It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => Politics/Legislation/Elections => Topic started by: IronDioPriest on October 20, 2011, 09:47:06 AM
-
I'm afraid the jig is up. I don't think Cain is ready for prime time.
Cain to Piers Morgan: I’m anti-abortion yet pro-choice (http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/20/cain-to-piers-morgan-im-anti-abortion-yet-pro-choice/)
-
Here's the thing--
when you're a candidate you know you're going to get these questions-- SO PRACTICE your answers.
::gaah:: How hard is that?
Could an answer where he said "I'm pro-life and yeah if my kid got raped I'd still be pro-life" be soooo bad? First, of all it wouldn't be any worse than THAT answer . Plus it's a situation that's probably never gonna happen so it's a hypothetical that no one can ever disprove.
::gaah:: I need to write a book-- How to be a Candidate and not look Stupid.
-
I try to tell myself stuff like that doesn't matter, and maybe in isolation an awkward or ill considered response doesn't. But I remind myself that this is the Presidency, and the President is the chief executive, the chief diplomat, and the chief commander. The President will be playing hardball with leaders of other countries, many of them of hostile intent.
It's one of the intangibles that are important in a President. On the other hand it feels absurd to be critiquing any of the Republican candidates, considering the SCoaMF currently playing Occupy White House.
-
He's speaking of a world without PlannedParenthood, an assumption of what should be.
-
Newt is looking better.
I say that with caution.
He has less problems (for me) than Romney.
Why is it so hard for a really good candidate to run? Are Reagans truly that rare?
-
Newt is looking better.
I say that with caution.
He has less problems (for me) than Romney.
Why is it so hard for a really good candidate to run? Are Reagans truly that rare?
Yeap.
I'd say so.
-
Sometimes saying nothing is better than saying something.
"A mans gotta know his limitations!"
::)
-
Maybe the best conclusion is that even the best of candidates has fallibilities.
-
Maybe the best conclusion is that even the best of candidates has fallibilities.
Maybe. But the "abortion" question has been asked for 30 years! The democrats never stumble on this. The republicans act like they never expect it.
-
Maybe the best conclusion is that even the best of candidates has fallibilities.
Maybe. But the "abortion" question has been asked for 30 years! The democrats never stumble on this. The republicans act like they never expect it.
The reason the Democrats never falter is because they have no character and will say whatever is best to say at that specific moment. The difficulty for some Republicans is that they have character and try to tell the truth. The truth does not necessarily come in a sound bite. There are ninety ways to express a pro life position unless one is 100%
all the time for any reason no abortion.
Sitting at a table with a skilled inquisitor who is framing a question in such a way as to cause you to inflict as much
damage as possible to yourself is difficult to soundbite your way out of.
This is the same as it was in the debate where some said he was vague about 999, he wasn't intentionally vague.
The question required a thoughtful answer which, unless one is careless or glib such as gNewt or Mitt,
causes one to pause or reflect and definitely requires more than a slick soundbite answer.
-
Hence the need to practice it
just sayin'
-
Hence the need to practice it
just sayin'
I agree LadyV. The verbal vomit technique is not serving Herman Cain, the GOP, or the United States well. We need a credible conservative to emerge from this mess to ensure that Mitt Romney does not win by default, and every single one of them whom we've hoped would do so has sh*t the bed. I'm very discouraged by Cain's seeming lack of understanding the stakes.
-
Well, like it or not (and I don't), these are the players.
Look.
Listen.
Pick one.
Live with the consequences.
It sucks but you don't always have the best of choices in life. "None of the above" is a pretty bad option.
-
Every week there is a head turner.
It's a little early to pick, I'd like
to get to know them better.
-
It is too early to pick.
Still wish there were better choices.
-
It is too early to pick.
Still wish there were better choices.
Amen.
To paraphrase what a poster over on HotAir said the other night: We have to play with the hand we are dealt, but we need to play as skillfully as possible by choosing the right cards.
I don't expect a perfect candidate, but a little less frustration with the ones we have would be greatly appreciated. ::gaah::
-
I'm sorry but............never mind sometimes I should keep my trap shut. ::doh::
No offense Trap. ::hysterical::
-
No offense taken.
Cain leads in latest Rasmussen poll of Iowa. Hmmm.
From HotAir. (http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/20/rasmussen-cain-sails-to-lead-in-iowa-among-likely-caucus-goers/)
-
Interesting, the complaints of a bad lot to choose from.
IRRC we started this primary season saying it was a relief
to have a much better field than in '08 from which to choose.
-
Yah, and then they started talking ....
-
Yah, and then they started talking ....
::hysterical::
-
Yah, and then they started talking ....
Yes!
The thing is, I think we're all a bit, shall we say "mired" in all the talk and give and take. I wonder sometimes how non-political junkies like us view what's going on. Think about this "flavor of the week" candidate syndrome that we seem to have been going through. First it was Chris Christie that people were enthused about, because he was taking it to the teacher's unions. Then we found out he was a worthless RINO, in short order.
Then there was Donald Trump getting some people excited, because he was plainly speaking about Obama. Then it was Bachmann. Then Perry. Now it's Cain. It seems like "our side," with the help of the pundits, puts all these people under a microscope, and the minute they say or do something we don't agree with, we are ready to throw them under the bus, in a further search for that "perfect" candidate. There is NO PERFECT CANDIDATE.
We do need to vet these people as best possible, and do everything we can to promote and nominate the best of the lot, but are they all really that bad? Won't every one (well, except for Ron Paul) be better than Obama? I know we want to reverse what Obama's done. I know we don't want someone to slow the ride off the cliff, but we do have to play the hand we've been dealt. Let's not pretend it's a fistful of deuces. They aren't all aces, but goal number one is to get Barry OUT, because if we don't, just imagine the damage he will do when he doesn't have to run for re-election!
-
Okay, I found this NRO article (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/280725/can-cain-do-it-robert-costa) linked at HotAir and it is, for me, illuminating. I had no idea, for instance how closely Herman Cain is allied with Americans For Prosperity...
Cain’s senior staff, to be sure, is more than a band of amateur enthusiasts. Most are veterans of Americans for Prosperity, an influential group with close ties to tea-party leaders and high-profile donors, such as Charles and David Koch. AFP, in many respects, launched Cain as a national conservative figure in 2005, when it tapped him as a spokesman — and he has benefited from the association.
As he traveled the country, championing AFP’s free-market principles, Cain developed relationships with strategists who lacked reputations in Washington but had extensive experience elsewhere, especially in Midwestern conservative circles. Mark Block, Cain’s campaign manager, was one such operative (and has been the brains behind Cain’s White House hopes). Another is Linda Hansen, Block’s deputy.
AFP is full of some very serious people and I find it difficult to believe that they would invest in Cain if there was no "there" there. So that's somewhat encouraging.
Regarding the amateurish nature of his campaign the article offers this:
Florida state representative Scott Plakon, Cain’s leading Sunshine State booster...points out that Cain may, to a certain extent, be following an AFP model from Wisconsin, but thinks that, in a broader sense, Cain is adapting to the new way in which people now communicate, in the tea-party movement and beyond. Cain, he says, with very few official staffers in Florida, was able to win the state’s straw poll, due to his ability to connect blocs of voters who are eager to spread the word on social-media platforms. If Cain can win like that in Florida, he says, he can do the same across the country, even in states with expensive television markets.
So, I dunno. If he can stop with the verbal missteps or at the very least scale them back to one or two a month then maybe he can pull it off.
There are no perfect candidates. And, yeah, I do like this group much better than the pack of idiots from the last go round but I still can't help myself from wanting someone who can get through a media event without stepping on their own tongue in the process...someone who can clearly and proudly articulate the conservative POV. I don't want a lot. It's sort of a minimum level of expectation and I do get disappointed when someone fails to properly pull it off.
I thought that Bachmann could be that person until she jumped the shark with her retard-in-a-needle fantasy about Gardasil and then her subsequent refusal to walk it back which got even worse when she doubled down on it. Then we found out that that was not an anomaly but rather the most recent incident in a long history of making sh*t up on the fly. So even though I like her a lot and admire her conservative credentials, I can't get over a character flaw that makes her look ridiculous at any particular moment that she decides to let loose with a whopper.
With Romney I am on record from last time as to his weaknesses. Nothing has changed with him but circumstances have. Last time we knew about RomneyCare but then there was no such thing as ObamaCare. Now that ObamaCare is a reality RomneyCare takes on a very heavy millstone-like quality for Romney. His other lib positions from his MA days are as bad or worse. And then there's the whole Mormon thing. I will explain for those who weren't here three years ago: No, short of scientology, satanism and other pure cults, a man's religion shouldn't have any bearing on his presidential aspirations but the reality is that the media will give Mormonism the full anal exam and it won't be pretty. That's just the way it is. Do a little bit of reading about some of the more arcane aspects of Mormonism and then you will know. I'm not going into that level of detail here.
Gingrich could be great and I would really like to see him debate the Dingus. But he has political and personal baggage: Failed marriages do not endear one to the conservative base...especially when the breakups happen like his have. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich#Personal_life) His political baggage is infamous and I won't bother discussing it here either.
Santorum is a great conservative but not quite great enough or he would still hold elective office. He got his ass handed to him in 2006 and hasn't done anything since. And he's getting no traction at all. That may be unfair but that's the way it is.
Perry may make a comeback. From a purely governing point of view he has the most experience and it's the right kind of experience. It may be too late for him but maybe not. He has issues some of which (immigration) are very bothersome for me.
Paul is a joke as are Huntsman and Johnson and aren't worthy of serious discussion.
So, except for the last three and Romney (the establishment RINO), the others are all serious contenders and any of them could mop the floor with Toonces. I think Romney could beat President Zero, too, but we can do better than him.
The question comes down to who would be the best representative of conservatism.
And at this time I honestly do not know who that person is.
-
I want to ask a question here, seriously. SERIOUSLY.
If Pandora was running for president, given my previous statements of which some of you are aware, but for those who aren't, the record is available, would you support my candidacy?
I've done nothing "world-worthy". I'm not in debt, never was unfaithful to my husband. I had a life before him, though and there are those who will gladly fill in those blanks; not a college graduate, nor a business owner. I'm strongly opinionated, yet lean Constitutionally.
I'm the least of the worst, actually, though, what we have before us are some who have taken risks, failed and succeeded -- I've done that but not in a venue you'd certify as risky -- said things on and off record, and we presume to judge them as we do not judge ourselves, it seems.
I'm apprised of Romney's record, and not inclined to let him have the most powerful chair in the world; he's a finger in the wind guy. Gingrich is a known element, intelligent and quick-witted, and unstable -- that's his record, personal and public. Perry disappoints; he's had every opportunity to be the man whom we can get behind and yet some of his positions are unsupportable, such as illegal immigration related issues. Bachmann, damnit. Why she felt the need to hang her principles on a junk-science myth, I don't know; doesn't bode well for the next child-centric pseudo-scientific scam to raise its head.
Cain. Let's get to Cain. Reports of his Church connections (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/18/the-liberal-church-of-herman-cain/?hpt=hp_c1) are beginning to surface. The pastor/preacher is a liberationist, yet there are reports of his attendance without yielding; fellow parishioners say he held to his beliefs yet continued church membership and they respect that.
Sarah Palin declined to entertain us with her presence. If I was her, I might have done the same, but the anal exam was over and all that was left was an uncertain ability to defend against the unreasonable yet popular hatred. It is, in some circles, a mark of honor to hate Sarah Palin.
Any of these folks might just as well be me once the proctological exam was over. Or you.
Going off into the sphere of what ought and what ought not be: if the position of the President of these United States is so vital to our survival that we cannot afford to permit a person with ordinary foibles, it is not the person-that-does-not-exist with whom we must find fault. No one can be comfortably elected, then. We must forthwith reduce the import and power which this person can wield; we must once again properly contain the office.
-
...Any of these folks might just as well be me once the proctological exam was over. Or you.
Going off into the sphere of what ought and what ought not be: if the position of the President of these United States is so vital to our survival that we cannot afford to permit a person with ordinary foibles, it is not the person-that-does-not-exist with whom we must find fault. No one can be comfortably elected, then. We must forthwith reduce the import and power which this person can wield; we must once again properly contain the office.
A well-crafted thought that deserves repeating.
-
I follow Cain's twitters:
This was from 12 hours ago:
THEHermanCain Herman Cain
I'm 100% pro-life. End of story.
This was my response to him in my own Twitter:
Delnorin @ THEHermanCain It's a 3rd grade political question, know what you believe and practice your answer. Embarrassing defending you so often.
From 3 hours ago:
THEHermanCain Herman Cain
Tomorrow at 10 am ET I will unveil last part of my 999 plan for Revitalizing America. Join me at
http://hermancain.com/livestream
(http://hermancain.com/livestream)
-
Going off into the sphere of what ought and what ought not be: if the position of the President of these United States is so vital to our survival that we cannot afford to permit a person with ordinary foibles, it is not the person-that-does-not-exist with whom we must find fault. No one can be comfortably elected, then. We must forthwith reduce the import and power which this person can wield; we must once again properly contain the office.
That would be workable in a non-nuclear world.
Also the guy (or girl) gets to veto stuff, negotiate treaties and nominate a lot of peeps including SCOTUS types.
So it's a pretty important gig even if you strip it down to its essentials.
No place for RINOs and pretty tough on the job learning curve.
-
Republican government works, if the principles of Republican government are honored and not sapped by unsavory types who look to enrich themselves or their party instead of looking to ways to allow all Americans the ability to enrich themselves as they see fit to do so. We will never be the nation we want to be as long as bad characters and bloated government remains the norm. I'll echo the sentiment that nobody is perfect, if they were, well, we'd know Jesus is back in town. Does that mean we settle for less than the best we can get? Nope. But not getting the best we can get ultimately is our responsibility. As I focus upon Pan's point about the "proctological exam", I am drawn to the conclusion that this is a symptom of the progressive disease We have let creep into every fabric of our lives. Are we not getting the best candidates because of the harsh treatment they are subject to from State Run Media or are we not getting the best candidates because the right candidate is not brave enough to enter the fray? Are we condemned to settle for second tier less-than-perfect candidates for perpetuity? I am often despondent about our future prospects as a people and a nation, but at the same time I am not a hands-thrown-up defeatist or committed fatalist, I tend to interpret things as I see them, a realist if you will. Nothing is predetermined unless you wish it to be so, and if enough momentum is directed to that end the predetermined becomes reality. If We really wanted to effect the kind of action we desire and focus that attention on the right person we think can bring that action to life, we'd all be happily moving in the right direction. The big questions revolve around how we get that kind of momentum going and directed at the same goal? In 1860 Lincoln won the nomination on the third ballot at the convention after Seward failed to secure it in the earlier rounds. It is a lot harder in todays process to get people to coalesce around one candidate, but the principle is the same. Until the current field is lightened people will bounce around with their preferences. It's still up to us. For me I like to cut through the noise and make things simple. I am not now nor will I ever support a Ruling Class type for any office in this nation, period. That is the only litmus test to me that makes the most sense. Beyond that...what am I...Nostradamus? Make a choice!
-
Going off into the sphere of what ought and what ought not be: if the position of the President of these United States is so vital to our survival that we cannot afford to permit a person with ordinary foibles, it is not the person-that-does-not-exist with whom we must find fault. No one can be comfortably elected, then. We must forthwith reduce the import and power which this person can wield; we must once again properly contain the office.
That would be workable in a non-nuclear world.
Nope. As you wrote below, the power and authority to deal with that is Constitutional and that's the box into which it must be shoved back.
Also the guy (or girl) gets to veto stuff, negotiate treaties and nominate a lot of peeps including SCOTUS types.
So it's a pretty important gig even if you strip it down to its essentials.
No place for RINOs and pretty tough on the job learning curve.
Yep, yep, nope, yep.
Nevertheless, each succeeding president has accrued to himself unauthorized power.
-
...and I think this represents a concrete sign of the implosion that we've been witnessing in pieces for the past several days... (http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/21/cain-clarifies-again-abortion-shouldnt-be-legal-but-some-families-might-decide-to-break-the-law-anyway/)
-
...and I think this represents a concrete sign of the implosion that we've been witnessing in pieces for the past several days... (http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/21/cain-clarifies-again-abortion-shouldnt-be-legal-but-some-families-might-decide-to-break-the-law-anyway/)
::gaah:: ::gaah:: ::gaah::
So if he can't handle a question about an issue that's been around for 30 years how's he going to handle a crisis?
Did I say ::gaah:: ::gaah:: ::gaah:: ?
Oh, yeah, I did.
-
...and I think this represents a concrete sign of the implosion that we've been witnessing in pieces for the past several days... (http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/21/cain-clarifies-again-abortion-shouldnt-be-legal-but-some-families-might-decide-to-break-the-law-anyway/)
::gaah:: ::gaah:: ::gaah::
So if he can't handle a question about an issue that's been around for 30 years how's he going to handle a crisis?
Did I say ::gaah:: ::gaah:: ::gaah:: ?
Oh, yeah, I did.
Bingo! He may be a very smart man, but he's showing definite signs that he can't think on his feet. That's not someone I want up against Obama. ::gaah:: ::gaah:: ::gaah::
-
...and I think this represents a concrete sign of the implosion that we've been witnessing in pieces for the past several days... (http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/21/cain-clarifies-again-abortion-shouldnt-be-legal-but-some-families-might-decide-to-break-the-law-anyway/)
::gaah:: ::gaah:: ::gaah::
So if he can't handle a question about an issue that's been around for 30 years how's he going to handle a crisis?
Did I say ::gaah:: ::gaah:: ::gaah:: ?
Oh, yeah, I did.
Bingo! He may be a very smart man, but he's showing definite signs that he can't think on his feet. That's not someone I want up against Obama. ::gaah:: ::gaah:: ::gaah::
Not to mention Ahmadinnerjacket.
-
he's showing definite signs that he can't think on his feet
AND that is exactly what we need someone to be able to do!
-
This election isn't and can't be based on abortion. I am so sick and tired of the same d*** social issues coming up election after election. Cain should have stuck with his first answer - he's against abortions, and the federal government doesn't have jurisdiction over matters of abortion, federal government shouldn't be funding it, legality should be up to the states. The fact that he got bullied into changing his answer to the idea that abortion should be illegal and he plans to appoint judges who would support making it illegal everywhere is going to hurt him, which really burns me. The country's economy is about to implode and we're debating the same d*** Gloria-Steinem issue AGAIN.
Where this country needs to head is in the direction of greater individual liberty, less government interference, and citizens butting out of each other lives. If that means that abortion remains legal in some states because the citizens of those states made that decision, then so be it. "End of Story."
-
From my perspective, the troubling thing is not his stance on abortion. I am avidly pro-life, and my gut tells me Herman Cain is too. I think he would appoint good judges.
To me, the troubling aspect is his apparent lack of forethought in a bid for the presidency. It seems as if he approached the whole thing lackadaisically, and just expected to be able to wing the answers to routine questions without a single thought to public perception.
Before he can do ANYTHING, he has to win the presidency. It doesn't seem at all clear to me that he understands that.
-
From my perspective, the troubling thing is not his stance on abortion. I am avidly pro-life, and my gut tells me Herman Cain is too. I think he would appoint god judges.
To me, the troubling aspect is his apparent lack of forethought in a bid for the presidency. It seems as if he approached the whole thing lackadaisically, and just expected to be able to wing the answers to routine questions without a single thought to public perception.
Before he can do ANYTHING, he has to win the presidency. It doesn't seem at all clear to me that he understands that.
Exactly! ::thumbsup::
-
This election isn't and can't be based on abortion. I am so sick and tired of the same d*** social issues coming up election after election. Cain should have stuck with his first answer - he's against abortions, and the federal government doesn't have jurisdiction over matters of abortion, federal government shouldn't be funding it, legality should be up to the states. The fact that he got bullied into changing his answer to the idea that abortion should be illegal and he plans to appoint judges who would support making it illegal everywhere is going to hurt him, which really burns me. The country's economy is about to implode and we're debating the same d*** Gloria-Steinem issue AGAIN.
Where this country needs to head is in the direction of greater individual liberty, less government interference, and citizens butting out of each other lives. If that means that abortion remains legal in some states because the citizens of those states made that decision, then so be it. "End of Story."
The protection of human life...particularly the unborn...is a big deal to me. You may not like social issues, and you may consider the destruction of human life in the womb an "individual liberty," but I don't, and I vote accordingly. And there are plenty of people like me, probably the majority of voters, so your assumption that Cain's pro-life views will hurt him is not necessarily valid.
-
What's hurting Cain is the very real perception that he can't handle the details of basic conservative positions.
Social.
Foreign Policy.
Take your pick of what will hit the fan next.
-
What's hurting Cain is the very real perception that he can't handle the details of basic conservative positions.
Social.
Foreign Policy.
Take your pick of what will hit the fan next.
Yup. Sad to say, and sad to see.
-
What's hurting Cain is the very real perception that he can't handle the details of basic conservative positions.
Social.
Foreign Policy.
Take your pick of what will hit the fan next.
Yup. Sad to say, and sad to see.
Which doesn't prove he couldn't be an effective leader and make good decisions BUT if you're going to throw your hat in the ring you better have done your homework beforehand.
At least that's what I would do.
And that's reason #274 why I would't run for president.
-
From my perspective, the troubling thing is not his stance on abortion. I am avidly pro-life, and my gut tells me Herman Cain is too. I think he would appoint good judges.
To me, the troubling aspect is his apparent lack of forethought in a bid for the presidency. It seems as if he approached the whole thing lackadaisically, and just expected to be able to wing the answers to routine questions without a single thought to public perception.
Before he can do ANYTHING, he has to win the presidency. It doesn't seem at all clear to me that he understands that.
I am glad I read through all the responses before saying anything.
copy/paste above, sign my name under it also.
-
Yah, and then they started talking ....
Themselves right into a hole. Here comes Mittens,get ready to vote.
-
I want to support him. I do. But he is going to have to step it up. A lot.
-
Oh, and BTW...
Michelle Bachmann's entire NH staff quit today. Anyone know what is going on there?
-
Oh, and BTW...
Michelle Bachmann's entire NH staff quit today. Anyone know what is going on there?
No further news - we do have a thread going on it if anything new breaks...
http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php/topic,3513.0.html (http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php/topic,3513.0.html)
-
This, from a RedStater who went on and on about Herman Cain being pro-choice...
A Mea Culpa on Herman Cain and Abortion (http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2011/10/21/a-mea-culpa-on-herman-cain-and-abortion/)
Yesterday I wrote two posts about Herman Cain’s stance on abortion, which may be read here and here [linked at redstate]. One of the good things about blogging is that it allows you to shoot from the hip, which allows instant commentary and feedback on news that the traditional media cannot provide. However, it is also sometimes one of the bad things about blogging, in that it allows you sometimes to shoot before the facts are all in. Having considered the information I received via email over the last day, I now realize that calling Herman Cain “pro-choice” was not just wrong, it was disastrously wrong, and for that I am sorry.
I have come to understand that Herman Cain has in reality done far more for the pro-life movement than I ever have. For instance, he donated $1 million of his own money in an attempt to encourage black voters to vote pro-life. His 2004 Senate campaign made life a central issue. His work opposing abortion – especially among the black population – has led many leftist organizations to denounce him with hysterical, shrieking screeds; which is probative evidence of the fact that they were to some degree effective.
Herman Cain’s statements on abortion during this campaign season have not been as clear as they should have been. I have no idea why he couldn’t have re-issued his 2004 statement when questioned this year. There is no reason that someone possessed of pro-life convictions that are as firm as Herman Cain’s undoubtedly are should have stumbled badly enough to trip the radar of many pro-lifers. I am sure I am not the only one who hasn’t paid very close attention to Herman Cain’s career prior to three weeks ago, and did not know these facts about him and thus could not place his statements to Piers Morgan, David Gregory, and John Stossel in that context.
However, that is not an excuse for me. I should have done my research, and should not have called him pro-choice. He clearly is not. And I have absolutely zero doubt – none at all – that a man who would put up $1M of his own money to advance the pro-life cause would govern as a staunch pro-lifer.
I still have very serious doubts about whether Herman Cain would be a good President. But concern over whether he is really pro-life is not one of them.
As I said earlier, I have no doubt that Herman Cain is pro life. My problem is with his preparedness to run for president, not his position on the unborn.
-
Not only preparedness to run, I think if he is our candidate he will win, but his ability to deal with
congress. It's not an employer employee relationship, it's more like a marriage and rest assured
those business negotiating skills do not apply.
-
One of the many, many reasons that Jimmy Carter was a failure as a president was his inability to work with Congress. IIRC, he ran as an outsider who was going to come to DC and show those politicians a thing or two. Congress was, of course, dominated by members of his own party and they did not exactly appreciate this attitude from a hayseed governor from Georgia. It was the first of a laundry list of mistakes that Carter made as president.
Could Cain, if elected, repeat history by alienating a Congress dominated by his own party?
At this point I wouldn't bet against it.
-
What were "our" objections to Santorum, again?
-
I think Santorum is a great conservative. Really, I do.
But for one reason or another he isn't getting any traction with the people who answer polls.
He isn't resonating with the public.
So whether I like him or not (and I do) he isn't going anywhere.
-
I think Santorum is a great conservative. Really, I do.
But for one reason or another he isn't getting any traction with the people who answer polls.
He isn't resonating with the public.
So whether I like him or not (and I do) he isn't going anywhere.
After the very first GOP debate I started a blog where I researched all canidates at that time and kept track of what I thought were pros and cons. Now that website hasn't been kept up to date.. but this is the info I had after the very first debate. Here is the blog I am talking about that is outdated:
http://free-speech-while-it-lasts.blogspot.com/2011/06/gop-canidates-pros-and-cons.html (http://free-speech-while-it-lasts.blogspot.com/2011/06/gop-canidates-pros-and-cons.html)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-epzRi55kAN4/TfuGAQcBsKI/AAAAAAAAAb0/LWtlEmrn2P4/s1600/501px-Rick_Santorum_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg)
Positive:
1. Proposes drilling for oil/natural gas, etc wherever we have those
resources in the Country.
2. Wishes to bring down the corporate tax rate.
3. Wants to cut capital gains tax to 0% for 5 years, then raise it back up to
1/2 of the rate that it is today.
4. Would support a federal right-to-work law. (This means that people can
not be forced to work for a socialist union to get a job).
5. Very strong against abortion and gay marraige.
6. Strongly opposed the Patriot Act.
7. Proposes border fence with Mexico.
8. Strongly opposes a progressive tax.
9. Strongly approves of parents using school vouchers.
10. Strongly approves privatizing social security.
11. Strongly supports our rights to keep and bear arms.
12. Strongly supports teacher led prayer in schools.
13. Strongly supports death penalty.
14. Strongly opposes same sex marraige.
15. Pro-Life
16. "Move the US Embassy to Jerusalem." (Nov 1995)
Negative:
1. Very snarky and arogant.
2. Supports affirmative action.
-
In his own words put the Party first and supported Arlen Specter. For me that's plenty.
I do not want an establishment candidate. Puts stink all over that snark.
ETA: During the debates he has exhibited a juvenile impatience that does not express a leaders temperament.
-
I think Santorum is a great conservative. Really, I do.
But for one reason or another he isn't getting any traction with the people who answer polls.
He isn't resonating with the public.
So whether I like him or not (and I do) he isn't going anywhere.
Most conservatives I know don't like him personally, because of the perceived arrogance. I think he's okay.
-
I don't want an establishment candidate either. But I don't think Cain "blew" an easy abortion question. He was candid when he said he's pro-life, but as President he wouldn't be in a position to affect the choices someone might make re: abortion. The problem with his response was that it was not overly massaged to make it politically palatable to the maximum number of voters. That's precisely the kind of mealy-mouth nonsense you'd expect from Romney instead.
Latest Iowa poll I saw had Cain at 37%, Romney 27%. So, perhaps there's more tolerance for a candidate rough around the edges than one might think. We'll see.
-
...Latest Iowa poll I saw had Cain at 37%, Romney 27%. So, perhaps there's more tolerance for a candidate rough around the edges than one might think. We'll see.
Poll was taken before Cain's disastrous interview where he presented himself as pro-choice, and before his Keystone Cop-ish attempts to walk it back.
-
It's crazy that we (the voters) take every sentence that the candidates utter seriously where at the same time the candidates themselves do not.
What I mean is that, to us, this is a deadly serious business, selecting a president. Why is it that the candidates do not see it that way (deadly serious) and act appropriately? Is it too much to ask that a candidate view campaigning as a full time job where they are required to know what it is they are talking about?
I refuse to waste my time listening, for instance, to a radio (or television) talk show host who demonstrates to me that they are unfamiliar with the material they are presenting even though they make every effort to fake the familiarization. Hannity and O'Reilly have disappointed me countless times in this respect and I have pretty much abandoned them. Limbaugh and Levin don't seem to have this problem...they simply avoid talking about subjects that they aren't masters of.
A professional politician who wants to be elevated to president needs to be the Rush Limbaugh in the field...the consummate professional willing to work harder at the job than anyone else. That means a lot of reading, a lot of studying, a lot of time spent with coaches and, yes, focus groups. I think that Bill Clinton must have done this a lot in order to be ready for just about anything that could possibly be thrown at him by the media. Now, of course it helped that he had a sympathetic media (plus natural ability) but the fact remained that he was also ready. Prepared.
Sure, it isn't easy finding the time for all of this preparation but that's tough. These people are supposedly auditioning for the most important job in the world. It isn't for slackers.
So, yeah, I get a little pissed off when they repeatedly screw up on THE BASICS.
-
I'm beginning to think that these people think that being able to fake it is being a professional.
-
CSPAM is showing Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition Banquet. Gopal Krishna is speaking at the moment
the candidates should be speaking soon.
-
I'm beginning to think that these people think that being able to fake it is being a professional.
That's probably true to no small degree, but in an instance like this, it's simple pandering, I think.
This may be the end of my support for Cain. His views on the 2d Amendment (states should handle it!) took him off my radar, but this may seal it. I know Trap said "none of teh above" is a bad choice, but not for me. I can't support any more people telling me what they think will get them teh most votes. Even if I agree w/ some/most of what they're sellin'.
Yes, I'd rather another 4 yrs of soerto (I don't think this country will stay on the current trajectory that long), but at least when it implodes, it'll be him at teh helm (which carries a danger in and of itself, I know), although I would not hesitate one second to start the push-back against a RINO.
Santorum seems pretty good, but I can't support his 12th position, as per Delnorin's breakdown, but it wouldn't be a deal-breaker for me. BUt Trap's right in that he's not going anywhere.
I wanted to find out more about McCotter, actually, but he disappeared before I had teh chance.
-
Yes, I'd rather another 4 yrs of soerto...
Dan, say it ain't so.
-
Yes, I'd rather another 4 yrs of soerto...
Dan, say it ain't so.
I think he's just speaking out of anger and disappointment.He doesn't mean it.When the time comes he'll do the right thing.
-
LOL!
Not 'cuz it's my preference as I'm sure you know, it's just that when it crashes, I think I'd prefer it ot be on his watch. I mean, can you imagine the rhetoric comin' from the libiots about how a R f**ked it up? How conservatism, liberty and capitalism failed? The OWS crowd will go ape-sh*t and a RINO will cave.
-
I have to disagree, Dan. I firmly believe that Toonces represents an existential threat to our country and to our liberty.
He needs to be soundly defeated. Why? Because he has already successfully nominated two members to the Supreme Court. He must not have a chance to nominate any more. That reason alone is enough to vote for a a moldy potato (but preferably the Republican nominee) instead of him.
None of the above is not an option. There is simply too much at stake.
-
Yeah, I'm sitting pretty firmly in the camp that says, 'I'll vote for ANY Republican candidate that gets the nod.'. Obumbles needs to be taken out to the woodshed...and yeah, even if that idiot Romney gets the nod I'll have to hold my nose and vote for that SOB.
-
I can't agree more with your take on soerto.
But given teh current state of things, and teh track record of politicians, any of 'em, can you honestly expect a difference?
You saw what mitt did here in MA.
You've seen R's left and right who think taking the high-road is effective leadership when it's nothing more than appeasement in order to avoid being called a bad name or causing a civil disturbance.
There is not a single R in the field who can make a difference simply because there aren't enough people like us who really get it.
-
He needs to be soundly defeated. Why? Because he has already successfully nominated two members to the Supreme Court. He must not have a chance to nominate any more. That reason alone is enough to vote for a a moldy potato (but preferably the Republican nominee) instead of him.
I haven't heard much of this as an issue like it has been in other elections. Perhaps it's too early for that. But it's not something to forget regardless of the econmy and anyone's plan.
-
I can't agree more with your take on soerto.
But given teh current state of things, and teh track record of politicians, any of 'em, can you honestly expect a difference?
You saw what mitt did here in MA.
You've seen R's left and right who think taking the high-road is effective leadership when it's nothing more than appeasement in order to avoid being called a bad name or causing a civil disturbance.
There is not a single R in the field who can make a difference simply because there aren't enough people like us who really get it.
The president is important because of the SCOTUS nominations which will happen. The other important thing is to improve on the 2010 head count in congress. A more conservative congress will blunt the effect of a RINO president and buy time until a better one can be installed. The House is okay except for the leadership. The Senate has to turn first and then the leadership will have to be dealt with. One step at a time. First step: Send Sir Golfsalot into retirement.
-
I can't agree more with your take on soerto.
But given teh current state of things, and teh track record of politicians, any of 'em, can you honestly expect a difference?
You saw what mitt did here in MA.
You've seen R's left and right who think taking the high-road is effective leadership when it's nothing more than appeasement in order to avoid being called a bad name or causing a civil disturbance.
There is not a single R in the field who can make a difference simply because there aren't enough people like us who really get it.
I definitely get where you're coming from, and I am given to making similar proclamations at times. And for the record, I still do not believe what happens politically is going to matter much in the grand scheme of things, and that dramatic civilization-altering events do lie in store for us.
However, I have to remind myself of one thing, and that is so long as we have the luxury of being able to try to change things through an established process, we should. Too much blood has been spilled, too many lives forfeit right as they had just barely begun, to purchase this luxury for us.
-
Yeah, I'm sitting pretty firmly in the camp that says, 'I'll vote for ANY Republican candidate that gets the nod.'. Obumbles needs to be taken out to the woodshed...and yeah, even if that idiot Romney gets the nod I'll have to hold my nose and vote for that SOB.
CNN (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/23/sununu-set-to-back-romney/) - Former New Hampshire Gov. John H. Sununu will endorse Mitt Romney on Monday, ...
...
His endorsement is highly prized and provides another sign the GOP establishment is backing Romney, ...
...
What?
Keep cutting for sign boys you'll find it pretty soon.
-
Yeah, I'm sitting pretty firmly in the camp that says, 'I'll vote for ANY Republican candidate that gets the nod.'. Obumbles needs to be taken out to the woodshed...and yeah, even if that idiot Romney gets the nod I'll have to hold my nose and vote for that SOB.
CNN (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/23/sununu-set-to-back-romney/) - Former New Hampshire Gov. John H. Sununu will endorse Mitt Romney on Monday, ...
...
