Herman Cain for President?

Cain sounds like he would appeal to a hardcore Republican base but not to a larger audience. As a Democrat I'd be much more compelled to cross party lines for Romney than for Cain.
 
Travis said:
Cain sounds like he would appeal to a hardcore Republican base but not to a larger audience. As a Democrat I'd be much more compelled to cross party lines for Romney than for Cain.
Click to expand...
I think the midterm elections demonstrate that center/left leaning candidates are not what the public is looking for.
 
Neally said:
I think the midterm elections demonstrate that center/left leaning candidates are not what the public is looking for.
Click to expand...
You have a point, but one that generates nightmares for good Progs who cannot instantly repress the thought, and even then it returns in nightmares.

Give just a hint, some shred of truth, on which some big lies can be built, the useful idiots are of the left are waiting. Can't we make Cain a Teabagger wacko, and cast as sane and responsible, as tried and true, the One who said no taxes raised any making < 250k, the Obama?

......

;)
 
mhaze said:
How soon may we know, High Priest of the Progs?

We eagerly again Words to Repeat, and read Daily Kos and Media Matters hoping they will be there soon. Our small minds are blank slates hungry for more hate. We pray that you soon will tell us, O Wise Ones.
Click to expand...

I don't want to engage in a Tu quoque falacy. I just want to get a better understanding of your perspective. Do you think that the folks on the right eagerly wait for Mr. Limbaugh, Miss Coulter, and Fox News to tell them who to hate in the same way that the liberals wait for instructions on who to hate, or are the right-wing rank and file independent thinkers who carefully weigh all available evidence before reaching a political position?
 
Last edited:
Distracted1 said:
Another Republican with his own copy of the "Constitution", who doesen't seem to realise that it is'nt the "Declaration of Independance".
Click to expand...

I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that. You'd think that someone lecturing others to read the constitution might want to first familiarize himself with the document.
 
Apparently Cain also had a Palin moment where he didn't know what "right of return" meant in relation to Palestine and said he wouldn't give the Palestinians "anything" in any peace deal...except for the right of return.

Chris Wallace had to walk him through the definition (again, like Palin and the Bush Doctrine) but he still didn't get it and said he didn't think Israel would have a problem with it.

Can I haz better Teabaggers, plz?

ETA: Link- http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/22/herman-cain-right-of-return/
 
Last edited:
Herman Cain is probably a very nice guy. And I'm sure he's competent at what he does, which is running a chain of pizza restaurants. I don't think he's ready for prime time as a presidential candidate.

Herman Cain refuses to say anything about national security, even in generalities, until after he's elected. That won't work. Voters are going to want to know at least a little about his approach. "I'll listen to the experts" (that's what he said in the debate) tells us nothing, unless he says which experts he'll listen to.

Then there's the gold standard (which he favors). This isn't just a bad idea, it isn't even a realistic idea.
A real gold standard means you have to covert dollars into gold at a fixed rate.
If they fixed it at $1500/oz, all the gold in Ft. Knox could be bought up in a day.
The only way to prevent this is to jack up interest rates and throw the economy into a depression. And even that might not do the trick, because some people might say I don't care how much interest you pay, I want gold. And you have to pay, otherwise it's not a real gold standard.

There's a reason why not a single country in the world has a gold standard anymore.
 
applecorped said:
GOP Alvin Greene?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go that far. Alvin Greene was an unemployed guy who was actually facing criminal allegations. Cain is the CEO of a fairly large company. But he's not ready for a serious presidential run. He could be credible running for the House or some state level office, but not president.
 
applecorped said:
http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/05/21/herman-cain-announces-presidential-bid/

"Former pizza CEO and conservative radio host Herman Cain made it official Saturday, joining the small but growing roster of candidates seeking the Republican presidential nomination.
Cain, 65, who lives in suburban Atlanta, made his announcement at Atlanta’s Centennial Park, urging Americans frustrated by the country’s direction to read the Constitution.

“Keep reading,” he said. “Don’t stop at life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.” He vowed the GOP will retake the U.S. Senate and the presidency, just as it regained control of the House in 2010.
“We will take them back because you and I do not want this nation to become just another mediocre nation,” Cain said. He said the nation needs to refocus on free-market principles. Cain, a favorite among many tea party activists, boasts a long business resume but has never held elective office."










Would this diffuse the Race issue by having a Black candidate run against Obama?
Click to expand...

Well, if you're reading the Constitution and you come to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", you should stop, because you're not reading the Constitution, you're reading the Declaration of Independence.

The only conclusion I can reasonably draw is that Mr. Cain has not actually read the Constitution.
 
CORed said:
Well, if you're reading the Constitution and you come to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", you should stop, because you're not reading the Constitution, you're reading the Declaration of Independence.

The only conclusion I can reasonably draw is that Mr. Cain has not actually read the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Except that (as is common) to support the conclusion that creates the propaganda value you want, you have to misread the original facts. Others who want to get on your bandwagon will perhaps help you and support the lie.

After a while, some people might believe it.

But to me, it looks more like you just making a dumb mistake. So now you can go back and argue that the grammar, syntax and style of the statements by Cain support your argument, and then I can step you through them and show you where they don't.

You'll likely argue that the newspaper article is sufficient to prove your point (it doesn't so that's a dismal fail) and I'll argue that you need a transcript or video of the speech.

But for effective propaganda it's likely adequate, because whether the argument is true or not doesn't matter. It's just a matter of repeating the lie that matters.
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
Except that (as is common) to support the conclusion that creates the propaganda value you want, you have to misread the original facts. Others who want to get on your bandwagon will perhaps help you and support the lie.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute. Did you just suggest that the blithering idiot did not say what we have been quoting him as having said?

Oh my!
 
leftysergeant said:
Wait a minute. Did you just suggest that the blithering idiot did not say what we have been quoting him as having said?

Oh my!
Click to expand...
No, I didn't suggest it. I just stated it. Then I said that the lie could be useful as a basis for propaganda in your cause, and suggested a lot of repetition as a useful technique.

Just being helpful as usual.

:D
 
mhaze said:
Just being helpful as usual.
Click to expand...

No, you aren't. I have come across about ten newspaper web sites that quote him saying exactly the same thing. If you were being helpful, you would show us what he actually said or who planted the supposed lie to the effect that he said it. As far as I can see, that idiot did say it.
 
Puppycow said:
I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that. You'd think that someone lecturing others to read the constitution might want to first familiarize himself with the document.
Click to expand...

He was probably using Bachmann's notes on the Constitution.
 
mhaze said:
Except that (as is common) to support the conclusion that creates the propaganda value you want, you have to misread the original facts. Others who want to get on your bandwagon will perhaps help you and support the lie.

After a while, some people might believe it.

But to me, it looks more like you just making a dumb mistake. So now you can go back and argue that the grammar, syntax and style of the statements by Cain support your argument, and then I can step you through them and show you where they don't.

You'll likely argue that the newspaper article is sufficient to prove your point (it doesn't so that's a dismal fail) and I'll argue that you need a transcript or video of the speech.

But for effective propaganda it's likely adequate, because whether the argument is true or not doesn't matter. It's just a matter of repeating the lie that matters.
Click to expand...
Is this the kind of video evidence you require to prove ignorance of the Constitution, Mhaze?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcGqz49Qt9A
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom