GOP Nominee 2012 - Who Will It Be?, Pt. 2

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think I agree with Jon

Jon Stewart Pat Robertson Republicans | Daily Show Video | Mediaite

The Republican Party’s rhetoric in the past year, particularly from candidates for president, has finally gotten to the extreme right– or at least to Pat Robertson, who surprisingly exclaimed this weekend that the candidates had to “stop this!” if they expected to win. After a quick recap of what “this” meant, precisely, and what extreme things Robertson deemed appropriate to say in public despite his calls for civility, Jon Stewart concluded tonight that the issue wasn’t what they believed, but letting the general public know about it.

Stewart began his segment with the latest is eyebrow-raising comments from Republican contenders, with Rick Perry dabbling in birtherism because “it’s fun” and Herman Cain‘s electric fence immigration joke– and those were just this week’s comments. Stewart noted that all the candidates were “saying crazy things” with a helpful montage, and found it amazing that Robertson, of all people, “Pat ‘Liberals Are Akin To Nazis’ Robertson believes Republicans are a bit extreme.” “It would be like Facebook saying to you, ‘TMI,’” Stewart joked.

Just as a reminder, Stewart then played several clips of Robertson’s “greatest hits”– claiming the Haitian earthquake was a result of a pact with the devil, blaming gay people for basically all the sin in the world, calling for the death of foreign leaders, the works. Which begs the question: “why is Pat Robertson, AKA ‘That Crazy Fucking Guy,’ telling Republican presidential candidates to moderate their rhetoric?” Stewart concluded it was merely a product of wanting to win elections. “You’re right,” Stewart argued Robertson was saying, “but keep that our little secret… If you tell people what we honestly believe, an electoral majority of those people will freak the fuck out.”
 
"I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer. And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that. I don’t know how much our contribution is to that, because I know that there have been periods of greater heat and warmth in the past but I believe we contribute to that. And so I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and the global warming that you’re seeing," - Mitt Romney, June 3, 2011.
Click to expand...

Well hey, that's a pretty reasonable position to take there, Mr. Romney. :up:

"My view is that we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us," - Mitt Romney, October 27.
Click to expand...

Oh.

So I guess that means he was for it before he was against it, then? :wink:
 
one way of looking at it.

do you want somebody, say Perry, that has always and most likely will always have the wrong idea and conclusions

or do you want a person that has a flexible mind, and is capable of reaching correct conclusions?

in the 90's conservatives and liberals went nuts about Bill Clinton because of his 'flexible' thinking,

but, I and most people think it was better for all of us.
 
I'm saying as far as his electibility. There's no question I'd prefer Romney, who seems relatively intelligent, over Perry, who is both an idiot and a jackass.
 
Unfortunately Romney comes attached to a party determined to continue pitting the middle class against the poor, at the benefit of the private sector that sends jobs overseas anyway. :shrug:
 
remember the whole reality show thing?

Herman Cain claims 'witch hunt,' sings gospel song [Video]

By Robin Abcarian

October 31, 2011, 12:37 p.m.
Speaking at the National Press Club in Washington on Monday, Herman Cain continued to defend himself against claims that he sexually harassed two employees while leading a trade association in the 1990s, telling the audience that he's the victim of a "witch hunt."

As he had earlier in the day on Fox News Channel, Cain admitted that he had been accused of harassment while he was the president and chief executive of the National Restaurant Assn.

Cain insisted to the lunchtime crowd that the claims were false and said he did not know whether they were settled or how much it cost to settle them.

While Cain's speech to the Washington institution had been previously scheduled, the harassment story, first reported Sunday evening by Politico, ensured that it was swarming with reporters and cameras.

As Cain spoke, NBC News reported that it had confirmed that one woman who worked at the association received a settlement after complaining about Cain's conduct.

“I would be delighted to clear the air,” he told questioner Mark Hamrick in a question and answer session that followed his standard stump speech. “In all my over 40 years of business experience. . . of running businesses and corporations, I have never sexually harassed anyone.”

But, he added, when he was accused of sexual harassment – “falsely accused, I might add….as leader of the organization, I recused myself and allowed my general counsel and human resources officer to deal with the situation.”

Following “a thorough investigation,” he said, those staffers reached the conclusion that the charges “had no basis.”

Politico reported Sunday that two women received settlements in the five figures.

“I am unaware of any settlement," Cain said Monday. "I hope it wasn’t for much because I didn’t do anything.”

