GOP Nominee

[PanzerJaeger]

It was funny at first but now its just painful to watch...

[a completely inoffensive name]

What is interesting is that the people backing Cain in Lemur's poll are the hardcore Southerners. The establishment, business types, and moderates have all gravitated towards Romney, while the hardcore Christians are split between Perry, Bachmann, and Santorum. Those left are the less educated, populist base of the GOP - aka the Tea Partiers. They don't read the Wall Street Journal, but they listen to Rush religiously. They can't draw a simple Laffer curve, but they know taxes should be low. They'd be hard pressed to outline the differences between communism and socialism, but they know Obama is probably both. These are the people who were lambasted in the media for the last two years as obvious racists.

And yet, while those in the establishment cringe pretty much every time Cain opens his mouth, the Tea Party types have latched on to him in a way that they never did for Bachmann or even Palin, and his numbers have only gotten stronger since the sexual harassment scandal broke which indicates an enviable level of loyalty someone like Romney could only dream about. And in doing so, they've forsaken a Southern governor who has flirted with secession and holidays at a place called Niggerhead - the obvious choice if opposition to a black man in the White House is your prime motivaoer.

As I've said before, the Tea Partiers love a hard-line, populist conservative message with as few deviations from the dogma as possible, and they don't care who delivers it. To even claim racist undertones is getting pretty difficult to support.

I was banned for 3 days I forgot I wanted to reply to this.

So basically you quoted me from an earlier thread and the point I was making about the racism was different from the part you quoted from. My argument which I posted in this thread was that the racism comes from the GOP leadership who blatantly push out a black man into the spotlight when they want to deflect allegations of being the rich, white man party or for other political purposes. My main example was Steele. Most GOP voters, like Democratic voters, will vote whoever the establishment tells them too. So when the GOP and Fox News started hyping up Cain, everyone suddenly went, "oh yeah, he is a candidate and he looks good.". I am not saying the voters are the racist ones, although like I said in the part you quoted, they are there. And no, I don't think it is the hardcore southerner's supporting Cain. Just because he has the most support in the south doesn't mean it's the hardcore ones supporting him. Fact is that despite the GOP establishment hyping up Perry since his Jesus speech, he is actually looking pretty dumb out there and has been dropping like a rock. Those people went and attached to the "new thing", Cain.

EDIT: Hasn't Bachmann been polling lower than Ron Paul ever since the GOP establishment ditched her for Perry? I don't think she will be lasting another 6 months.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It was funny at first but now its just painful to watch...

Oh my GOD

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I was banned for 3 days I forgot I wanted to reply to this.

So basically you quoted me from an earlier thread and the point I was making about the racism was different from the part you quoted from. My argument which I posted in this thread was that the racism comes from the GOP leadership who blatantly push out a black man into the spotlight when they want to deflect allegations of being the rich, white man party or for other political purposes.

How in the world is that racism?

[a completely inoffensive name]

How in the world is that racism?

How is it not? They don't actually care for Cain's policies, they are using him for the color of his skin and once he serves their purpose, they discard him by making him irrelevant. Using him for his skin color is racist.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

How is it not? They don't actually care for Cain's policies, they are using him for the color of his skin and once he serves their purpose, they discard him by making him irrelevant. Using him for his skin color is racist.

No it isn't

What does using someone for their skin color have to do with racism?

[a completely inoffensive name]

No it isn't

What does using someone for their skin color have to do with racism?

That's pretty much a racist thing to do. It is what it is. Denying or giving something undue to someone based on race alone is racist. It doesn't need to have hate involved.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

That's pretty much a racist thing to do. It is what it is. Denying or giving something undue to someone based on race alone is racist. It doesn't need to have hate involved.

That literally has nothing to do with racism. When colleges put a diverse group of people on their brochures it isn't racism either.

[a completely inoffensive name]

That literally has nothing to do with racism. When colleges put a diverse group of people on their brochures it isn't racism either.

They are not giving anybody anything undue to them by putting more minorities on a brochure. When the GOP and Fox news make Cain relevant after several months of just standing around being that guys who hates muslims, they give him votes, just because he was a black candidate they can use for their purposes.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

They are not giving anybody anything undue to them by putting more minorities on a brochure. When the GOP and Fox news make Cain relevant after several months of just standing around being that guys who hates muslims, they give him votes, just because he was a black candidate they can use for their purposes.

There's NO racism there. I can't fathom why you think there is. Something isn't racist just because someone who is a minority is wronged.

Maybe I see it now, you mean that the fact that they never had a black candidate before is the evidence that they are racist, and that the cain nomination doesn't disprove it because they are making the decision cynically or something.

[a completely inoffensive name]

There's NO racism there. I can't fathom why you think there is. Something isn't racist just because someone who is a minority is wronged.

That isn't what I am saying at all. It is racist if the minority in question is wronged solely due to his race.

When a minority cuts someone off on the highway and that guy says the black person is an ***. That isn't racism. But if he is walking down the sidewalk and a black guys bumps into him and he is angered solely because a black man touched me, that is racism.

So the situation that we are talking about is this:

If Cain was popular because he was a good candidate who happened to be black, that's fine.
But Cain is popular solely because he is black. That's the difference. It all comes down to the reasoning. Lets make Cain popular. Because he has good ideas? No. Because he a strong candidate? No. Because he is black? Yes. That is racism.

As for the second statement, that wasn't what I was saying, but I would agree with that statement as well.

[PanzerJaeger]

I was banned for 3 days I forgot I wanted to reply to this.

So basically you quoted me from an earlier thread and the point I was making about the racism was different from the part you quoted from. My argument which I posted in this thread was that the racism comes from the GOP leadership who blatantly push out a black man into the spotlight when they want to deflect allegations of being the rich, white man party or for other political purposes. My main example was Steele. Most GOP voters, like Democratic voters, will vote whoever the establishment tells them too. So when the GOP and Fox News started hyping up Cain, everyone suddenly went, "oh yeah, he is a candidate and he looks good.". I am not saying the voters are the racist ones, although like I said in the part you quoted, they are there. And no, I don't think it is the hardcore southerner's supporting Cain. Just because he has the most support in the south doesn't mean it's the hardcore ones supporting him. Fact is that despite the GOP establishment hyping up Perry since his Jesus speech, he is actually looking pretty dumb out there and has been dropping like a rock. Those people went and attached to the "new thing", Cain.

Wait, you think the GOP establishment is pushing Cain?

EDIT: Hasn't Bachmann been polling lower than Ron Paul ever since the GOP establishment ditched her for Perry? I don't think she will be lasting another 6 months.

I think we need to define the 'GOP establishment', because I don't believe they ever backed Bachmann either.

The establishment (party strategists, DC insiders, beltway pundits, etc) traditionally backs moderate, electable candidates with an eye on the general. They were holding their breath for Christie and then fell in line behind Romney after the former declined to run.

The people who are bouncing between the Bachmann, Perry, and Cain are the anti-establishment, Tea Party types. They believe the GOP's problem is that it doesn't run candidates that are conservative enough, and they hope to unseat the establishment 'RINOs" and replace them with more ideologically pure candidates. They're the ones that cost the GOP the senate last cycle in places like Delaware, Nevada, and Colorado.

[Ronin]

It was funny at first but now its just painful to watch...

ibogaine is one hell of a drug....or so I hear.

[Vladimir]

That's pretty much a racist thing to do. It is what it is. Denying or giving something undue to someone based on race alone is racist. It doesn't need to have hate involved.

Wow. Examine your argument. Consider what party advocates that the most.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

As for the second statement, that wasn't what I was saying, but I would agree with that statement as well.

I think the only reason you're convinced of the other stuff you are saying is because of that...making a cynical advertising move is not racism and never will be.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Oh my GOD

I take this back. It's disgusting that someone like that can even get on that stage.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Wow. Examine your argument. Consider what party advocates that the most.

I know what you are getting at and I agree with you. Problem?

[Major Robert Dump]

The gaffe about the agency Perry made on stage was no worse than the horde of flubs by Bush, and he was elected. Twice. I think Perry will be the next president, unless we are someohow suggesting we Learned a Lesson last time, which will immediately be forgotten when the next offspring of a politically connected family runs.

[Ronin]

I take this back. It's disgusting that someone like that can even get on that stage.

makes you wonder if the idea proposed in this video might be true:

*warning - mild offensive language used in a comedic setting - expect a couple of F bombs.

"We can go dumber".

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Wow...Cain and Perry are such jokes, how are they on stage?


Also I felt like Romney didn't really know what he was talking about with the china currency manipulation stuff.

[Nowake]

You gang will "love" this one:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Q: So you agree with president Obama on Libya or not?

Cain: Okay, Libya...
President Obama supported the uprising, correct?
President Obama called for the removal of Gaddafi. Just wanted to make sure we're talking about the same thing before I say, "Yes, I agreed. No, I didn't agree"...
I do not agree with the way he handled it for the following reason:
No, that's a different one.
I got to go back... See... uh... I got all this stuff twirling around in my head.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

He was far worse in the debate, that interview isn't as revealing because it's such a dumb format for a question.

He really doesn't give any foreign policy except "I'll get all the information from a bunch of smart people and I'll compile it and then I'll decide what to do".

[Nowake]

But I was not trying to “top” that, this is merely the latest funny event in the Republican campaign

Personally, I find astonishing his inability to lie his way out of it and being rendered as speechless as a seven year old. No eloquence, no fast thinking from his part. Don’t get me wrong, over here we have much worse politicians; as human beings; amoral, vapid, callous. But almost to the last one they’re able to talk a Scotsman out of a penny as the Brits say. It’s the only requirement to run for elected office nowadays. But it is the one you can’t do without. You can get by without an educated opinion, but not without naturally faking it, if you allow me the oxymoron. This chap is just slow.

[Cecil XIX]

(emphasis mine)

Personally, I find astonishing his inability to lie his way out of it and being rendered as speechless as a seven year old. No eloquence, no fast thinking from his part. Don’t get me wrong, over here we have much worse politicians; as human beings; amoral, vapid, callous. But almost to the last one they’re able to talk a Scotsman out of a penny as the Brits say. It’s the only requirement to run for elected office nowadays. But it is the one you can’t do without. You can get by without an educated opinion, but not without naturally faking it, if you allow me the oxymoron. This chap is just slow.

This is actually an essential part of Herman Cain's success, and maybe the defining element of his campaign. I'd wager it's not so much his ability as his inclination; he simply doesn't want to dissimulate the way other politicians do. And what's wrong with that? Why should it be a requirement for politicians to be able to dissimulate their way out of nasty questions from the press?

That video is a case study in the exact opposite sort of attitude. It's easy to say that no one would pretend to be like that, but it goes further: Cain's not even bothered by his slow start-up. And it is the start-up, after the 1:15 mark he's fine and zeroes in on the key problem with Libya: the nature of the Libyan rebels we helped install. While I certainly would have preferred it without those long pauses in the beginning, I don't find this particularly troubling because once he gets rolling he gives what I'd say is a very good answer.

[Nowake]

This is actually an essential part of Herman Cain's success, and maybe the defining element of his campaign.
Why should it be a requirement for politicians to be able to dissimulate their way out of nasty questions from the press?

I get where you’re coming from. I think honesty can be seductive; in politics, you can always count upon it as the element of surprise. But I begin my train of thought from the premise that, when confronted with non-republican debaters (namely Obama) his lack of genuine concern and his pursuit of political power will show throughout, especially since his talking points coincide too much with the ones of too easily vilified pressure groups. Or at least, that is the way it will be framed and it is comfortably doable. Thus is there much hope for this strategy to pan out in the long term? It would be better to display constant intellectual confidence and wit; the current campaign lacks the display of statesmanship from the more visible candidates after all.

As to his eventual comment on Libya, hmm, I disagree. He asserts that he does not agree with Obama insofar he would have made sure he evaluated the Libyan opposition very carefully, and then ends up by saying he doesn’t actually know the depth of the governments’ analysis on the matter. To translate, “He is my opponent so I’ll say he mishandled it at least partially, but I don’t really know what I’m talking about.” Doesn't come through at all.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

[Cain] defended his view that presidents and presidential candidates don't need to be immersed in the fine print of world affairs - they simply need to be leaders who can surround themselves with the right people and sift through their advice.
"I'm not supposed to know anything about foreign policy. Just thought I'd throw that out," he said, a dig at his critics.

[Ronin]

American Republican political moves are such a fun micro cosmos nowadays.....is there anywhere else where ignorance could be played as a campaign card?

P.S. - just remembered an example on the Democrats side: Kerry's campaign and it's downplay of his wife's international knowledge..like it was the mark of the beast or something.

[Cecil XIX]

The more coverage I've heard of this so-called Libya gaffe the more ridiculous it seems. I've listened to that clip again a few times, even watched the full interview, and I think he did a fine job. I have no problem with him pausing to put his thoughts in order, nor do I think it's a display of ignorance to confirm basic facts as a way to fill in the silence while you're thinking. And when he got rolling, he zeroed in on the important aspects of the quest. But that's just my opinion.

If you were look at the media, both 'mainstream' and 'conservative,' you'd think that the opposite opinion is simply a matter of fact, as if it had been confirmed by some higher authority that Herman Cain made a gaffe. But in the end that's their opinion as well, and I wish they'd recognize it. If there's one thing I've learned from this is that conservative media is capable of using the same dirty tricks as the MSM.

I get where you’re coming from. I think honesty can be seductive; in politics, you can always count upon it as the element of surprise. But I begin my train of thought from the premise that, when confronted with non-republican debaters (namely Obama) his lack of genuine concern and his pursuit of political power will show throughout, especially since his talking points coincide too much with the ones of too easily vilified pressure groups. Or at least, that is the way it will be framed and it is comfortably doable. Thus is there much hope for this strategy to pan out in the long term? It would be better to display constant intellectual confidence and wit; the current campaign lacks the display of statesmanship from the more visible candidates after all.

As to his eventual comment on Libya, hmm, I disagree. He asserts that he does not agree with Obama insofar he would have made sure he evaluated the Libyan opposition very carefully, and then ends up by saying he doesn’t actually know the depth of the governments’ analysis on the matter. To translate, “He is my opponent so I’ll say he mishandled it at least partially, but I don’t really know what I’m talking about.” Doesn't come through at all.

Well nobody can see into man's heart, so all we can do is disagree on whether his pursuit of political power is the same as other politicians'. At least I can say that there's no lack of intellectual confidence on his part (which seems to bother/amuse his detractors), and I don't mind saying I'm satisfied with his wit as well. In regards to his comments, I don't think anyone can know exactly what the government's analysis was unless they were "in the room" so to speak. So they're be no way for him to know the depth of the government's analysis. And given all the Al-Queda flags flying in Libya now, I'd say Cain's right on the money.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I guess this goes here...

[Lemur]

Not sure what to make of Michelle Bachmann, the comic book.