It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => Politics/Legislation/Elections => Topic started by: IronDioPriest on November 14, 2011, 07:49:48 PM
-
... I'm thinking we need to be done with Herman Cain now. (http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/14/brutal-cain-blanks-on-libya-supports-collective-bargaining-for-public-employee-union/) (video linked @ HotAir...)
You won’t believe me until you click play but this is much worse than Perry’s brain lock at the debate last week. Perry lost his train of thought; Cain doesn’t have a train at all here, to the point where he needs confirmation from the interviewer of what Obama’s position on Libya actually was... the first two minutes or so are pure agony. The board actually took pity on him, I think, by not following up. Imagine if they’d asked his opinion on Obama’s decision to ignore the War Powers Act.
And that still only barely qualifies as the worst answer he gave today. Here’s what he told them when asked, predictably enough, about Scott Walker’s righteous crusade against public employee unions:
Article and video @ HotAir. (http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/14/brutal-cain-blanks-on-libya-supports-collective-bargaining-for-public-employee-union/)
-
I'll take him before Mitt or gNewt ANY fricken day.............
-
More of that "get the best minds together" and "solve the problem".
Didn't think so before but HE'S SELLING BOOKS!
It's time for him to join Bachmann, Huntsmann, Santorum, and
Paul and leave.
-
I'll take him before Mitt or gNewt ANY fricken day.............
One can't make a good decision unless he possesses a basis
from which to make that decision. He's got no basis.
-
I'll let it play out a little more 'cause right now I'll take his worst day to ObaMao's best.
-
And that still only barely qualifies as the worst answer he gave today. Here’s what he told them when asked, predictably enough, about Scott Walker’s righteous crusade against public employee unions
1) We have no better alternative.
2) This is why we have Cabinet Positions and CEOs have VPs, CIO, CFOs etc
The real question is Cain smart enough to hire the right people to advise him and humble enough to listen?
I stand by my original assertion. If we can't get someone who at least will tow the Tea Party line, then we might as well leave Obama to lie in the bed he made.
Romney IS a Democrat. There isn't a point in switching the vile blatant socialist with the guy the Dems want in so they can blame all of their policy failures on "conservatives" ( or a liberal pretending to be conservative just so he can fill this role)
Will Romney demand fiscal responsibility? Entitlement Reform? Anything radical enough to change the course or even slow it? Hell, he can't even push Obamacare repeal because he is its God Parent.
The world financial crisis is still building, and these jokers will keep kicking the can down the road, but I will be very surprised if that can can be kicked for another 9 years. I wouldn't even give it 5.
-
I don't think Cain has any interest in being President. It's taken me months of observation - and even staunch defense of him - to come to that disappointing conclusion. I don't know what he's doing or why he's doing it, but I don't think he was ever serious about getting the nomination.
This is the 5th or 6th high-profile time that someone has asked him a policy question that was met with the same thing: head rears back, eyes go to the ceiling and roll, he repeats the phrase or words, sits there with a blank look on his face, and then fakes an answer that makes him look ridiculous.
If he's not prepared to discuss Obama's response to Libya, he's simply not prepared - period. It is indicative of a complete lack of interest or responsibility regarding the job he's supposedly seeking.
I've gone from supporting him, to defending him, to remaining on the sidelines to see if he would right the ship, to saying outright - we need one of the others to step up.
Is he smart enough to surround himself with the right people? I present Mark Block for your examination.
-
Devastating. I hadn't seen this before. Getting pissed off and yelling at people because they don't buy him telling them that he didn't say what he just said.
Herman Cain...WTF? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGlYmsddjM0#)
-
I don't think Cain has any interest in being President.
Odd. To me that is a feature, not a bug. No one who actually wants that power should under any circumstances be allowed to have it. That goes double given the economic circumstances, because it means you are both power hungry AND insane.
Is he smart enough to surround himself with the right people? I present Mark Block for your examination.
Yes. I phrased it as a question largely for that reason.
But again, I see a pretty narrow field of choices here, and I can only pick the best of what is available, even if what is available is entirely crap. Romney is not "better" than Cain. A better chance of success in the race against Obama? Sure. I am still not seeing how that helps.
Say Cain won and the worst expectations of him are true. Does that really put us worse off than were were are now? Where we would be with RINO Romney "professional scapegoat for the Left" in the office?
-
As I mentioned in a different thread (it's quite applicable here to so I'll just cut & paste the darn thing):
So far we have Cain, Gingrich and Romney to choose from. IMO Cain is still the best conservative candidate in this race (even with all his policy gaffs - and no, the trumped up sexual harassment scandal doesn't impact my opinion of him one bit), followed by Gingrich and Romney isn't even on that list. Don't get me wrong - I'll still vote for any of these three over Obama...but then, I'd also vote for a moldy ham sandwich before I'd vote for Obama. The trouble with Newt is the guy has a long history of turning against conservatism so he's barely even on this list as well, which leaves Cain simply by default.
-
I just can no longer continue to make excuses for the guy. That's me - my opinion, and I'm sharing it. I respect others, and just disagree.
It pains me. You can find me supporting and defending Cain in post after post here, at Hot Air, Gateway Pundit, AoSHQ, and RedState. I'm not doing it anymore.
-
Devastating. I hadn't seen this before. Getting pissed off and yelling at people because they don't buy him telling them that he didn't say what he just said.
Herman Cain...WTF? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGlYmsddjM0#)
The Video is a n Either/Or fallacy... Refusing to exclude the possibility of using precautions isn't the same thing as advocating or saying that you will use them. Maybe I sympathize because I am prone to loosing my cool ( and that is the main reason I can't run for office) but yeah, refusing to see the distinction might be a bit frustrating- especially when faced with a hypothetical in which you don't have enough details to actually make a decision.
Yes, its "un-presidential" to loose your cool, even for a few seconds. But you don't need to yell to have it happen. Obama snarks all of the time in a really really childish way even when he isn't making middle finger jokes. Besides, at this point we need someone pissed off in that office, if for no other reason that to to cause constant irritation to our ruling class.
I know I am being somewhat flippant, but in reality there is just about nothing political that can be done now to avert the economic disaster, and even mitigation will have only a small effect in the current political climate, and the sea change we needed? Yeah, that didn't happen.
We are electing the person who will hold the hot potato and be blamed. We have never had an election with lower stakes. Obamacare and every other bit of government intrusion is about to be repealed en-mass by a lack of fund to enforce them. I don't think it makes a bit of difference if Obama or Romney is in charge when that happens.. The government will be forced to become more tyrannical because the population will be in open revolt, and it may be better if it is our side that has the most incentive to fight, vs being obedient and complacent because we think "our tribe" is nominally in charge.
-
Oh, not that I'm trying to say otherwise Priest. I'm feeling pretty let down by him right about now myself. If there was a better alternative I'd take it - but right now, he's the only real conservative in the race...that's my only point. I LOVE a lot of the stuff that Newt says...but the trouble is he doesn't walk the walk - he only talks the talk...at least that's the way he has been in the past. Pulling the trigger for him now is tough to do since in doing so I have no idea if the day after he gets elected he won't be sitting on a couch with Nazi Pelosi yucking it up and supporting global warming...
...and well, voting for Romney is nearly as good as voting for Obama...
-
Bachmann - represents Mn very well
Cain - has proved himself a man who doesn't know. [Everybody here knows what was/is going on in Libya and what Obama did at least enough to bs through that question] IDP for President!
Gingrich - is an undisciplined pol (read:dangerous). He has a beautiful brain but it's adulterated.
Huntsman - people are actually saying he may be the viable man
Paul - could do wonders for the Fed and Treasury but he will not be the nominee
Perry - has fallen from grace
Romney - is a Democrat
Santorum - pretentious juvenile, a GOP party man
Pick your partner
-
Bachmann - represents Mn very well
Cain - has proved himself a man who doesn't know. [Everybody here knows what was/is going on in Libya and what Obama did at least enough to bs through that question] IDP for President!
Gingrich - is an undisciplined pol (read:dangerous). He has a beautiful brain but it's adulterated.
Huntsman - people are actually saying he may be the viable man
Paul - could do wonders for the Fed and Treasury but he will not be the nominee
Perry - has fallen from grace
Romney - is a Democrat
Santorum - pretentious juvenile, a GOP party man
Pick your partner
Yep.
-
I just can no longer continue to make excuses for the guy. That's me - my opinion, and I'm sharing it. I respect others, and just disagree.
It pains me. You can find me supporting and defending Cain in post after post here, at Hot Air, Gateway Pundit, AoSHQ, and RedState. I'm not doing it anymore.
As Zoe said in Serenity. "I don't disagree on any particular point sir." You are right, Cain has major issues. He is no Savior and there isn't a Savior in the bunch. Now what?
This thing is going kaboom soon, and its a sure bet that
1) The current state of affairs under Obama will look like a paradise in comparison
2) The government will have to become more authoritarian just to keep order - putting those negative connotations and label on the party in power while setting precedent to keep doing what they did ( Notice any similarity with Bush and Obama's policies?)
3)whoever holds office during the collapse will be voted out and party voted in will be able to push for "special crisis powers" to fix the mess the last President gave us
The real question is - which party do you want voted for in stage 3? If Obama gets 4 more years, point 1 becomes moot because I think there is a really good chance this comes down in that time-frame. The Dems own it all. They have to be the ones clamping down, without the benefit of the doubt conservatives usually give a GOP President ( Patriot act, ) and then Conservatives will be the ones called upon to pick up the pieces without having the conservative message muddied by another compassionate conservative RINO in chief representing the cause.
The more I look at this, the more I think its best to just sit tight, concentrating on winning our local and state elections and stop worrying about the Fed. The Huns, Visigoths,and Vandals of fiat money and entitlements are coming and it really doesn't matter much who rules when they get here.
-
The commenter foxmarks at Neo-Neocon had a great comment the other day:
foxmarks Says:
November 13th, 2011 at 2:15 pm
I haven’t lost hope. I acknowledge mathematics. Yes, the people know how to provide bountiful food, safe shelter and myriad entertainments. But the takers have been promised too much, and the makers have used too much leverage to provide for both themselves and the parasite factions.
A collapse is inevitable. Only Paul is talking about shrinking government and taking leverage out of the system at a level that might lead to an orderly restructuring. Instead, we will have The Great Repricing. We can make the same bounty in terms of tons and calories and gallons. But the dollar value relationships between them will be much different. Anyone who thinks in terms of GDP is using a dollar-based measure and not seeing the problem. All the factions who think they are owed so much will have a hard reckoning.
So I am looking for the candidate who might help those angry taker factions to see that the world is different now and they’re up for some austerity and hard work. A candidate who has significance outside politics and into culture. The economic picture after the Repricing will be determined more by the culture, what people are willing to do and what they’re willing to do it for. Value is subjective.
Romney is a finance guy, the old guard. He would attempt to assert the old pricing on the new world. His life has been built on leverage. And culturally, he is ruling class. Who is he going to inspire? T. Coddington Voorhees doesn’t need our help.
Obama is the Great Society guy. He thinks hard work is optional. The post-Repricing society will be better if we can hang the collapse solidly on our socialist factions. With Barry, the collapse is more violent as he rages against fate, but we get to the sunshine faster.
Paul is the one who gets the economics right, but he’s not suitable as CinC in the real world, nor does he offer any help in appeasing the suffering during the period of instability and repricing. Although at least he wouldn’t unleash the troops on the people (unlike Perry, who seems eager to squash somebody).
Santorum is a non-factor. So, if anyone has sympathy for my scenario, out of Bachmann, Cain and Gingrich, who can best preside over urban riots and temporary shortages of food and fuel? Which of those three is most likely to respect the Constitution and not make excuses for violating it?
Now that's an interesting way to look at our choice, isn't it?
-
Late to this particular party but here goes...
The summary by Charles is more or less equivalent to my own opinion on the matter.
One of these candidates is going to be our nominee.
There will be no write-in or draft Palin nonsense.
Eliminate the obvious deadwood: Huntsman. Bachmann. Santorum. All gone after NH at the latest.
Paul will stay in it all the way to the convention. He doesn't have the sense or the grace to get out of the race and will maybe get somewhere between one and ten delegates.
Romney will stay in it all the way to the convention because a) it's his turn and b) he has the money. More on him below.