His endorsement is highly prized and provides another sign the GOP establishment is backing Romney, ...
...
What?
Keep cutting for sign boys you'll find it pretty soon.
Who gives a crap who Sununu endorses?? It's not like the world has been waiting with bated breath for him to speak,frankly I'm waiting to see who E.F.Hutton endorses.For cripes sake.
-
Sununu = Ruling Class, fine with me, Mittens can have that endorsement and all it brings with it.
;)
-
Who gives a crap who Sununu endorses?? It's not like the world has been waiting with bated breath for him to speak,frankly I'm waiting to see who E.F.Hutton endorses.For cripes sake.
::laughonfloor::
The RINOs think it matters!!!
-
I can't agree more with your take on soerto.
But given teh current state of things, and teh track record of politicians, any of 'em, can you honestly expect a difference?
You saw what mitt did here in MA.
You've seen R's left and right who think taking the high-road is effective leadership when it's nothing more than appeasement in order to avoid being called a bad name or causing a civil disturbance.
There is not a single R in the field who can make a difference simply because there aren't enough people like us who really get it.
The president is important because of the SCOTUS nominations which will happen. The other important thing is to improve on the 2010 head count in congress. A more conservative congress will blunt the effect of a RINO president and buy time until a better one can be installed. The House is okay except for the leadership. The Senate has to turn first and then the leadership will have to be dealt with. One step at a time. First step: Send Sir Golfsalot into retirement.
Too many if's and but's lead me to the inescapable conclusion that we do not have much time to tinker around and go for incremental actions. The Obamanoids advanced the ball nearly to the goal line, if we get the ball on our own 1 yard line and are lucky to advance to our 10 and punt to mid-field we are expected to cheer wildly? I know I am barking into the wind, expecting grand things from inferior beings, but I may have more issues with our side than the opposition, so in that respect I sympathize with Dan. I am not interested in compromising my principles one second longer, I am not blindingly going for ABO dogma, the compromise is going to have to come from the Ruling Class, the RINO's, the mushy moderates...making the assumption I will go for ABO dogma sounds good, but does anyone think the right people will be blamed if Obama gets reelected? I don't. They'll whip out the MFM/Democrat/Ruling Class talking points and blame right-wingers, misguided Tea Party extremists, blah blah blah. Go ahead, blame them, blame me, it won't alter reality for any of you one iota! Take me for granted at your own peril. No vote for any Ruling Class clown, never again! Now, how are people going to deal with people like me? Good luck with that last part...
-
Speaking of endorsements, where's Palin?
-
She's a player, her endorsement will come when it's most affective.
-
Cain's numbers are good, even with his recent missteps. Michael Barone chalks it up to a "revolt against the experts." (http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/barone-revolt-against-experts-helps-herman-cain?utm_source=Washington%20Examiner%20Political%20Digest%20-%2010/26/2011&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Washington%20Examiner:%20Political%20Digest) I probably fall into this camp.
-
Fran Porretto (http://www.eternityroad.info/index.php/weblog/single/abortion_raising_cain/) parses the "abortion question" ala Cain. See what y'all think.
But there are questions apart from the right to life of the unborn baby. The most important of those questions is this: If abortion were made illegal at all stages of pregnancy, what would Americans have to allow their governments to do to enforce the laws against it?
Give that question a few moments' thought. J. Neil Schulman did, and arrived at a bleak assessment: A government powerful enough to forbid abortions is powerful enough to force abortions, and probably will when it suits that government to do so.
-
So... don't seek to outlaw abortion, because if you give the government that kind of power, it may turn around and use it to force abortion?
Schulman is missing the fact that we already have a government that is encouraging abortion - paying for it, and holding it as sacrosanct - and which could at any moment cross that line from encouragement to coercion or force, even absent the prior "power to forbid". It will not take a law or amendment against abortion to create the government power to force abortion. This government has already demonstrated that it will take what power it pleases without the consent of the governed. So I disagree with this position that would abandon the fight before it is begun out of fear of unintended consequences. That is a weak argument, in my opinion.
Anyway, we need to stop taking on the language of the Left by talking about abortion on their terms, and start talking about life. It's not about a woman's "right" to abort, nor whether that should or shouldn't be, it's about every human being's most basic right - the right to live. Why cede that the question is whether a woman has a right to kill her baby? The question is whether every human being has the basic right to live. If we do not have that right, then we have no others.
-
The argument is weak for one obvious reason also, as IDP somewhat danced around with his comment - was not the fact that the court in inventing a right to abortion out of whole cloth without any clear constitutional anchor the very "dubious proposition" alluded to in Mr. Schulman's argument? This is not chicken/egg argument, the invented right came first! If returned to the pre-Roe status quo, the issue would be placed into the proper realm of legislative act at the state level as determined by the will of the people in those states!
Common sense was tossed into the gutter with Roe and we are left fearing a return from the dubious?!
::gaah::
-
Fran Porretto (http://www.eternityroad.info/index.php/weblog/single/abortion_raising_cain/) parses the "abortion question" ala Cain. See what y'all think.
But there are questions apart from the right to life of the unborn baby. The most important of those questions is this: If abortion were made illegal at all stages of pregnancy, what would Americans have to allow their governments to do to enforce the laws against it?
Give that question a few moments' thought. J. Neil Schulman did, and arrived at a bleak assessment: A government powerful enough to forbid abortions is powerful enough to force abortions, and probably will when it suits that government to do so.
I don't have a problem with Cain on abortion. He is sincere, and he has put his money
where his mouth is. The/his problem is that when questioned his answers are honest
and forthright, he doesn't speak as a politician but as a man.
People these days are not accustomed to forthright honesty and it rubs.
It rubs because it is somewhat unpolished and course. In another time
other countries would make fun of and deride Americans because of this
being the nature of our culture. Today Americans are shocked, it causes
them to think and it makes them uncomfortable.
Cain says he' pro life and he will do all that he can and he means it.
He's not going to say 100% because he knows it is unachievable.
