The Real Conspiracy Against Herman Cain
November 9, 2011 | 3:19 PM
Presidential candidate Herman Cain demurred about the existence of a conspiracy against him yesterday, although he has gone out of his way to suggest that there is one: the Democrats (and their media allies) don't want a plain-spoken, conservative, establishment-busting tax-reformer in the White House and are doing everything they can to put up artificial obstacles in his way. Oh, and my colleague Josh Kraushaar might have had something to do with it. (See here, of course, for the tale of two Kraushaars.)
It has everything to do with the way that both groups tend to evaluate presidential campaigns, as well as with a prospective judgment about whether Cain stands a chance in the general election. This "conspiracy" ... or threshold ... has kept candidates from Dennis Kucinich to Buddy Roemer from realizing what they see as their full potential.
Basically, the conspiracy is one of mind: if the folks who call the shots don't think you can win, they're not going to spend time and money covering you and they are going to take you less seriously. (They're also going to scrutinize your background more.)
Mike Huckabee learned this early in his last run for the presidency. He was determined to court the media, and his victory in Iowa provided evidence that he could actually run a successful statewide campaign. He fizzled -- but it was Huckabee, and Huckabee alone, who overcame this conspiracy and bought himself a real chance to win the nomination.
Herman Cain's debate performances have apparently struck a chord with some Republicans, and it certainly is raising his profile. But the media and his own party still thinks he won't win, can't win, and thus -- and this is true -- treat him as a sideshow. (The Democratic Party pays no attention to Herman Cain. None. They're focused on Mitt Romney.)
Is it fair?
In a way, yes. A campaign ought to be judged by how well it is managed. There is a connection, a tenuous one, but a real one, between the way a candidate campaigns and how he or she governs. And Cain has campaigned fairly poorly. His chief of staff, Mark Block, is just weird. Cain spends more time promoting his book than he does his campaign, or did, until the sexual harassment allegations surfaced. He is just now airing ads in Iowa. He has yet to demonstrate a solid grasp of foreign policy, or a strategy for collecting the votes of Republican-leaning independents.
But it's absolutely true that the threshold to treat Cain as a real candidate is higher than it is for other, more established candidates. Rudy Giuliani was somehow seen as more electable -- and was given the "serious candidate" treatment by the press, even though he really didn't stand a chance of making it through the GOP primaries.
Candidates can and do transcend this conspiracy. Cain can take some heart: one sign that a campaign is gaining credibility is the mere presence of so many people who are eager to scour his background for scandal.
From National Journal:
NATIONAL SECURITY 
VIDEO
PICTURES
Who's Who on the Super Committee
It has everything to do with the way that both groups tend to evaluate presidential campaigns, as well as with a prospective judgment about whether Cain stands a chance in the general election. This "conspiracy" ... or threshold ... has kept candidates from Dennis Kucinich to Buddy Roemer from realizing what they see as their full potential.
Basically, the conspiracy is one of mind: if the folks who call the shots don't think you can win, they're not going to spend time and money covering you and they are going to take you less seriously. (They're also going to scrutinize your background more.)
Mike Huckabee learned this early in his last run for the presidency. He was determined to court the media, and his victory in Iowa provided evidence that he could actually run a successful statewide campaign. He fizzled -- but it was Huckabee, and Huckabee alone, who overcame this conspiracy and bought himself a real chance to win the nomination.
Herman Cain's debate performances have apparently struck a chord with some Republicans, and it certainly is raising his profile. But the media and his own party still thinks he won't win, can't win, and thus -- and this is true -- treat him as a sideshow. (The Democratic Party pays no attention to Herman Cain. None. They're focused on Mitt Romney.)
Is it fair?
In a way, yes. A campaign ought to be judged by how well it is managed. There is a connection, a tenuous one, but a real one, between the way a candidate campaigns and how he or she governs. And Cain has campaigned fairly poorly. His chief of staff, Mark Block, is just weird. Cain spends more time promoting his book than he does his campaign, or did, until the sexual harassment allegations surfaced. He is just now airing ads in Iowa. He has yet to demonstrate a solid grasp of foreign policy, or a strategy for collecting the votes of Republican-leaning independents.
But it's absolutely true that the threshold to treat Cain as a real candidate is higher than it is for other, more established candidates. Rudy Giuliani was somehow seen as more electable -- and was given the "serious candidate" treatment by the press, even though he really didn't stand a chance of making it through the GOP primaries.
Candidates can and do transcend this conspiracy. Cain can take some heart: one sign that a campaign is gaining credibility is the mere presence of so many people who are eager to scour his background for scandal.
Join the Discussion
The National Journal Group has the right (but not the obligation) to monitor the comments and to remove any materials it deems inappropriate.
Comments powered by Disqus