Some say it strains credulity that Cain, as leader of the restaurant trade group, would not be aware of money paid to women claiming he’d harassed them; neither alleged victim has allowed herself to be identified, according to Politico.

Politico reported that the settlement agreements prohibited them from speaking publicly about their departures from the association.

The revelations about Cain’s personal conduct come at a time when Cain is riding high in the polls and is trying to persuade Republican voters that he is more than a “flavor of the week” candidate.

Following a forum on economic policy earlier Monday at the American Enterprise Institute, Cain was asked whether the GOP, which has had a series of presidential favorites this year who rise then fade, will “fall out of love with you any time soon.”

Cain replied that his support comes from “the people, not the party. The people have propelled my candidacy. The momentum is coming from the grassroots.”

He added “That’s why this flavor of the week is now the flavor of the month and it still tastes good.”

Later, Cain gave reporters at the National Press Club a taste of how he charms crowds on the campaign trail. When Hamrick asked if he would consider ending with a song, Cain complied, singing a verse of a favorite gospel song “He Looked Beyond My Faults.”

Herman Cain claims 'witch hunt,' sings gospel song [Video] - latimes.com
Click to expand...



remember, this is the Republican front runner. again: front runner.

it's like GOP Apprentice.
 
The only fight is for undecided voters, and Eventual Candidate Elect Rommney will do an okay job at wooing some of them.

Democratic voters will always vote Democrat, even if their candidate is a wet shoe.

Republican voters will always vote Republican, even if their candidate is a box of rocks.
 
so, Mitt's got this thing, right?

i mean, honestly, he's the only candidate who hasn't completely embarrassed himself, especially after Perry's drunk-in-New-Hampshire speech last Friday.

but, anyway, i say good. it's obvious that Cain and Perry (and Bachman and the rest ... excepting Huntsman) are utterly unprepared to be president in ways that rival even Sarah Palin (at least she was governor of a state for a little while and, arguably, could out-debate Perry). i'm glad that they won't be anywhere near the nuclear codes.
 
If you want to keep Obama in, you should probably hope Cain remains the front runner until the election. I wonder who his Abel will be. :hmm:
 
from an interview with Cain in the Israeli paper Israel Hayom over the weekend:
IH: What is your position on the Obama administration's Middle East policy?

Cain: ...I think that the so-called Palestinian people have this urge for unilateral recognition because they see this president as weak. I haven’t seen all the facts but I think this whole assassination attempt [i.e. by Iran against the Saudi ambassador, allegedly] was another example of seeing this president as weak, in that regard. ...
Click to expand...
IH: Would you transfer your embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem?

Cain: I would.
Click to expand...
IH: What do you think of the Obama administration's handling of Iran and what would you do differently, if anything?

Cain: I don’t know if this is going to translate well in your language: Choke. Choke them economically. Here’s what I mean by that and I know that that’s not politically correct to say but here’s the idea: It costs them $70 a barrel to break even on their oil. It costs Saudi Arabia $30. ...

Second thing that we would do is that I would invest in our fleet of aegis-ballistic missile defense systems. We have the biggest fleet with that capability in the world. We need to upgrade it such that the ballistic-missile defense systems' sea base would have the ability to detect threats for a longer period of time; strategically place some of those ships in that part of the world then let the Iranians know that we have that capability stationed there and let them know that if they wanted to attack our friends, attack Israel or the United States, that we won’t hesitate to retaliate.
Click to expand...

IH: Do you think this president represents American values?

Cain: I do not believe he represents American values. One of our American values is: America is an exceptional country. He appears to want to try and apologize for that. Americans hate that. They hate that. It’s not that Americans feel arrogant but the opportunities that people have in this country, the standard of living that people have in this country, is exceptional. Our military capability, it’s exceptional. It’s weaker now, but it’s exceptional. That’s a huge American value. That same attitude is what started this country. And it appears as if he is trying to diminish and mitigate that. So from that standpoint he doesn’t represent American values. There’s another American value he doesn't represent. He’s a distributionist. Most of the people in this country believe in the free market system. ...
Click to expand...
IH: Who would you feel most comfortable going with to the White House as your number two?

Cain: Newt Gingrich. Despite some of the baggage that he has, he's the most knowledgeable, the sharpest, and respected by all. ...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Even some of the extreme right is falling out of love with Cain, Laura Ingram is going through a detailed analysis of his lack of foreign policy understanding. Although I don't really think it will matter to the base.
 