-
I'd quibble with the "unachievable" characterization...nothing is unachievable unless we all quit. The Left achieved the unachievable by having SCOTUS create an abortion right in the constitution where no such right existed in thought or theory!
-
NARAL clears up the controversy around Cain's position on life - just in case there was anyone still doubting what he believes.
@PJMedia...
NARAL Hands a Gift to Herman Cain (http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/10/26/naral-hands-a-gift-to-herman-cain/)
Last week’s twist-ups on CNN and Fox left some Republicans wondering whether Herman Cain is really pro-life or functionally pro-choice on abortion. Well, NARAL just stepped in to clear everything up by launching an attack on Cain.
[blockquote]Now, NARAL president Nancy Keenan has released an open letter Cain saying she believes he is fully pro-life on abortion and condemns him for taking such a position.
“Let’s start with the things we agree on: you are 100 percent opposed to a woman’s right to choose abortion care–even in cases of rape or incest–and have made that position clear on numerous occasions. End of story,” Keenan writes. The NARAL leader then says she disagrees with Cain’s assertion that a president doesn’t have significant power over the issue of abortion.[/blockquote]
A direct attack from NARAL on an issue that nearly derailed his run. The Hermanator thanks NARAL for their vital contribution to his campaign.
-
choose abortion care
::puke::
Tack on the word care--makes it sounds so much better than plain old "abortion"
-
I wonder if Cain didn't pull something brilliant here. Maybe it was just a gaffe and a recovery. In fact, I think it was. But look at the result. Upon digging into his position with the mere scratch of a fingernail one can see that he is 100% pro-life, unequivocally. So much so, that he doesn't even go for the middling "except in cases of rape or incest" equivocation.
But the effect of what he's done here is to affirm life and his position on it, as well as making a commentary on his view of the power of the presidency and the office's ability to affect policy regarding abortion. It's NOT the president's job to tell people what to do in their personal lives, and these ARE decisions that families make on their own. Those are realities. He can simultaneously hold those realities, and say that if legislation came to his desk outlawing abortion in all 50 states, he would sign it.
For those looking for a pro-life president, they will see one. For those looking for a president who doesn't seek to interfere in their personal decisions, they will see one. For those looking for a president who understands the constitutional limits of the office, they will see one. Through the dust-up, he reaffirmed his pro-life credentials, while taking away some of the threat some "middle-of-the-roaders" might find in a zealous pro-life candidate.
Brilliant, or lucky? Or am I over-analyzing?
-
I wonder if Cain didn't pull something brilliant here. Maybe it was just a gaffe and a recovery. In fact, I think it was. But look at the result. Upon digging into his position with the mere scratch of a fingernail one can see that he is 100% pro-life, unequivocally. So much so, that he doesn't even go for the middling "except in cases of rape or incest" equivocation.
But the effect of what he's done here is to affirm life and his position on it, as well as making a commentary on his view of the power of the presidency and the office's ability to affect policy regarding abortion. It's NOT the president's job to tell people what to do in their personal lives, and these ARE decisions that families make on their own. Those are realities. He can simultaneously hold those realities, and say that if legislation came to his desk outlawing abortion in all 50 states, he would sign it.
For those looking for a pro-life president, they will see one. For those looking for a president who doesn't seek to interfere in their personal decisions, they will see one. For those looking for a president who understands the constitutional limits of the office, they will see one. Through the dust-up, he reaffirmed his pro-life credentials, while taking away some of the threat some "middle-of-the-roaders" might find in a zealous pro-life candidate.
Brilliant, or lucky? Or am I over-analyzing?
I think over-analyzing there are to many pundits on to many subjects giving their spin on things.
I think Cain is just answering questions (Being himself) there is no hidden agenda.
IMHO
-
Cain understands advertising, not only did it turn in his favor, it was free.
On the subject of adverting and Cain, there is an upcoming debate between
him and Gingrich. It has been speculated, justifiably so, that Gingrich will
eat his lunch. It won't happen.
gNewt is unelectable, too much baggage.
gNewt is out there selling gNewt; a new book, speaking engagements, etc.
In order to maximize the effect of the media he is receiving
it is necessary he remain "the friendly professor".
In other words, if he eats Herman's lunch in the debate he will
lose that "friendly professor" image and all those bucks he is working toward.
-
I wonder if Cain didn't pull something brilliant here. Maybe it was just a gaffe and a recovery. In fact, I think it was. But look at the result. Upon digging into his position with the mere scratch of a fingernail one can see that he is 100% pro-life, unequivocally. So much so, that he doesn't even go for the middling "except in cases of rape or incest" equivocation.
But the effect of what he's done here is to affirm life and his position on it, as well as making a commentary on his view of the power of the presidency and the office's ability to affect policy regarding abortion. It's NOT the president's job to tell people what to do in their personal lives, and these ARE decisions that families make on their own. Those are realities. He can simultaneously hold those realities, and say that if legislation came to his desk outlawing abortion in all 50 states, he would sign it.
For those looking for a pro-life president, they will see one. For those looking for a president who doesn't seek to interfere in their personal decisions, they will see one. For those looking for a president who understands the constitutional limits of the office, they will see one. Through the dust-up, he reaffirmed his pro-life credentials, while taking away some of the threat some "middle-of-the-roaders" might find in a zealous pro-life candidate.
Brilliant, or lucky? Or am I over-analyzing?
You may be over-analynzing; he may have just gotten lucky. Or not. I don't really know.
What I'm willing to consider Cain might understand comes from Fran Porretto's take on the issue, that if abortion is criminalized, what then in the matter of enforcement? It was one thing before the Supremes declared it a right -- between a woman and any doctor that would perform one. Now that it's an "ISSUE", are we prepared to imprison women who may or may not have had an abortion or just a miscarriage? Are we ready to get ourselves fully immersed in the business of pregnant women? I know in my case, there was nothing to be done to stop the miscarriage, so the doctor finished the job instead of letting me go on for hours, bleeding and in pain, until the end.
-
Shirley has serious questions for Cain.
Shirley Q Liquor has questions for Herman Cain (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcFRj7yKmAI#)