It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => Politics/Legislation/Elections => Topic started by: charlesoakwood on March 27, 2011, 10:30:43 PM
-
Would you have a Muslim in your cabinet or appoint as a judge?
"No."
What is the role of Islam in America?
"The role of Islam in America is for them to practice it and leave us alone."
Herman Cain refuses to appoint a Muslim in his administration (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDXCwd65R5o#ws)
-
"The role of Islam in America is for them to practice it and leave us alone."
YES!
And by the way, I'm sick of every card-carrying, whiny member of some diversity intiative being scooted up to the table so they can steal their "share" contribute. Ya got something to contribute? You can start by following the Constitution and acting like an American instead of some 3rd world leader's fantasy.
-
I like his spunk, and I agree with his goal, but coming right out and saying it puts him in conflict with Article VI, paragraph 3. That's the kind of thing a candidate should approach artfully...
"I would welcome all Americans of any religion into my administration as long as they believe that we are in government to serve the constitution only, and no other document or ideology. Next question."
-
I like his spunk, and I agree with his goal, but coming right out and saying it puts him in conflict with Article VI, paragraph 3. That's the kind of thing a candidate should approach artfully...
"I would welcome all Americans of any religion into my administration as long as they believe that we are in government to serve the constitution only, and no other document or ideology. Next question."
You're right. I'm sure he'll reword that next time.
-
I like his spunk, and I agree with his goal, but coming right out and saying it puts him in conflict with Article VI, paragraph 3. That's the kind of thing a candidate should approach artfully...
"I would welcome all Americans of any religion into my administration as long as they believe that we are in government to serve the constitution only, and no other document or ideology. Next question."
You're right. I'm sure he'll reword that next time.
I hope so. I like Herman, a lot. But this is the second or third time I've heard him say things that didn't need to be said. The first was an essay at RedState where he basically made the case that Jesus was a conservative and if you're a Christian you can't be a liberal. I happen to agree with him. But it's a battle line that doesn't need to be drawn if you hope to capture the GOP nomination. You have to pick your battles, and make decisions about what needs to be said and what doesn't. I'm not talking about compromising principles, just choosing when to speak, and how to speak.
He's a great champion of conservative values. Every now and then he makes me cringe because he doesn't seem to have filters. Some would call that authenticity. I appreciate authenticity. But I see a statement like this more as clumsy politics. We ARE the party of the constitution after all, and his statement - while wise - cannot be official government policy in any overt capacity. If such a policy were enacted, it would have to be one of those things that a President just implements, and doesn't speak of.
Let the pundits wring their hands over why President Cain hasn't appointed any 'Slims. But you just can't come out and announce it as policy.
-
I hope so. I like Herman, a lot. But this is the second or third time I've heard him say things that didn't need to be said. The first was an essay at RedState where he basically made the case that Jesus was a conservative and if you're a Christian you can't be a liberal. I happen to agree with him. But it's a battle line that doesn't need to be drawn if you hope to capture the GOP nomination. You have to pick your battles, and make decisions about what needs to be said and what doesn't. I'm not talking about compromising principles, just choosing when to speak, and how to speak.
It is so very refreshing to hear straightforward answers.*
"No", How many pages would gNewt, or Boehner have taken to answer the question?
As for as completely correct in line with every word of the Constitution, that's a high bar that no one with a comprehensible answer (of the cuff) has done.
Capturing the GOP nomination, those words mean acceptance of John Cornyn, Mitch McConnell et al. We spend much though, time,and words how to get around the entrenched Party process that continually serves up "Johnny Macks" locally and nationally.
We Americans are in this terrible position because of too much artful language and not enough clear talk and rational thought.
*Our very best; Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Allen West, Hermann Cain are all guilty
of being straightforward humans, the rest...
-
I hope so. I like Herman, a lot. But this is the second or third time I've heard him say things that didn't need to be said. The first was an essay at RedState where he basically made the case that Jesus was a conservative and if you're a Christian you can't be a liberal. I happen to agree with him. But it's a battle line that doesn't need to be drawn if you hope to capture the GOP nomination. You have to pick your battles, and make decisions about what needs to be said and what doesn't. I'm not talking about compromising principles, just choosing when to speak, and how to speak.