He does in general seem to come across as a readily likeable and socially appealing guy on a personal level (in something like the way Huckabee did), and the particular type of 'folksiness' he has reads natural and unaffected to me. But that's about the end of what I could find to say nice about him as a presidential candidate.
 
I don't suppose you guys have heard the PBS interview where he appears unaware that China has had nuclear weapons for 40 odd years and that we have to be wary of them because they aim to develop their nuclear capability?
 
LJT said:
I don't suppose you guys have heard the PBS interview where he appears unaware that China has had nuclear weapons for 40 odd years and that we have to be wary to them because they aim to develop their nuclear capability?
Click to expand...

I did, this is what's scary about him. I don't want this clown having the nuclear codes.

He's also itching to go to war with Iran, you know it's bad when O'Reiley has to call you out on this.
 
I assumed that was likely a matter of Cain simply using the wrong verb, saying "developing" when he meant expanding. In the past he's publically referred to China's "build up" of nuclear technology, which would be a strange detail for any politician who once knew it to have forgotten.
 
yolland said:
I assumed that was likely a matter of Cain simply using the wrong verb, saying "developing" when he meant expanding. In the past he's publically referred to China's "build up" of nuclear technology, which would be a strange detail for any politician who once knew it to have forgotten.
Click to expand...

I agree. And then there's this, a lot of which is mentioned in Cain's book:

Cain on China: “They’re trying to develop nuclear capability”; Update: Cain getting a bad rap? � Hot Air

Herman Cain spent the Vietnam war evaluating the capabilities of the Chinese to deliver a nuclear weapon onto the heads of our forces in South Vietnam.

He examined the test launches of the Dongfeng 1 (SS-1) and plotted out the trajectories for a 500kg warheads.

When China started testing the Dongfeng 2 (CSS-1) Cain plotted out the trajectories and capabilities of it’s delivery of 15 kiloton nuclear weapons.

Both of these missiles were provided to the PRC by the Soviets, Cain analysed data from the Russian test launches and determined the risk to U.S. troops in SE Asia.

Cain also observed the development of China’s first domestically produced missile, Dongfeng 3 (CSS-2) and plotted out it’s use with China’s 15-20KT fissile devices as well as China’s new thermonuclear devices.

Finally, Cain was involved in the determination that China’s Dongfeng 4 (CSS-3) was capable of delivering both fissile and thermonuclear devices to both Moscow and Guam as well as cover the entire deployment of U.S. forces in SE Asia.

Cain is well aware of China’s nuclear missile capability, the only reasonable conclusion is that Cain was indeed referring to China’s attempts to develop and sail their first nuclear aircraft carrier and their attempts to develop more dangerous nuclear cruisers.


I'm not necessarily sticking up for him, as I certainly think he is not currently demonstrating the necessary foreign policy chops, but this story may end up being nothing. :shrug:
 
I guess it's just one of those things where his past of relatively poor articulation and apparent lack of interest in foreign affairs made it easier to read in a certain light.
 
I don't understand how anyone who is a card-carrying member of the GOP could consider anyone but Mitt Romney to be a serious candidate for the presidency.

Truly baffling.
 
I can`t see the GOP establishment anointing anyone other than Mittens.

The lead up to the convention is going to be really fun to watch if Cain does well in the straw polls despite his initial intentions of this run just being a glorified book tour.
 
Cain has played the race card, stating that he thinks the attacks on his character are racially motivated (video currently featured in the National Review Online).
 
And the general consensus is that these attacks are coming from his fellow candidates...he wouldn't then be suggesting they are racist folk?
 
It'll be interesting to watch the next few days, that's for sure. On Saturday, Cain and Gingrich are having a one-on-one debate somewhere. I don't think it'll be broadcast on tv, but I'm sure there will be clips of it, and Cain is likely to be destroyed by Newt policy-wise. Then there's another debate on Wednesday, this one all about foreign policy, which is not his strong suit. We may be seeing the peak of his polling, regardless of whether these allegations are true or phony.
 
2861U2 said:
We may be seeing the peak of his polling, regardless of whether these allegations are true or phony.
Click to expand...