Perry will be in it through South Carolina or maybe Nevada depending on how he finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire. I'm not writing him off because as unlikely as it looks now he is still a viable Not Romney. But he could be finished without a strong showing in IA and NH.
Cain is getting a lot of support from Limbaugh and Levin for reasons I cannot fathom. On the one hand I know that they do not like the Clarence Thomas style of smears that have come his way. I don't either. And I don't believe them to be credible. But, that said, over the last two to three weeks I have had the exact same shift in attitude toward Cain that IDP has chronicled. I reluctantly overlooked the "right of return" gaffe but it did raise my awareness toward this problem. I was further annoyed by the "abortion" gaffe. There isn't any point in listing them all...we know them... Cain is not exhibiting the behavior and temperament of a serious candidate. That this is now evident to political geeks (like us) means that it will be evident to the rest of the base before the IA caucuses. Cain has enough money to make it through the first two or three primaries but that will be it. Limbaugh called out Bachmann and I have to wonder just how much longer he can carry Cain's water. Can't be too much longer.
There is a damned good reason that most of the field consists of Not Romneys. Romney, as pointed out above, isn't a conservative and calling him a RINO is being extremely generous. Romney is a liberal technocrat. He will sell himself as a better manager of big government than BO and, if he is the nominee, that will probably be enough to win. He is, as pointed out elsewhere, our Dukakis. Since I would vote for anyone who is nominated to oppose BO I will vote for him. Dutifully. Just like I dutifully voted for McAsshole the last go round. Because I have to tell my children and grandchildren that I did everything in my power to oppose BO.
Which leaves Gingrich*. Gingrich has well documented problems, most of them listed in the above posts. Gingrich is, like Romeny, a technocrat. He is not a conservative in the vein of Reagan. He does not see a real problem with the bloated size of the federal government but rather sees it as an opportunity to step in a do a better job of managing it. His history more than verifies this. I see him as a Romney Lite. A more astute Romney. More of a fighter than Romney. Of all of the candidates, I have to admit, I look forward most to Gingrich facing BO head to head just because he would intellectually eviscerate BO in the same manner that he did Scott Pelley last Saturday night.
I see the field right now as Romney, Perry, Cain and Gingrich. I believe, barring something very odd, it will be one of these four who will be our nominee. I just don't see how one of the others rises up to win at this point.
I also believe that any of these can beat BO. BO sucks. Everyone knows it although there are a great number of squishes who will not publicly admit it. BO makes Carter look wise and thoughtful. I honestly do not know how BO isn't defeated by anyone after his tour de force of incompetence.
So...where does that leave us?
If one of these yahoos is elected, what then?
It comes back to Congress at that point. I hate to put our national salvation in the hands of Congress but that's really what it will come down to. And there is some recent precedent for it. The Class of 1994 was truly amazing. They rose to the occasion and fulfilled the Contract With America and then proceeded to reform welfare, balance the budget and create a budget surplus (even though the MFM gave Clinton the credit for it).
If we end up with a weak president (from a conservative point of view) then there is a very strong incentive for Congress to rise up and lead in his place. A weak president will sign whatever legislation the Congress sends his way.
That puts the real trick in electing an even more conservative Congress than we have now. Not easy to do but at least there we have options.
In the presidential field our options are pretty bleak.
*Does kind of make you think of Pawlenty and what might have been.
(and welcome back, rickl)
-
So, if anyone has sympathy for my scenario, out of Bachmann, Cain and Gingrich, who can best preside over urban riots and temporary shortages of food and fuel? Which of those three is most likely to respect the Constitution and not make excuses for violating it?
Bachman votes for the Patriot Act which is the groundwork government control
Newt is too smart by half and sees government as the solution. He's a technocrat.
Cain just doesn't seem to have it
-
But, yeah, Cain isn't serious. He is already an embarrassment to me. I can't support someone who knows less about just about every major and minor issue than I do.
(I quit listening to Sean Hannity and Bill "Ted Baxter" O'Reilly for the same reason...I know more than they do and therefore I can't learn anything from them. Not bragging, that's just the way it is.)
I don't know how someone can be as successful as Cain has been in life and perform so incredibly poorly in this campaign. It is mind boggling. Cain has a very impressive resume and, unlike BO, it appears to be earned rather than donated by way of affirmative action and PC pity.
Seriously, how hard can it be to pick up a book or two and bone up on foreign policy? How tough is it to hire a political consultant to coach you on this stuff so that you don't make an ass of yourself? It's not as if he can't afford it.
Truly puzzling.
Cain has the appearance of being a decent person. I want to like him. I want to support him.
But I can't.
He has squandered my initial trust and benefit of the doubt. I just don't see where it goes from here.
Pity.
-
One reason that I think that Gingrich might win (because that's what we're really discussing here...who is going to win the booby prize) is that he has already been thoroughly vetted by the MFM. I honestly cannot think of anything they could possibly dredge up on Gingrich that we haven't already seen or heard. If the MFM attempts to expose him for whatever issue you care to think of I think that the public will collectively yawn and change channels.
There isn't any other candidate that you can say that about.
Just saying.
-
...He has squandered my initial trust and benefit of the doubt. I just don't see where it goes from here.
Pity.
That's where I'm at. A gaffe is a gaffe, and two gaffes are two gaffes. But a gaffe every few days is a pattern. And unfamiliarity with issues concerning the presidency when you are running for president aren't really gaffes, they're just disregard. Herman Cain has a pattern of complete disregard.
The more I think about it, the more pissed I get - that this man would present himself as the answer for Americans who are fed up with career politicians, and then proceed through ineptitude to essentially make the case for career politicians. He's putting a dagger in the breast of the Tea Party by damaging future prospects and credibility of non-career citizen politicians. Only time will tell if that dagger hits the heart.
-
But, yeah, Cain isn't serious. He is already an embarrassment to me. I can't support someone who knows less about just about every major and minor issue than I do.
Ain't that the truth. Believe me, I saw Herman Cain as my Hope and Change guy. For me, it boils down to this: If Mark Block is the best Cain can find, then the country would not prosper under a Cain presidency. Remember when Bush II was criticized (unfairly) as lacking the "intellectual curiosity" to be President? I am of the opinion that such a charge can be made against my former First Choice: Herman Cain.
-
::facepalm::
Y'all bringing me down again...now I'm swinging to not voting at all...going Galt seems the better option now...the fate of the world can fend for itself...
::unknowncomic::
-
Whoa now Libertas...lets not get all crazy here! Not voting at all means you're really pulling the lever for Obama. How would that square with you? It'd make me nauseous! Writing in a candidate that has no hope of wining is also pulling the lever for Obama...so the only thing to do is hold your nose and vote for not Obama if that's the way things come down for you (or anyone else for that matter).
-
Whoa now Libertas...lets not get all crazy here! Not voting at all means you're really pulling the lever for Obama. How would that square with you? It'd make me nauseous! Writing in a candidate that has no hope of wining is also pulling the lever for Obama...so the only thing to do is hold your nose and vote for not Obama if that's the way things come down for you (or anyone else for that matter).
Aaawwhhh! I thought this was the crazy thread!
::facepalm::
-
It all still comes down to this for me:
Romney = liberal. Not a choice. I would absolutely have to hold my nose to cast my vote for this clown.
Gingrich = technocrat. Barely a conservative; way better than Romney, but still a bad choice. I would have to hold my nose to vote for him.
Cain = actual conservative. At first he seemed great, now appears to be dumb as a box of rocks. But that actual conservative part back at the beginning trumps an awful lot of stuff (at least until a better conservative that isn't dumb as a box of rocks comes along which doesn't seem likely at this point). I used to think I could happily cast my vote for him now I could do it, but with reservations...at least I wouldn't have to hold my nose to do so like with the other 2.
I say this about Cain not because I'm defending the guy (because his last couple weeks have been deplorable - and not because of the trumped up scandal by the MSM) but because he genuinely seems to be the only guy left in the race that has actual conservative values. If he has a value base that starts with conservatism, he'll end up making the right decisions at the end of the day...or at least more of the right decisions than the other two.
As far as Trap's observations about Perry, I guess I'm not seeing where he's still in the race so I've written him off...and I'm not sure that he'd be any better than Newt anyway even if Trap's synopsis is correct. That's not to say that you're wrong or anything Trap, you've a valid point after all. Perry may well still be in the race. I'm just not at the same point as you concerning this.
I also agree with rickl's post about Foxmark's quote. I think that synopsis hits the nail right on the head concerning the situation we have to contend with. I think Bachmann's out of the race which leaves us only two viable choices: Cain and Gingrich.
So that's where I'm sitting at the moment; a choice between Newt and Herman.
If Newt stays true to his own history then he's not going to be a good president and may well do more damage to the country if he were.
Herman may yet wise up and pull his head out of his netherparts. That's the best possible route in my opinion.
I don't see any better choice right now, unless I'm missing something. And if I'm missing something could someone point me in the right direction?
-
Not to worry Libertas - in this political climate, we're ALL a little crazy! ::evil::
-
I'm not worried....yet! Lot a time and a ton of ground to cover before any clear picture emerges, that's a fact!
-
It comes back to Congress at that point. I hate to put our national salvation in the hands of Congress but that's really what it will come down to. And there is some recent precedent for it. The Class of 1994 was truly amazing. They rose to the occasion and fulfilled the Contract With America and then proceeded to reform welfare, balance the budget and create a budget surplus (even though the MFM gave Clinton the credit for it).
If we end up with a weak president (from a conservative point of view) then there is a very strong incentive for Congress to rise up and lead in his place. A weak president will sign whatever legislation the Congress sends his way.
True, trap. I'm keeping in mind that Jim DeMint is very well aware of this as well, which is why he's devoted himself to increasing the Conservative presence in the Senate by supporting and endorsing those candidates as he sees them.
Then, there is the issue of judges. I can see Newt's head being swayed by the 'angels dancing on pinhead types'. Romney? Fuhgeddaboudit. Cain? *sigh* Cain. I had hopes that he would have the judgement to pick advisers that would fill-in-his-blanks, but I see failure in that arena, as IDP wrote; what kind judges will he appoint, relying as he does on poor advisers like Mark Block?
-
One reason that I think that Gingrich might win (because that's what we're really discussing here...who is going to win the booby prize) is that he has already been thoroughly vetted by the MFM. I honestly cannot think of anything they could possibly dredge up on Gingrich that we haven't already seen or heard. If the MFM attempts to expose him for whatever issue you care to think of I think that the public will collectively yawn and change channels.
There isn't any other candidate that you can say that about.
Just saying.
I don't think the voting public has a clue to the baggage Gingrich has. When the MFM starts unloading on him - ethics violations, philandering, etc. - many voters will shy away from him.
-
...Cain? *sigh* Cain. I had hopes that he would have the judgement to pick advisers that would fill-in-his-blanks, but I see failure in that arena, as IDP wrote; what kind judges will he appoint, relying as he does on poor advisers like Mark Block?
Interviewer: "Can you tell us what kind of judges you'd appoint if you are elected president?"
Cain: "Judges.... (eyeroll, nervously look to the ceiling) Judges... now, are you talking about federal judges? The president appoints those, right? I just wanna make sure we're talking about the same thing before I answer... Now here's the thing... I would of course, as an executive in a leadership role, surround myself with the best people to help me make those kinds of decisions. I wouldn't put myself in the position of appointing judges and then having to fire them weeks or months later because they aren't doing their job..."
Interviewer: "But Mr. Cain, federal judges are appointed for a lifetime tenure."
Cain: (long pause) "Yes, right, lifetime tenure. I was making a joke, OK. You'll notice I'm an unconventional candidate. (laughs) As I was saying, I would surround myself with advisers who work within the legal system to help guide my decisions, and make sure that the judges I appoint are fair-minded people who come to decisions based on all the evidence, and weigh that evidence against the facts of the case, and who would come up with a solution to the dispute that would be satisfactory to both parties."
Interviewer: "So you wouldn't be holding your nominees to a constitutional litmus test, as Tea Party activists are demanding?"
Cain: (agitated) "I NEVER SAID THAT! (smiles) Now, what I did say, is that I would use the best people in my administration to choose good, fair judges who first and foremost obey the constitution. THAT'S what I said, and what I meant."
The above is of course, a little creative writing on my part. But hold that creativity up against real statements made by Herman Cain regarding several key issues, and the above fictitious conversation is no more out of the realm of possibility - or dare I say probability - than reality. He has really become THAT impossible to defend, IMHO.
-
(http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/mittelgrosse/medium-smiley-125.gif)
-
::facepalm::
Y'all bringing me down again...now I'm swinging to not voting at all...going Galt seems the better option now...the fate of the world can fend for itself...
::unknowncomic::
Amen.
-
Whoa now Libertas...lets not get all crazy here! Not voting at all means you're really pulling the lever for Obama. How would that square with you? It'd make me nauseous! Writing in a candidate that has no hope of wining is also pulling the lever for Obama...so the only thing to do is hold your nose and vote for not Obama if that's the way things come down for you (or anyone else for that matter).
Pulling the lever for Obama might be the smart move given what is coming, especially if we can't offer an alternative we think will actually move the cause forward. Half-measures are pointless, and we shouldn't expend limited resources on battles that will gain us nothing.
Here is the slogan:
OBAMA 2012- Don't Interrupt the enemy while he is committing Suicide.
Like the OWS crowd, the longer it goes on, the better conservatives look. . Same goes for an Obama Presidency. Let Big Government collapse on him. Let the looters, moochers, and rent seekers experience the long hard winter while their side is in office.. Let them test their faith in Big Government with empty bellies and violent riots. Let them learn that the only person they can depend on is them (or let them die refusing to learn)
Our only hope is a long hard winter to eradicate the locust vermin, and to make sure the vermin know that the winter is of their own devising.
-
...He has squandered my initial trust and benefit of the doubt. I just don't see where it goes from here.
Pity.
That's where I'm at. A gaffe is a gaffe, and two gaffes are two gaffes. But a gaffe every few days is a pattern. And unfamiliarity with issues concerning the presidency when you are running for president aren't really gaffes, they're just disregard. Herman Cain has a pattern of complete disregard.
The more I think about it, the more pissed I get - that this man would present himself as the answer for Americans who are fed up with career politicians, and then proceed through ineptitude to essentially make the case for career politicians. He's putting a dagger in the breast of the Tea Party by damaging future prospects and credibility of non-career citizen politicians. Only time will tell if that dagger hits the heart.
Ok I'm not a conspiracy theorist but that "Dagger" part makes me think...... ::thinking::....... ::foilhathelicopter::.... ::gaah::
-
Mr. Cain--
It's called WIKIPEDIA!
::rockethrow::
-
Pulling the lever for Obama might be the smart move given what is coming, especially if we can't offer an alternative we think will actually move the cause forward. Half-measures are pointless, and we shouldn't expend limited resources on battles that will gain us nothing.
Here is the slogan:
OBAMA 2012- Don't Interrupt the enemy while he is committing Suicide.
Like the OWS crowd, the longer it goes on, the better conservatives look. . Same goes for an Obama Presidency. Let Big Government collapse on him. Let the looters, moochers, and rent seekers experience the long hard winter while their side is in office.. Let them test their faith in Big Government with empty bellies and violent riots. Let them learn that the only person they can depend on is them (or let them die refusing to learn)
Our only hope is a long hard winter to eradicate the locust vermin, and to make sure the vermin know that the winter is of their own devising.
I would normally agree completely with this sentiment Weisshaupt. But the trouble with it is the supreme court. If Obama gets re-elected he will have the best opportunity to cause the absolute most damage to the country - damage that is basically irreversible...simply by putting another 1 or 2 liberals on the bench at the supreme court.
-
I would normally agree completely with this sentiment Weisshaupt. But the trouble with it is the supreme court. If Obama gets re-elected he will have the best opportunity to cause the absolute most damage to the country - damage that is basically irreversible...simply by putting another 1 or 2 liberals on the bench at the supreme court.
Considering what Reagan-appointee and allegedly stalwart conservative jurist Silberman recently opined, regarding Obamacare, I'm not sure it really matters that conservatives get to make the appointments. There's just something about government itself that infects those who spend too much time in it, they become more and more enamored of its hulking mass. It becomes the center of the universe, they become mere technocrats who, rather than keeping it small and focused, decide the best course of action is to be ever tinkering with it in an effort to make it somehow more efficient. This is a point Mark Steyn has been making for years about the nominal Right in Europe. Even there conservatives will win the occasional election, but what does it really mean? It just means they have made the argument that they can operate the Leftist State better than the actual Left can. When the Left owns the bureaucracy, and so many of the pillars of culture (education, media, etc), electoral politics end up having much less influence. Conservatives are reduced to being caretakers, or as Steyn suggested in an analogy in his latest book, they become like the plebes at an English boarding school keeping the toilet seats in the unheated lavatory warm for the upperclassmen.
Honestly I think Weisshaupt has the right assessment of this situation. We're not approaching a point of no return, we've already left it in the dust. This whole thing is going to blow up in everyone's faces and soon, I mean we have an entire economy based almost entirely on mere notional value and the bulk of even that is in the form of IOUs made on behalf of people who have yet to be conceived by parents who have themselves yet to be conceived. This jig is up in a big way. The 2012 election really and truly is the election for who we want to be the fall guy when it happens.
-
"Even there conservatives will win the occasional election, but what does it really mean? It just means they have made the argument that they can operate the Leftist State better than the actual Left can. When the Left owns the bureaucracy, and so many of the pillars of culture (education, media, etc), electoral politics end up having much less influence. Conservatives are reduced to being caretakers, or as Steyn suggested in an analogy in his latest book, they become like the plebes at an English boarding school keeping the toilet seats in the unheated lavatory warm for the upperclassmen."
Kinda says it all right there! ::thumbsup::
And if the fit hits the shan and Repub is in office, said Repub will get all the blame. Look at Stymie right now...has anyone in our history...hell, the history of the world...moved faster than this guy in ruining a nation?! If we cannot get the right person in that office, we are effed no matter what. Like what G said above, all a run-of-the-mill Repub can do is warm a toilet seat...or as I call it...the choice between a slow death or a quick one.
I'm so tired of compromising and settling...I honestly do not think I am capable of doing that crap anymore. In each persons life we all reach a point where we just can't do the same crap over and over again and expect the results to be different. To do so is beyond futility...it is potentially pathologically stupid. So when I say ABO is not an option, I mean it is not an option. We literally have one last shot to get this right or any chance at a peaceful restoration of republican government as the Founders intended is gone forever. People can argue we have time, a delaying action will work yadda yadda yadda...but the question we all have to ask ourselves is "do we believe we have that time"? I don't. Until we purge the Ruling Class pol's & operatives out of the GOP or circumvent the GOP entirely our situation has zero chance of a turnaround. Zero. And time is only growing less and less available...
-
Just read this morning about the Pledge to America that was signed last year and it seems the Pubs have fallen a little short.
This was on Red State
http://www.redstate.com/russvought/2011/11/15/house-republicans-set-to-again-violate-their-pledge-to-america/ (http://www.redstate.com/russvought/2011/11/15/house-republicans-set-to-again-violate-their-pledge-to-america/)
-
Boehner violating a pledge, shocked.
-
These idiots all read the constitution and they still trample all over it, so what's the big deal?!
-
There's just something about government itself that infects those who spend too much time in it, they become more and more enamored of its hulking mass. It becomes the center of the universe, they become mere technocrats who, rather than keeping it small and focused, decide the best course of action is to be ever tinkering with it in an effort to make it somehow more efficient.
I guess it's intoxicating to believe you are "in" the know and understand how "it" works better than the lowly voters. It's about power and control. No matter what amount of authority a person has I've seen most people make the most of it without regard to being reasonable. Haven't you seen that? Some lowly clerk telling you what you can't do? And so it goes all the way up to the top.
-
Considering what Reagan-appointee and allegedly stalwart conservative jurist Silberman recently opined, regarding Obamacare, I'm not sure it really matters that conservatives get to make the appointments.
And with a court that might actually find the Commerce Clause to be all powerful, thus logically eliminating the purpose for even having a Constitution, one could argue that the court has already been lost. If They do so decide, you know it already has been and a few more liberal leaning judges won't make a bit of difference. he court likes their new powers as a council of philosopher kings- they can't keep them if they go and find the original meaning and purpose of the Constitution is still binding upon them.
-
Instead of going galt, we can just campout at the White House. Kum Ba Ya..
Cain needs to sharpen his skills, but he answers questions regarding policy as a businessman would answer....with a mind toward business profitability. It's why he would prefer to fire a judge who does not agree, even though I cringe because he SHOULD KNOW they are appointed FORFREAKIN EVER!!!!! But his thought process is exactly correct. In the business world, as an owner and speaking from experience, I expect my employees to keep me abreast of all situations because it is the job I hired them to do. So, I may not be atop every situation or I may not know every issue, but with proper contact and communication, I have a good understanding of my market even though I may not be an expert in all situations.
So I gotta disagree with the thought Cain isn't intelligent. He is. He just isn't savvy like a Trump and I believe he has been niave in regards to his campaign organization and how it would be perceived. He hasn't ran his campaign like a politican. He isn't a politican. I don't think of him as a politican and he will not answer questions like a politican. When he attempts to answer LIKE a politican, he gets himself in trouble.
I am not making excuses for the man.....He should have a better grasp and be better prepared, but in an interview, he cannot turn to someone else for expertise of a particular field, as you would in a business meeting, weigh all the options and make sound decisions that turn organizations around.
-
Exactly. Mr.Cain, what is your goal, what do you
want these assembled experts to help you achieve?
-
...It's why he would prefer to fire a judge who does not agree, even though I cringe because he SHOULD KNOW they are appointed FORFREAKIN EVER!!!!!...
I just wanna be clear - the above "interview" in which Cain bungles the question on judicial appointments is FICTITIOUS, as I stated in the post. I concocted the scenario to prove a point, and apparently I did a pretty darn good job. ::beertoast::
What I was trying to accomplish was to apply Cain's PATTERN of ignorance (not stupidity) to a subject he hasn't yet gotten around to screwing up. He's done it so many times now, you could apply this pattern to any number of subjects of which we expect our President to be informed and prepared to discuss.
-
...It's why he would prefer to fire a judge who does not agree, even though I cringe because he SHOULD KNOW they are appointed FORFREAKIN EVER!!!!!...
I just wanna be clear - the above "interview" in which Cain bungles the question on judicial appointments is FICTITIOUS, as I stated in the post. I concocted the scenario to prove a point, and apparently I did a pretty darn good job. ::beertoast::
I didn't pick up on the "fictitiousness" (did I create a new word?) of your post. Sad part is mr Cain could make this type of error.
Brother believes mr cains candidacy was more about inserting another conservative voice rather than his belief he could do well...... And now since he has traction, his lack of preparation, other than his ideas on taxation, has caught up to him. I do believe this is an indication the American people yearn for a conservative and are willing to take a chance on an inexperienced newcomer, if his heart is right, so to speak.
What I was trying to accomplish was to apply Cain's PATTERN of ignorance (not stupidity) to a subject he hasn't yet gotten around to screwing up. He's done it so many times now, you could apply this pattern to any number of subjects of which we expect our President to be informed and prepared to discuss.
-
I've bit my tongue for quite a while reading some of these posts about Cain, Gingrich, etc. and I needed to reply. I've been away for a while - just re-registered. IDP, Alan and others know who I am and what my views are, but this trend is very troubling.
IMO we have a lot of scared people on the right... scared of every little misstep or gaffe that one of the Repub candidates makes, and then we hear how they aren't fit for being President. The whole "looking thru a microscope" at each of the Repubs is a recipe for disaster - there is not one of us, me included, that is without fault or human. To somehow expect each and every one of the to somehow live up to unreachable expectations is doing a grave disservice to them and the right as a whole. Why and how did this impossible expectations come about? Even Reagan wasn't without fault, so why now?
Why are we allowing the Dems and the left (see MSM) dictate the game to us? We all know that the vast majority of the country is center/right, so why do we allow a minority to dictate to the majority? Fomenting this by declaring every candidate dead after a gaffe is playing into the hand of the MSM - we are running against the Dems, people, not others on the right. Having unreasonable expectations will spell doom for us in 2012 if we don't get things on the right worked out and actually show a political spine for a change.
I haven't endorsed anyone yet, but this latest thing by Cain isn't the end of the world - how many of you take time to think before you respond? It appears to me that is what he did - and he's being crucified for it? I guess I just don't understand what the big deal is... policies and philosophy matter more IMO. Bush 43 wasn't the most articulate president we have had, but his foreign policy was gold post 9/11. If we are going to micromanage every candidate, we will have nothing left to vote for.
I realize this is the primary season, but this trend is going to spell doom if we aren't careful. The sky is NOT falling on any of them, regardless of popular thought. Be confident and positive people - we are running against Obama and the Dem machine, not each other. ::USA::
-
I agree Tom, on several points. I've had my calm destroyed by some of the carping...this latest instance involving Cain and the pause is a joke...the SCoaMF stutters, sputters and trips all over hisself 24/7/365 and I am supposed to dance like a monkey to the MFM drumbeat when Cain pauses?! Gimmie a break. And we are paying too much time to inconsequential BS and not enough on the real target...that jackass in the White House! Rush made the comment recently that the MFM is doing us a favor right now, let their ammo unload on whoever the leading GOPer is, they will be so thoroughly vetted that not a one of them standing alone at the end can be touched by the SCoaMF! It will be easy to point to MFM rehashing of the past and accuse them of ignoring the Obama record and instead gin-up Repub hate mongering as a means of avoiding the painful truth that the SCoaMF is a complete and utter failure of stupendous proportions and whose return to office for 4 more years can only spell more bad news for America - more debt, more wasteful spending, more crony capitalism, more decrees, more unemployment, more bank failures, more misery and more international scorn and ridicule!!!
-
Read this somewhere, paraphrasing: Republicans are being forced to run against perfection instead of against Obama.
Tom, I do appreciate your input, so let me assure you that we do, indeed, take time to think before posting.
-
Read this somewhere, paraphrasing: Republicans are being forced to run against perfection instead of against Obama.
Tom, I do appreciate your input, so let me assure you that we do, indeed, take time to think before posting.
I understand, but after reading the Lynching Cain novella, it appears that some are either A.) weak kneed, or B.) just stirring things up for the sake of stirring them up. Let's face it - there is a history amongst members of the right to be so introspective that it can be a liability. I would hate to think that the overbearing examination causes a potential winner to drop out.
Please understand - this is not an indictment of people here, rather a word of caution in getting too nitpicky about the Repub candidates. Lord knows we can't afford another McCain this time or we are totally screwed.
-
Read this somewhere, paraphrasing: Republicans are being forced to run against perfection instead of against Obama.
Tom, I do appreciate your input, so let me assure you that we do, indeed, take time to think before posting.
I understand, but after reading the Lynching Cain novella, it appears that some are either A.) weak kneed, or B.) just stirring things up for the sake of stirring them up. Let's face it - there is a history amongst members of the right to be so introspective that it can be a liability. I would hate to think that the overbearing examination causes a potential winner to drop out.
Please understand - this is not an indictment of people here, rather a word of caution in getting too nitpicky about the Repub candidates. Lord knows we can't afford another McCain this time or we are totally screwed.
Oh, okay, I must have misunderstood your intention to not indict people here in spite of some of our week kneed and stirring-up tendencies.
Nobody here wants another McCain -- in the form of Romney -- that I know of. What we come here to do is to mull things over, discuss, debate, raise points, knock them down, worry, and, sometimes, chew all the flavor out of an issue and then stick it in our hair.
This is our place to be nitpicky if necessary, get it out of our systems, and then continue.
What end conclusion did you draw, if any, from our Cain novella, other than our failings?
-
Like I said in my original post, one needs to look at policies and philosophy rather than the media topic dujour. I would be very comfortable voting for him if he gets the nomination.
The media's job is to fling crap against the wall and see what sticks... that's at the behest of the DNC. I find it amusing at the lengths to what the MSM and others like Politico will go to promote the smears...and I marvel at their audacity and claims to be objective and professional. Perhaps I have a different viewpoint, but to me the stories are just that - stories. Same goes with Perry, Bachman, Palin and all of the other right wing candidates who get crucified in the media precisely because of their philosophy, truth be damned. It is as routine as the sun rising in the east.
I thin there are times when we all get caught up in the daily 24 hour news cycle and neglect to look at the big picture only. I have stepped away from the daily grind because it can be so damned tiring to try and keep up with all of the contortions that happens in our media these days. Perhaps it's because I'm getting older, but I really don't care what so-called travesty happens on any given day. I'm just waiting for the Cain story about being an African witch doctor who drinks lion blood and puts hexes on his opponents.... complete with the photoshopped pic of him in a loincloth and at least 4 witnesses stating that he did the aforementioned things. ::saywhat::
He is and will be fine to be President - like several others on the Repub side. If Herman drops out, the next in line will be the new target, and this will continue ad nauseum until there is no one left. I just don't have the energy to be all in all the time. ::laughonfloor::
-
I think we've pretty much run the gamut on discussing all these candidates, Cain included, as news emerges. We pick up the strengths and weaknesses in our hands, and look them over with thorough gaze through a magnifying glass. It may lead to what amounts to a high colonic exam and flush of all these candidates, but I believe people are more informed for having done it.
This particular thread - offering my opinion that this latest gaffe from Cain fulfills a pattern and was one too many gaffes for ME - has been vigorously countered by others here. So I see no monolithic attitudes on this subject. To the contrary, we turn over every rock, discuss every aspect. Sometimes it leads to personal conclusions, and sometimes it just leads to interesting discussion and perspectives to chew on.
There is a thread HERE (http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php/topic,3860.0.html) regarding Tom's concern specifically, as alluded to by Pandora...
"The Democrat leftist media is already winning as they are framing the debate. Republicans are being compared with perfection, and NOT being compared to Obama. We are losing this battle."
That is a valid concern, and it is not discounted here. We're aware.
ETA: BTW, welcome Tom G.
-
I'm just waiting for the Cain story about being an African witch doctor who drinks lion blood and puts hexes on his opponents.... complete with the photoshopped pic of him in a loincloth and at least 4 witnesses stating that he did the aforementioned things.
I'd like to see that for nothing more than to watch the left's heads explode. ::laughonfloor::
-
Heh! Could be a good counter-ad to the lunatic crap sure to be thrown his way by Team Obama should he be the nominee...