It is so very refreshing to hear straightforward answers.*
"No", How many pages would gNewt, or Boehner have taken to answer the question?
As for as completely correct in line with every word of the Constitution, that's a high bar that no one with a comprehensible answer (of the cuff) has done.
Capturing the GOP nomination, those words mean acceptance of John Cornyn, Mitch McConnell et al. We spend much though, time,and words how to get around the entrenched Party process that continually serves up "Johnny Macks" locally and nationally.
We Americans are in this terrible position because of too much artful language and not enough clear talk and rational thought.
*Our very best; Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Allen West, Hermann Cain are all guilty
of being straightforward humans, the rest...
You know I appreciate straightforwardness and authenticity. I just want someone like Cain to get elected!!! If he goes around saying that he would hold cabinet and judicial appointees to an unconstitutional litmus test, that won't happen. I want him to stay true to himself AND be smart about what he says. He could as easily have said what I hypothetically posed above ("I would welcome all Americans of any religion into my administration as long as they believe that we are in government to serve the constitution only, and no other document or ideology), made the exact same point, and remained completely true to himself, the constitution, and committed to his principles. Instead he threw out this red meat that calls into question his commitment to or understanding of the constitution.
-
Possibly so, maybe such a direct answer was so refreshing I missed a long term error.
Concerning the nominating of any of the best choice, it will not happen unless the Pubbie PTBs are hogtied or we make and end run around them. It is obvious they are not going quietly into the night. This Tea Party revolution must succeed or we will get Mitt Romney
or less. The America we knew will be irretrievable.
-
Cain is currently a radio talk show host. His comment was perfectly suited for that venue. But there's a reason radio hosts don't typically make the transition. They lob red meat for effect. Cain is a gentleman and less inflammatory than most, so he could possibly make the transition, but I just think (my opinion, not fact) that he's shown a couple instances where he doesn't use the best judgment in articulating his positions - IF the Presidency is something he wants to do.
-
I think it's possible to stand firm on principles and still be tactful.
I do it. :) (in public -- um, maybe not when posting lol)
and I ain't nuttin special. ;D
-
I think it's possible to stand firm on principles and still be tactful....
Not only is it possible, but it is a requirement for a successful national politician, with very few exceptions.
-
Drew at AoSHQ says: (http://ace.mu.nu/archives/313997.php)
Alternate title: Herman Cain: I Promise To Violate My Oath Of Office Before I Even Get To Take It.
This is the problem with politically untested, boutique candidates...they say dumb stuff.
I think fighting expansionist Islam is as much, if not more, a social challenge than a military one. We can not allow people to misrepresent political Islam, lie about Islam's history in America or it's importance to the fabric of this country. On that score, I'm with Cain.
That said, announcing that you will violate the "No religious tests" clause of the Constitution is simply wrong and shows either a lack of familiarity with parts of the Constitution or a willingness to skip parts that don't work for you. When you become President, you don't get to enforce just the bits you like, you swear to "preserve, protect and defend" all of it. Even Article VI, even as applied to Muslims.
-
Drew at AoSHQ says: (http://ace.mu.nu/archives/313997.php)
Alternate title: Herman Cain: I Promise To Violate My Oath Of Office Before I Even Get To Take It.
This is the problem with politically untested, boutique candidates...they say dumb stuff.
I think fighting expansionist Islam is as much, if not more, a social challenge than a military one. We can not allow people to misrepresent political Islam, lie about Islam's history in America or it's importance to the fabric of this country. On that score, I'm with Cain.
That said, announcing that you will violate the "No religious tests" clause of the Constitution is simply wrong and shows either a lack of familiarity with parts of the Constitution or a willingness to skip parts that don't work for you. When you become President, you don't get to enforce just the bits you like, you swear to "preserve, protect and defend" all of it. Even Article VI, even as applied to Muslims.
Publicly, yes.
One doesn't need to openly violate the Constitution as does Duh Wun, however; how issues are managed behind-the-scenes is another matter entirely.
-
Alan Keyes looked very attractive and viable as a candidate at one point. Now he is considered a fringe nut...even by most on the right...thanks to his own uncontrolled speech.
Would he have made a good elected official? Almost certainly thanks to the extremely low bar set by so many incumbents who currently warm seats in Congress. Almost certainly because, although he was his own worst enemy when it came to expressing his beliefs, he was/is a conservative at heart and he could probably be counted on to do the right thing more often than not. And batting better than 500 is a vast improvement on other "right wing patriots" currently in office.
I see Herman Cain as a wiser and more accomplished candidate than Keyes. But he is still an amateur at politics. And like it or not, the road to elective office is a political one.
It's not enough to be a conservative. It's not enough to be a success in the world of business. It's not enough to be able to speak well in public. It requires all of those things but also the ability to craft brilliant and correct statements on the fly. Even the very best at the game make the occasional gaffe and, if you are a Democrat or to a lesser extent an incumbent Republican, it's possible to recover from that. Democrat challengers can say darn near anything ("good looking, clean, articulate" or "hymie town" both come to mind) and get away with it. Republican incumbents not so much ("macaca"). Republican challengers must be perfect. Or they will be eviscerated by the press and will be the victims of out-of-context political campaign ads.
That's not fair but it is reality. Can Herman Cain get the nomination and win the WH? Sure. It's possible. But it isn't likely.
Apart from unforced errors such as the one that starts this thread, he also suffers from the handicap of being an outsider. And yes, like it or not, that is a handicap. Palin suffered under just such a handicap during the campaign when she was stupidly attacked by voices from the right. Even though she was an elected Republican governor she was not part of the establishment and was mercilessly skewered at every available opportunity. Cain has never before held an elective office and thus is handicapped that much more.
So...much as I would love to see a true outsider, a true conservative elected to the WH and as much as I appreciate Herman Cain, I have absolutely no illusions as to his chances of making that dream a reality.
-
When you become President, you don't get to enforce just the bits you like, you swear to "preserve, protect and defend" all of it. Even Article VI, even as applied to Muslims.
Uhm....someone needs to talk to "da Won". ::exitstageleft::
-
Spot on Trap. Øbozo is the ultimate expression of why we don't need no "dark horses" and untested administrators. The job is too important to entrust to idiots and loose cannons. Øbozo may be book smart (or so he would have us believe) but he has proven himself street stupid. The left kept telling us that GW was a dolt but he proved himself to be street smart....and book smart as well.
Politically he proved to be a moderate but that moderation is looking pretty good right about now ::USA::
Personally, I don't think Cain is "ready for prime time". ::pokeineye::
-
The underlying problem here is that we're expected to offer the Constitution's guarantees of religious freedom to something that is no religion in the sense the Founders had when drafting the Constitution. It does not reciprocate the spirit of freedom and separateness from the State.
Suppose a group decided they wanted to reincarnate ancient Aztec religions, complete with dutifully offering human sacrifices to their pantheon. We'd be under no obligation to recognize and accept it as a religion. I see Islam the same way. I wouldn't be bothered in the slightest by a Constitutional amendment enacted solely for the purpose of declaring Islam excluded from any considerations offered other religions.
-
He needs to learn Takkiya...say it the right way, then don't hire any.
Message sent.
-
Øbozo may be book smart (or so he would have us believe)...
I honestly cannot say that I have seen any evidence to prove this. Neither in the form of high school and college transcripts or in real world examples.
Please remember that although no one demanded to see GWB's education documents, his grades were common knowledge. The press did demand to see darn near everything regarding GWB's draft status and his military performance and discharge documentation. Our current president was promoted by the press as the smartest guy to ever have run for or become elected to the office of the presidency and we have yet to see any proof. Zero. Zip. Nada.
I would also be extremely interested in verifiable IQ test results. I would be surprised if he scored much over 100 based on what I have seen to date. Smart power, indeed.
-
we have yet to see any proof. Zero. Zip. Nada.
I agree with you. I remember hearing so many people proclaiming how smart he was during the campaign. My conclusion is that they were just dumber than him.
-
Which isn't saying much for them or him.
-
we have yet to see any proof. Zero. Zip. Nada.
I agree with you. I remember hearing so many people proclaiming how smart he was during the campaign. My conclusion is that they were just dumber than him.
::rolllaughing:: ::rolllaughing:: ::rolllaughing:: ::rolllaughing:: ::rolllaughing::
-
Alan Keyes looked very attractive and viable as a candidate at one point. Now he is considered a fringe nut...even by most on the right...thanks to his own uncontrolled speech.
Before he ran for office I witnessed a debate between he and Alan Dershowitz, I will not call a winner but it was an excellent contest.
Later when he ran for office, the seat formerly occupied by Barack Obama I believe, he appeared a clown. I was shocked at the split personality of performance.
I see Herman Cain as a wiser and more accomplished candidate than Keyes. But he is still an amateur at politics. And like it or not, the road to elective office is a political one.
It's not enough to be a conservative. It's not enough to be a success in the world of business. It's not enough to be able to speak well in public. It requires all of those things but also the ability to craft brilliant and correct statements on the fly.
We may hope but if the presidency depended on "he ability to craft brilliant and correct statements on the fly", well, we sure as heck wouldn't have had the last four presidents.
...
So...much as I would love to see a true outsider, a true conservative elected to the WH and as much as I appreciate Herman Cain, I have absolutely no illusions as to his chances of making that dream a reality.
We are either going to get an outsider or a retread.
-
I think Cain could still catch a favorable wind. I just think he needs to understand that what he says and how he says it matters. Ace has it right: "Herman Cain: I Promise To Violate My Oath Of Office Before I Even Get To Take It." That is the essence of this statement by Cain, and it didn't need to be.
-
I think Cain could still catch a favorable wind. I just think he needs to understand that what he says and how he says it matters. Ace has it right: "Herman Cain: I Promise To Violate My Oath Of Office Before I Even Get To Take It." That is the essence of this statement by Cain, and it didn't need to be.
I'm not sure they got it right. I believe this headline to be sensationalist in nature. Honestly, it is the exact conclusion the left wants conservatives to take. We discount and minimalize our own...we get the re tread. I do not expect perfection from my candidates. The liberal media does and sometimes, even our own conservative media outlets.....That's not to state I don't care to break the Constitution, but it was one honest answer we all believe... I don't think anyone here would ignore the Constitution to make it so.....Neither would Cain, I believe.
He spoke off the cuff ( not a sin in my book)....It does not mean he would lead in this manner. I take the guy to be honest and sincere, but not a usurpter of the Constitution.
It's time to quit eating our own over a statement or comment. The responsible approach would be to get hold of his people (if he has people) and point out the error......
Not jump to the (liberal) conclusion of:
I Promise To Violate My Oath Of Office Before I Even Get To Take It."
Does anyone really believe he this to be true?
-
...Does anyone really believe he this to be true?
I believe he meant what he said. I believe he meant it because he reaffirmed it, saying it is exactly how he feels. He said point blank that he would in essence cast aside Article VI paragraph 3 of the constitution as it relates to Islam. I also believe he meant it because he expresses my feelings on the matter exactly. I don't think it's an extreme position to believe that Islam belongs nowhere near the levers of American government. I think it's common sense.
So yeah, I do believe it to be true. I think Herman Cain would not appoint a Muslim, and good on him for it. But to come out and say it as a candidate when the constitution prohibits actually putting such an idea into official practice is shooting himself in the foot.
-
I believe he said it in the context as he described it.
An organized group intent in taking over our judicial system and our government.
ETA: There is no reason to confer any Constitutional rights to them.
I agree with Don. It appears to be another circle forming. This moment around Cain.
-
...Does anyone really believe he this to be true?
I believe he meant what he said. I believe he meant it because he reaffirmed it, saying it is exactly how he feels. He said point blank that he would in essence cast aside Article VI paragraph 3 of the constitution as it relates to Islam. I also believe he meant it because he expresses my feelings on the matter exactly. I don't think it's an extreme position to believe that Islam belongs nowhere near the levers of American government. I think it's common sense.
So yeah, I do believe it to be true. I think Herman Cain would not appoint a Muslim, and good on him for it. But to come out and say it as a candidate when the constitution prohibits actually putting such an idea into official practice is shooting himself in the foot.
Oh, I believe he meant every word.....But I believe he could accomplish his (and my/ our) goal without circumventing the Constitution. I took it as a strong statement.... He was clear and consistant with his thought. "In essence", isn't necessarily throwing the Constitution under the bus.
I didn't like the headline. It does throws him under the bus, so to speak. The headline puts words in his mouth, an assumption of guilt.
I do not believe Mr Cain would violate his oath of office. It is the root of my question over the headline.
-
I see Herman Cain as a wiser and more accomplished candidate than Keyes. But he is still an amateur at politics. And like it or not, the road to elective office is a political one.
It's not enough to be a conservative. It's not enough to be a success in the world of business. It's not enough to be able to speak well in public. It requires all of those things but also the ability to craft brilliant and correct statements on the fly.
We may hope but if the presidency depended on "the ability to craft brilliant and correct statements on the fly", well, we sure as heck wouldn't have had the last four presidents.
I would have to say that Billy Jeff was is pretty good at crafting brilliant and duplicitous statements on the fly. He was is a true craftsman in that regard. A gifted liar.
I would give Reagan high marks for being able to ad lib on just about anything and sound wise and reasonable. Or hilarious if that was his intention. He wasn't called "The Great Communicator" for nothing.
-
I do not expect perfection from my candidates.
And yet, because the right is held to a (ridiculously) higher standard by the MFM we usually (although not always...McCain....Dole) end up with a superior candidate. The media thoroughly vets our candidates, usually at the primary level, so that there is literally nothing left in the closet for the general election.
Conversely, the MFM invests a staggering amount of effort covering for the left. Unfortunately for them the new media makes their conniving tactics less relevant with each passing year.
So that's the glass half full point of view.
-
I believe he said it in the context as he described it.
An organized group intent in taking over our judicial system and our government.
ETA: There is no reason to confer any Constitutional rights to them.
I agree with Don. It appears to be another circle forming. This moment around Cain.
God...Thank You...I'm not the best explaining my point.....But in context, that is what I was lookin for...LOL
I don't want to eat this guy up and spit him out. I want to take what he said in context, understanding I don't believe he would sully the Constitution.
And the headline....Pronounces him guilty..... ::gaah::
-
I see Herman Cain as a wiser and more accomplished candidate than Keyes. But he is still an amateur at politics. And like it or not, the road to elective office is a political one.
It's not enough to be a conservative. It's not enough to be a success in the world of business. It's not enough to be able to speak well in public. It requires all of those things but also the ability to craft brilliant and correct statements on the fly.
We may hope but if the presidency depended on "he ability to craft brilliant and correct statements on the fly", well, we sure as heck wouldn't have had the last four presidents.
I would have to say that Billy Jeff was is pretty good at crafting brilliant and duplicitous statements on the fly. He was is a true craftsman in that regard. A gifted liar.
I would give Reagan high marks for being able to ad lib on just about anything and sound wise and reasonable. Or hilarious if that was his intention. He wasn't called "The Great Communicator" for nothing.
Exactly. Maybe I missed one, I thought, counting back, Reagan was the fifth.
Obama, Bush 43, Clinton, Bush 41, Reagan; or am I'm having a massive senior moment?
-
I do not expect perfection from my candidates.
And yet, because the right is held to a (ridiculously) higher standard by the MFM we usually (although not always...McCain....Dole) end up with a superior candidate. The media thoroughly vets our candidates, usually at the primary level, so that there is literally nothing left in the closet for the general election.
Conversely, the MFM invests a staggering amount of effort covering for the left. Unfortunately for them the new media makes their conniving tactics less relevant with each passing year.
So that's the glass half full point of view.
But yet, in this "vetting" process, we have candidates such as Cain deemed "unqualified"......Because he can't spell potato.
Guess its the glass half empty...LOL
-
Speaking of politically incorrect things to say about muslims and islam, this was just posted at AceOfSpades by Ace himself:
Bear in mind that the 12th Imam, according to these maniacs, can only come if they blaze the fires of war and chaos all over the world.
While saner mystics might look for omens and portents, this particular Religion of Madmen holds that mystics can create the circumstances necessary for the return of their blood-soaked savoir, and of course the circumstances needed are (what else is new with Muslims?) murder and mayhem.*
But Ace isn't running for president, is he?
*a statement with which I wholeheartedly agree.
-
I do not expect perfection from my candidates.
And yet, because the right is held to a (ridiculously) higher standard by the MFM we usually (although not always...McCain....Dole) end up with a superior candidate. The media thoroughly vets our candidates, usually at the primary level, so that there is literally nothing left in the closet for the general election.
Conversely, the MFM invests a staggering amount of effort covering for the left. Unfortunately for them the new media makes their conniving tactics less relevant with each passing year.
So that's the glass half full point of view.
But yet, in this "vetting" process, we have candidates such as Cain deemed "unqualified"......Because he can't spell potato.
Guess its the glass half empty...LOL
You meant "Quayle," I think. And the truth was that he was using the incorrect spelling on the "answer" cards given him by a school spelling bee. Almost anyone would have made the same mistake given the circumstances. This is what I mean when I say that the right is ALWAYS held to a ridiculously high standard. And, yeah, it was a shame that he was dismissed as a lightweight because he was a true conservative. But also true is that this was not his only gaffe. Quayle was gaffe prone...not to the degree of Biden who is the gold standard for gaffes...but enough that he was low hanging fruit for the MFM. Give them the ammunition and they will shoot at you mercilessly every single time.
-
I do not expect perfection from my candidates.
And yet, because the right is held to a (ridiculously) higher standard by the MFM we usually (although not always...McCain....Dole) end up with a superior candidate. The media thoroughly vets our candidates, usually at the primary level, so that there is literally nothing left in the closet for the general election.
Conversely, the MFM invests a staggering amount of effort covering for the left. Unfortunately for them the new media makes their conniving tactics less relevant with each passing year.
So that's the glass half full point of view.
But yet, in this "vetting" process, we have candidates such as Cain deemed "unqualified"......Because he can't spell potato.
Guess its the glass half empty...LOL
You meant "Quayle," I think.
I did....Just using him as an example of the idiocy of the media. Totally meaningless...sullied for life and many conservatives jumped on board.
Cain's admission is not meaningless, but we seem to be jumping him for an opinion most hold.
-
That would be the Juan Williams defense..."everyone thinks that." And yes, it's true, but it is still an unforced error. The rules of the game are well known. It is irrelevant that the rules are different for Democrats versus Republicans. They are the rules and they always will be until the MFM has a brain transplant. Which will be either not in our lifetimes or never, whichever comes last.
-
I believe he said it in the context as he described it.
An organized group intent in taking over our judicial system and our government.
ETA: There is no reason to confer any Constitutional rights to them.
I agree with Don. It appears to be another circle forming. This moment around Cain.
God...Thank You...I'm not the best explaining my point.....But in context, that is what I was lookin for...LOL
I don't want to eat this guy up and spit him out. I want to take what he said in context, understanding I don't believe he would sully the Constitution.
And the headline....Pronounces him guilty..... ::gaah::
I don't want to cast aspersion on Cain. He's among my favorites of all who are possibly running. And I'm not trying to be overly argumentative with you fellas either. But I think I have a point that bears reiterating, so here goes...
Charles, you feel that criticizing him on this is somewhat of a circular firing squad, and Don, you feel that the AoSHQ headline is unfair in its pronouncement of guilt re; Cain's disregard for the constitution. But if you believe their characterization is unfair, just go with the actual headline, sans editorial embellishment:
[blockquote]"Herman Cain says he would not appoint Muslims to cabinet or judiciary positions."[/blockquote]
Take that headline at face value (because it's exactly what he said, in context), and compare it to:
[blockquote]The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.[/blockquote]
How does one arrive at the conclusion that Cain's pronouncement - whether he meant it literally or not - does not run contradictory to Article VI paragraph 3? And if I can at least get an acknowledgment that his statement DOES run contrary to Article VI paragraph 3, then does it not follow that the statement should not have been made by someone serious about seeking the office of the Presidency?
I think he can move beyond this because of all his other strengths. I hope he does. I pray he does. I guess all I'm saying is, loose lips sink ships.
I'll hang up and listen off the air. ::thumbsup:: ::beertoast::
-
It doesn't run counter to the constitution because Islam is NOT a religion. And we need to cram that point home until the sun don't shine.
-
I see Herman Cain as a wiser and more accomplished candidate than Keyes. But he is still an amateur at politics. And like it or not, the road to elective office is a political one.
It's not enough to be a conservative. It's not enough to be a success in the world of business. It's not enough to be able to speak well in public. It requires all of those things but also the ability to craft brilliant and correct statements on the fly.
We may hope but if the presidency depended on "he ability to craft brilliant and correct statements on the fly", well, we sure as heck wouldn't have had the last four presidents.
I would have to say that Billy Jeff was is pretty good at crafting brilliant and duplicitous statements on the fly. He was is a true craftsman in that regard. A gifted liar.