You phrase this as if it's some fresh scandal thrust upon Herman Cain. These allegations were made in the 1990s. After review, the NRA didn't find the allegations without merit, or rather, didn't find the prospect of defending Herman Cain to be a worthwhile endeavor, and settled with both accusers for not inconsequential sums (at least a year's severance pay in one of the cases has been reported).

And frankly, Herman Cain playing the race card is absolutely ridiculous. He said, when set up with the "Do you think this is racially motivated" softball by Krauthammer, "I think the answer to that is yes, but we do not have any evidence to support that." Which brings up a couple questions in my mind:

1)What was racially motivated, the initial allegations or the resurfacing of those allegations? Both?

2)In one case the allegations were damaging enough (and apparently had enough evidence) to cause the organization you headed to settle with the accusers. You've just admitted you have no evidence to support your allegation. Do you honestly think race is the issue? Or do you perhaps think that it's simply people doing their homework on the frontrunner? Why don't you ask John Kerry, John McCain, George W Bush and Barack Obama about that? If you're the frontrunner, prepare to have some dirt dug up about you. And while you at least you had the decency to admit there was no evidence, trying to dismiss this as racially motivated is cowardly just the same.
 
2861U2 said:
It'll be interesting to watch the next few days, that's for sure. On Saturday, Cain and Gingrich are having a one-on-one debate somewhere. I don't think it'll be broadcast on tv, but I'm sure there will be clips of it, and Cain is likely to be destroyed by Newt policy-wise. Then there's another debate on Wednesday, this one all about foreign policy, which is not his strong suit. We may be seeing the peak of his polling, regardless of whether these allegations are true or phony.
Click to expand...
Gingrich is capable of very complex, intellectual arguments (something GOP frontrunners are not usually adept at), but he has a real problem with getting through to ''normal'' people or framing his ideas to sound reasonable and fairly simple.

Kind of sounds like the guy in the White House.
 
Diemen said:
You phrase this as if it's some fresh scandal thrust upon Herman Cain. These allegations were made in the 1990s. After review, the NRA didn't find the allegations without merit, or rather, didn't find the prospect of defending Herman Cain to be a worthwhile endeavor, and settled with both accusers for not inconsequential sums (at least a year's severance pay in one of the cases has been reported).

And frankly, Herman Cain playing the race card is absolutely ridiculous. He said, when set up with the "Do you think this is racially motivated" softball by Krauthammer, "I think the answer to that is yes, but we do not have any evidence to support that." Which brings up a couple questions in my mind:

1)What was racially motivated, the initial allegations or the resurfacing of those allegations? Both?

2)In one case the allegations were damaging enough (and apparently had enough evidence) to cause the organization you headed to settle with the accusers. You've just admitted you have no evidence to support your allegation. Do you honestly think race is the issue? Or do you perhaps think that it's simply people doing their homework on the frontrunner? Why don't you ask John Kerry, John McCain, George W Bush and Barack Obama about that? If you're the frontrunner, prepare to have some dirt dug up about you. And while you at least you had the decency to admit there was no evidence, trying to dismiss this as racially motivated is cowardly just the same.
Click to expand...


But you have to know that just because there was a settlement doesn't mean anything happened. I've heard of companies shelling out six-figures to quash a totally bogus claim just so they wouldn't have to deal with it. I don't think the amount of money is any indication of the claim's validity. I'm also very skeptical of this supposed witness. Unless it was something incredibly, incredibly obscene, who on earth would remember an (essentially) innocent hand gesture or comment someone made 15 years ago? I certainly wouldn't.

As far as digging up dirt, are you referring to the media or the person's primary opponents? If it's the latter, I agree- it's fair game. If you're referring to the media, there's clearly a double standard. The media did not do its due diligence in examining Obama's record and weaknesses in 2008, and said next to nothing of the John Edwards scandal until long after he was out of the race, among other examples. I'd say it's less a racial bias then a pure ideological bias.

If some of these allegations are true- particularly that a woman spent the night with him in bed- then he's doomed. But I'm still very doubtful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MrsSpringsteen
Gilead States Of America
Replies
16
Views
875
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
Janet H
  • Sticky
Forum Update - We're back! Ask your questions here.
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Popmartijn
Popmartijn
N
NBA 2023-24 Thread
10 11 12
Replies
333
Views
10K
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
prbiker15
U2:UV Boxscore Discussion
Replies
20
Views
1K
DeVaul
DeVaul
cobl04
Kiss the Future documentary
Replies
11
Views
3K
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom