a guy taking a quick drag at the end…but the guy who was their preferred choice as a candidate, the man who would represent them on the world stage…no problemo!”
I don’t see the contradiction. First of all, I haven’t seen anyone “go nuts” over this commercial. A lot of people have pointed out that it’s weird and kinda dumb, including Pie Guevara and Soaps, and those two are not exactly card-carrying members of “the left.” No one should care whether or not a candidate smokes in their personal life, it’s just dumb to use this in a campaign commercial.
Chris: “your comments do point to a disturbing anti-intellectual trend in the conservative movement.”
According to a lock step PC progressive who is incapable of open discussion and intolerant of any speech that doesn’t fit neatly inside the PC rules book.
“And as we know, the tobacco industry has no agenda whatsoever, and has never used scientists or lawyers to their purposes…”
The tobacco industry agenda was to sell their product. They were forced to use lawyers to defend themselves from an onslaught of frivilous lawsuits and unreasonable, onerous public attack. They did not FORCE anyone to buy or use their product and once the question of danger was revealed they cooperated as regualtions demanded them to remove certain advertising and apply warning labels. The government did not deem the product as dangerous enough to ban it…why not? Because they want the tax revenue and the trial lawyers who support democrats were making big bucks filing lawsuits.
The left first creates and then uses victims. Do I mistrust the motives. You bet I do.
“I don’t see the contradiction. First of all, I haven’t seen anyone “go nuts” over this commercial.”
You wouldn’t because it’s impossible for any human being to watch all of the morning shows at once… but those who have the ability to gather soundbites can. Went nuts was a bit strong…the point still stands.
Criticism, speculation, whatever about this ad is about smearing a candidate that was gathering steam and support. Left media will attempt to destroy, in any way they can, all conten ders except the one they have chosen to run against. In 08 their choice was McCain. This time it’s Romney, whom they promote.
I can understand the immediate reaction to this ad by conservatives. It’s unconventional and odd.
Unconventional and odd suits me fine. I’ve had it with polish and spin that delivers up the same old failed policies and broken programs.
*sigh*
Tina, keep defending those poor victimized tobacco companies. If you won’t do it, who will?
Also, I think I understand your point about the commercial now. When lefties criticize the ad it is because they are evil and want to destroy Cain by any means necessary, but when righties criticize the ad, even if their criticisms are exactly the same as those of lefties, it is understandable.
Do I have that right?
I will say that my motivation for critiquing this commercial was not to smear Cain. I watched the video to see if it would be interesting, was disappointed through most of it, and then found the end pretty weird, so I expressed my reaction. I don’t think this ad should make much of a difference in the long run. A terrible campaign ad is not exactly an unpardonable sin. If the news has reported on it a lot it’s probably because the media likes to report on things that are weird, because that gets them ratings. I don’t think it’s because they all hate Cain.
That said, I thought Cain was unelectable before I watched this ad and I still think so now. He got a lot of support in the beginning, but then up until recently even Donald Trump was considered a popular choice for the next president. As we get closer to election day people start to consider these things more seriously, and as they do so Cain’s support will plummet. The other Republican candidates have realized he’s an easy target, and he can’t seem to open his mouth without contradicting what he said a few days before, then denying that there was ever a contradiction.
I will back the hard working common sense crowd all day long. The “intellectual” crowd wouldn’t know hard work or common sense if it jumped up and postulated how to make an intellectual actually pay for his/her collage loans other than dumping the burden on the backs of the hard working common sense crowd.
Chris: “Tina, keep defending those poor victimized tobacco companies.”
So inserting information from a different point of view on a topic now constitutes an insufferable defense rather than just another way to consider?
Apparently there is only one way to get through college these days…stay inside the box…never question.
“When lefties criticize the ad it is because they are evil and want to destroy Cain by any means necessary…”
Well…after years of watching them operate, I have to say, it fits the template. Sorry, but that is just a fact.
“…but when righties criticize the ad, even if their criticisms are exactly the same as those of lefties, it is understandable.”
Just a minute while I review…
I said I could understand their reaction…I also understood your initial reaction which agreed with theirs…sorry I didn’t specifically gove you credit.
Toby…right on the money.
The country has been dumped in the toilet by intellectuals with zero experience, sense of responsibility, or common sense.
BAD AD. Cain is entitled to a certain number of mulligan’s as a novice candidate, but he’s used all of them up and it’s still early.
This ad is representative of his lack of knowledge about too many things. We don’t need another guy to get on the job training in the White House. We tried that and it didn’t work out so hot. I like Herm, but he’s not ready.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/190511-cain-smoking-ad-brings-flood-of-donations
Some guy in the early eighties was given a similar slim chance to win the presidency…he was compared to Howdy Doodie and was dismissed as a second rate actor. The Republican elites didn’t like him either and scoffed at his chances.
I would never scoff at Cains chances because he might actually get elected. I simply have reservations about his competency. I like him…. but I don’t feel he is ready. I’ve seen him make too many blunders on stage and in his campaign and this concerns me.
When you invoke Reagan’s name and link it to Cain we must remember that Reagan had the tried and proven experience of being governor of a state the size and wealth of most developed western nations. He had his own ideas that he created and he fully understood and that the people understood and accepted too!
Reagan had a worldly knowledge too that went back to WWII and this served him well on many occasions at home and abroad.
Reagan didn’t have to trust lack a knowledge to advisers, he knew what he had to do. Reagan was his own man.
Reagan was also extremely popular across America. People saw him as very diplomatic, charismatic, well schooled and well spoken. He was a good man of high character who arrived at the right time. He evoked confidence and trust wherever he went. And he kept an even keel even when those about him were in panic.
His wit was razor sharp like Lincoln’s and this made many friends out of former enemies.
He was a really good governor who grew in that role and this led to a good solid understanding of government and what it takes to lead. He also attracted many allies in high places because of his political experience and that helped him press his policies into action.
Cain is a nice guy, but he comes up short in these really critically important things. I don’t want anyone going into the White House needing a year or two of on the job training.
This is not the time or place for such people.
We need a polished person who can function well on the world stage, who has the education in place, who looks, acts and talks the part, a guy who comes well equipped and ready to handle everything this job can throw at him.
We need a presidential president, not a president in training.
That Romney is well polished and I want nothing to do with him. Looks like the only people who really take issue with the ad are the Left. Cains numbers seem to be doing well. As far as gaffs go, until he screams “down with whitey” I am ok with him.
Toby, I only had a problem with the ad only because it left him open to unnecessary criticism and that’s not real smart when every vote counts and you want to spend your time on offense not defense. There were a number of people on the far, far right who did not like that ad for similar reasons. As for Romney…he’ll probably get the nomination, but nobody is too excited about him that’s a given.
Jack, at this point I would vote for almost anyone, ok anyone as long as it gets Obama out of office. I know I am not alone. I am not thrilled with Romney but I will vote for the guy if he is the guy. Cain running against Obama would be soooo much fun to watch.