I would give Reagan high marks for being able to ad lib on just about anything and sound wise and reasonable. Or hilarious if that was his intention. He wasn't called "The Great Communicator" for nothing.
Exactly. Maybe I missed one, I thought, counting back, Reagan was the fifth.
Obama, Bush 43, Clinton, Bush 41, Reagan; or am I'm having a massive senior moment?
I wasn't counting Toonces as one of the "last" four but rather the current occupant. Simply a matter of interpretation. No harm, no foul. And no, the boob-in-chief can't talk about anything spontaneously other than his NCAA bracket picks. And I believe that is because it is the only subject that he is thoroughly familiar and comfortable with.
-
I believe he said it in the context as he described it.
An organized group intent in taking over our judicial system and our government.
ETA: There is no reason to confer any Constitutional rights to them.
I agree with Don. It appears to be another circle forming. This moment around Cain.
God...Thank You...I'm not the best explaining my point.....But in context, that is what I was lookin for...LOL
I don't want to eat this guy up and spit him out. I want to take what he said in context, understanding I don't believe he would sully the Constitution.
And the headline....Pronounces him guilty..... ::gaah::
I don't want to cast aspersion on Cain. He's among my favorites of all who are possibly running. And I'm not trying to be overly argumentative with you fellas either. But I think I have a point that bears reiterating, so here goes...
Charles, you feel that criticizing him on this is somewhat of a circular firing squad, and Don, you feel that the AoSHQ headline is unfair in its pronouncement of guilt re; Cain's disregard for the constitution. But if you believe their characterization is unfair, just go with the actual headline, sans editorial embellishment:
[blockquote]"Herman Cain says he would not appoint Muslims to cabinet or judiciary positions."[/blockquote]
Take that headline at face value (because it's exactly what he said, in context), and compare it to:
[blockquote]The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.[/blockquote]
How does one arrive at the conclusion that Cain's pronouncement - whether he meant it literally or not - does not run contradictory to Article VI paragraph 3? And if I can at least get an acknowledgment that his statement DOES run contrary to Article VI paragraph 3, then does it not follow that the statement should not have been made by someone serious about seeking the office of the Presidency?
I think he can move beyond this because of all his other strengths. I hope he does. I pray he does. I guess all I'm saying is, loose lips sink ships.
I'll hang up and listen off the air. ::thumbsup:: ::beertoast::
The question was: "Would you be comfortable appointing .... " Cain answered, "No. I will not."
As in, no I will not be comfortable, perhaps?
-
....The question was: "Would you be comfortable appointing .... " Cain answered, "No. I will not."
As in, no I will not be comfortable, perhaps?
Perhaps. Let's even assume it to be exactly what he meant. It still raises the specter of a religious litmus test, doesn't it? He could have said the exact same thing by saying, "There will be no religious litmus test in a Herman Cain administration. The ONLY litmus test will be strict adherence to the constitution, and no other documents or ideologies."
-
...Does anyone really believe he this to be true?
I believe he meant what he said. I believe he meant it because he reaffirmed it, saying it is exactly how he feels. He said point blank that he would in essence cast aside Article VI paragraph 3 of the constitution as it relates to Islam. I also believe he meant it because he expresses my feelings on the matter exactly. I don't think it's an extreme position to believe that Islam belongs nowhere near the levers of American government. I think it's common sense.
So yeah, I do believe it to be true. I think Herman Cain would not appoint a Muslim, and good on him for it. But to come out and say it as a candidate when the constitution prohibits actually putting such an idea into official practice is shooting himself in the foot.
Both feet and I think he's sunk!
-
How come we can see this and fellas like Cain can't?
-
....The question was: "Would you be comfortable appointing .... " Cain answered, "No. I will not."
As in, no I will not be comfortable, perhaps?
Perhaps. Let's even assume it to be exactly what he meant. It still raises the specter of a religious litmus test, doesn't it? He could have said the exact same thing by saying, "There will be no religious litmus test in a Herman Cain administration. The ONLY litmus test will be strict adherence to the constitution, and no other documents or ideologies."
It raises the question whether he will appoint a member of a group to the judiciary whose guiding document, the Koran, commands them to kill all infidels who will not submit to the will of Allah.
He said, no, they are the enemy and I will not appoint an enemy of the United States of America to any office.
God Bless Him
-
I saw him being interviewed this afternoon by Neil Cavuto. Cavuto very carefully and gently steered him into qualifying his statement. What he ended up saying was that he would appoint no one who he had doubts about as regards their allegiance to the United States and the Constitution. He admitted, when specifically asked, that he would appoint a muslim with whom he was confident as to their allegiance.
So there. Problem settled. Except it isn't. Once said by someone on the right, these things can never be unsaid and they will be resurrected ad infinitum if he ever becomes viable.
-
...
... Once said by someone on the right, these things can never be unsaid and they will be resurrected ad infinitum if he ever becomes viable.
Good, I hope they ask it till the cows come home, and shout it from the top of the hill. America sick of these people and the death and disruption
they have caused and are causing America. It's high time we had a leader who will directly and unapologetically confront this problem.
ETA: They should follow up with the question: Do you approve of the Mosque being built in NY at the Twin Towers site?
-
That would be the Juan Williams defense..."everyone thinks that." And yes, it's true, but it is still an unforced error. The rules of the game are well known. It is irrelevant that the rules are different for Democrats versus Republicans. They are the rules and they always will be until the MFM has a brain transplant. Which will be either not in our lifetimes or never, whichever comes last.
My issue with the whole Cain controversy was the headline used....Sure, the rules are well known, but must we 1) play by those rules 2) Accept those rules....I don't think we should.
Whether it was an unforcd gaffe or a calculated statement used to force a re visit and get his name out a bit more...I don't want to play by those rules as I don't want to discount or shy away from a candidate who shares my views. The headline indicates a gaffe.....or worse, he would willingly subvert the Constitution. It is an assertion I do not agree. It was pure sensationalism.
We complain about our Bonhers of today with no spine, but here we are, buying in to the headline and imo, acting as spineless as todays conservative leadership. We share his view...I don't care who's defense it is. I don't want some liberal setting the agenda for my candidates, no matter how much they are vetted by said liberals...or for that fact, no matter what they tell me is "dirty" about my candidate.
I'm not disagreeing Cain is wrong or made a mistake...... I disagree wholeheartily this is any reason to marginalize his candidacy. If we do, we bought in....Liberals win because they make the rules.
-
I stand with Predator Don.
Let the chips fall .........
-
It's a bit early to be closing the lid on anyone's candidacy. Cain can actually build upon this notoriety if he is cagey enough. I would say that the one thing he has in his favor in this situation is his race. A male caucasian could never get away with what he said. It plays directly into the "conservatives are white male racists" theme. As a conservative black male he will at the very least have an opportunity to explain himself. And that increases his exposure.
It is entirely possible that he said what he said for the express purpose of drawing attention to himself and his campaign, all the while knowing that he would have to artfully perform damage control. The problem is that I don't know what I don't know. I know enough about Cain to be intrigued, to tentatively take him seriously as a candidate. But I don't know much else. If he can somehow make this work then he would be a bit of a prodigy with the media and we haven't had someone like that since, well, since Reagan.
It sure would be nice to have someone who can say what he wants and pay little or no price for it.
-
....It sure would be nice to have someone who can say what he wants and pay little or no price for it.
Boy, you can sure say that again.
-
I have no political experience, those in office have. How's that working out for you?
3:40 notice that jive music in the back ground
“Anybody Who Takes the Oath of Office in My Administration Will Put Their Hand on the Bible, Not the Koran”…
Herman Cain Interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT6JUETJDaY#ws)
-
He's consistent, got to give him that, and on the rightful, proper side of the issues.
I don't quite recognize the music, though ....... ::angel::
-
He's consistent, got to give him that, and on the rightful, proper side of the issues.
I don't quite recognize the music, though ....... ::angel::
Sarc tags please
-
I for one have had enough of anyone who will not say"if elected I will........ or i'll quit so help me GOD"
Rule #1 Trust no one
Rule #2 Trust no one
Rule #3 refer to #1 and #2
-
I for one have had enough of anyone who will not say"if elected I will........ or i'll quit so help me GOD"
Rule #1 Trust no one
Rule #2 Trust no one
Rule #3 refer to #1 and #2
You'll find that were not that trusting to start with. Welcome.