"Hi, I am Herman Cain, and I running for President, my opponent and his supporters liken me to a, well, just check this clip out...(play witch doctor clip)...see, now isn't that just silly? How about we discuss real issues affecting American's?!"
;D
And, there is this bit o news -
Herman Cain receives Secret Service protection
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68638.html (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68638.html)
Reason why not stated, but obviously there has to be some credible threats or the request would be denied.
-
The latest Iowa poll - gNewt on top, followed by RINO & Herman...
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/iowa/2012_iowa_republican_caucus (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/iowa/2012_iowa_republican_caucus)
PS-If Bachmann's standing is anywhere near accurate, she's toast. She was betting big on doing well in Iowa.
-
Forgiving all negative gaffs, she came out strong but never advanced her argument.
She created no depth it was like a repeat loop instead of taking the initial argument
and giving it dimension. When came out of the shoot I was enamored not anymore.
-
We've watched Perry ridiculed by the media and republican establishment over his lack of debating skills. Now, Cain is the target and as Newt gains momentum, he becomes the deer in the medias headlites.
Funny, none of thier so called "faults" are scrutinized until they gain in the polls. I wonder why? Maybe the media is choosing our candidate. If allowed to bury Newt and Cain, who will be left atop the polling? Our worst nitemare.
Maybe I'm just being obstinate, but the charges being brought against every candidate are 90% chit. The whole Newt in bed with Freddie and Fannie lunacy exhibits the utter hypocricy of media elites......Really? Freddie and fannie, who were not part of any overhaul of anything? Suddenly, working for either is taboo and a black mark on your character or resume ??? WTF!!!!
The conservative candidates are being picked off...one by one....The media is leaving us with thier candidate.
I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer and I rely on my business sense much more than I should at times, but I have no doubt a Perry, Cain or Newt will be worlds better than a romney or obama, one who is President with no resume and the others resume the blueprint of what is supposed to be a great accomplishment for our president.
None are the perfect candidate but we live in an imperfect world.
-
I have to believe the proglodyte internal polling all shows Romney offering the best cover for Obama's faults and affords them the best opportunity to get marginalized in a general election. Since all we have to go on is who they've attacked, it does appear Romney has suffered the least scrutiny of any of them...other than Huntsman who nobody feels threatened by...for good reason.
-
@PD:
There's a reason why Romney hasn't been raked over the coals by the media even though he is supposed to be the front runner and the guy who is 100% guaranteed to be the nominee. Meanwhile, whenever one of the other upstarts actually surpasses his polling numbers they are immediately set upon like a T-Bone steak tossed into a yard of starving pit bulls.
The reason is simple and here it is:
THE MSM IS INDEED TRYING TO CHOOSE THE REPUBLICAN NOMINEE.
It's not because they think he is the best candidate for the country - but even then it is NOT their job to do any picking and choosing even if it was actually in good faith and for the good of the country! It is their job to report the news...NOTHING else. No, the reason they are doing this is because Romney is the best candidate to run against Obama and give Obama the best chance of winning...and even if Obama looses Romney is the best guy to not undo anything Obama has done thus far and indeed, maybe even push some of Obama's unfinished business further on! That is why the MSM is doing what they're doing.
The motto on the right these days is: 'Anybody but Obama!' but it really ought to be, 'Anybody but Obama or Romney!'.
-
@PD:
There's a reason why Romney hasn't been raked over the coals by the media even though he is supposed to be the front runner and the guy who is 100% guaranteed to be the nominee. Meanwhile, whenever one of the other upstarts actually surpasses his polling numbers they are immediately set upon like a T-Bone steak tossed into a yard of starving pit bulls.
The reason is simple and here it is:
THE MSM IS INDEED TRYING TO CHOOSE THE REPUBLICAN NOMINEE. It's not because they think he is the best candidate for the country - but even then it is NOT their job to do any picking and choosing even if it was actually in good faith and for the good of the country! It is their job to report the news...NOTHING else. No, the reason they are doing this is because Romney is the best candidate to run against Obama and give Obama the best chance of winning...and even if Obama looses Romney is the best guy to not undo anything Obama has done thus far and indeed, maybe even push some of Obama's unfinished business further on! That is why the MSM is doing what they're doing.
The motto on the right these days is: 'Anybody but Obama!' but it really ought to be, 'Anybody but Obama or Romney!'.
ABOOR
::clapping::
-
@PD:
There's a reason why Romney hasn't been raked over the coals by the media even though he is supposed to be the front runner and the guy who is 100% guaranteed to be the nominee. Meanwhile, whenever one of the other upstarts actually surpasses his polling numbers they are immediately set upon like a T-Bone steak tossed into a yard of starving pit bulls.
The reason is simple and here it is:
THE MSM IS INDEED TRYING TO CHOOSE THE REPUBLICAN NOMINEE.
It's not because they think he is the best candidate for the country - but even then it is NOT their job to do any picking and choosing even if it was actually in good faith and for the good of the country! It is their job to report the news...NOTHING else. No, the reason they are doing this is because Romney is the best candidate to run against Obama and give Obama the best chance of winning...and even if Obama looses Romney is the best guy to not undo anything Obama has done thus far and indeed, maybe even push some of Obama's unfinished business further on! That is why the MSM is doing what they're doing.
The motto on the right these days is: 'Anybody but Obama!' but it really ought to be, 'Anybody but Obama or Romney!'.
They chose Mccain so why shouldn't they believe they can choose romney.
I believe it will be imperative, as the Santorum's and Bachman's drop out they DO NOT endorse romney. They can have a huge inpact on the race.
-
As far as that last part goes...it can be difficult given the bribes (offices) promised in return! ::gaah::
-
As far as that last part goes...it can be difficult given the bribes (offices) promised in return! ::gaah::
I'm a dreamer......killjoy.....LOL
-
Romney can't get above 30% regardless of the repub that's headlining at the time.
Bachmann never had the mometum she needed. I think a lot of people withheld support wondering if Palin would get in. Then Perry overshadowed what steam she had. Then Perry got knocked and so she never had a chance to be compared to Romney or any other top tier because she was stuck being compared to those at the bottom.
I'll take someone of principle any day than someone with "experience" or who is media savvy.