Oh, Here Are Two Possible Reasons Herman Cain Might Have Had A Good Night

My first guess was the black thing, which is dismissive and condescending and I shouldn't have written it. It was me adding my own Narrative -- I didn't understand what Cain had said that was so terrific that a focus group thought he'd scored a decisive win, so I made up some stupid, easy, glib explanation for it, based on race.

Just like the media does. The Narrative, it's addictive. Because it's easy. It's easy and glib and you can explain the hard-to-explain with a single dumb sentence. It may be dumb, but at least it's short.

But now that I reflect, he did stand out in two key areas.

First of all, he supports the Flat Tax. This was one of the issues Huckabee seized on in 2008 to stand out from the crowd, and apparently it helped.

Are Republicans really ga-ga for the Flat Tax? I don't know. Certainly they're interested. And certainly they don't like the IRS.

Correction: Cain supports the Fair Tax, not the Flat Tax.

But my point about Huckabee still stands, because I also got that wrong -- Huckabee also supported the Fair Tax, not the Flat Tax.

This is the genius of me: I make so many errors and mistakes that they support each other in a logical, consistent framework in which, in their combined double-negative wrongness, they wind up being sort of right.

Thanks to Jane D'oh for pointing that out.

...

The other possibility is his answer about Afghanistan, which some are taking as a flub. But maybe people reacted more strongly to it than the pundits imagine.

[I]t was Cain's answer on a straightforward if not simple question -- what would you have the United States do in Afghanistan? -- that created the most head-scratching moment of the night.

It started when moderator Bret Baier asked Cain about a statement Cain made in an interview in January in which Cain said that as president he would rely heavily on whatever his generals and the experts told him should be done in the war. "You're running for president," Baier said to Cain. "After almost ten years in Afghanistan, you don't have your own plan yet about what you would do in Afghanistan?"

"No," Cain answered. 'Because it's not clear what the mission is. That's the bigger problem. It's not clear what the mission is…"

Baier followed up: "How would you define winning in Afghanistan right now, as you're looking at it as a candidate?"

"My point is," Cain explained, "the experts and their advice and their input would be the basis for me making that decision. I'm not privy to a lot of confidential information."

It was an unusual way of approaching the question, to say the least. Was Cain saying that he couldn't answer any questions about foreign policy, because he didn't have the kind of classified information that only presidents have? When Cain met with reporters after the debate, he explained that he approached Afghanistan like he would a business decision. "A good businessman does not make a decision without considering all of the facts," he said. "I haven't been privy to all of the confidential information to make that decision."

But if Cain could only formulate a policy position after receiving presidential-level briefings -- did that mean he might never have a position as a candidate on Afghanistan? "That's probably the case," Cain said. Perhaps sensing that might be a problem down the road, he then explained that he might be able to put together "some sort of strategic approach" from publicly-available information. "What I'm saying is I will not be pushed into spitting out a plan so people can say, this is his plan."

Did he flub it? Or did he flub it like a fox?

Here is my best guess for the overall sentiment about the War in Afghanistan among conservatives: We, as a group, are conflicted.

First, we bought into Bush's Liberty Agenda and are perhaps not ready to fully repudiate that as a fool's errand.

Second, we are pro-military generally and do not wish to undercut the troops in the field.

Third, we are pro-Victory generally and are loathe to "cut and run," as we call it, at least when it's proposed by a liberal who seems to have the Leftist interest, rather than the National interest, at heart.

But for all that, I think conservatives are conflicted, and are moving closer to Ann Coulter's position -- that Afghanistan, unlike Iraq, is unreformable and unimprovable, and our we should not be risking our troops for an impossible goal like creating a decent Afghanistan. Perhaps a decent Afghanistan is strictly impossible; maybe it's possible, but at such a high cost as to preclude any eagerness to pay it.

And so, perhaps, Cain's answer, noncommittal, vague, conflicted, and weak, actually strikes many conservatives as hitting the right tone.

It is my belief that there is a large part of the party that wants to be convinced to abandon Afghanistan. They are not convinced now, but conflicted, and want to be convinced one way or the other; and they probably would rather be convinced to let Afghanistan go its own tragic, bloody, rape-filled way.

Four years ago a candidate expressing anything less than unshakable, Bush-like resolve on Afghanistan would not have had much of a chance to gain traction in the party. But this is four years later, and it's my hunch that when the conservative movement committed to the Long War in Afghanistan, "long war" meant "Not much more than ten years. That's plenty long."

So it could be that Cain, by failing to commit to a Victory/Bush-like strategy in Afghanistan, actually hit more possible voters in terms of actual sentiment.


Posted by: Ace at 11:24 AM



Comments

1 I didn't see the debate, so I'll take a swing as someone hearing (reading) this third-hand:

I think it struck a chord because we're tired of politicians pretending to be Omniscient. I know for me, when I ask you a question and you don't know the answer, I'd prefer an honest "I don't know, I don't have enough information" to some bloviation that you'll probably have to walk back later.

Herman Cain seems to appeal as "one of us." The quintessential outsider who has not really been involved in politics, and who really comes from (or seems to) fairly modest roots.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at May 06, 2011 11:29 AM (8y9MW)

2 Ace, you are usually are more insightful. Folks are responding to the direct and human way Cain communicates. This is why folks love Sarah.

Folks are sick of the baloney and the condescending blather from most politicians. They are sick of the pandering to the lowest common denominator, and they are sick of being treated like children.

Cain (and Sarah) evince genuine honesty and integrity, something not within the realm of understanding for most politicians.

Posted by: Tonawanda at May 06, 2011 11:30 AM (bN5ZU)

3 When the facts change, I change my mind. Or in this case, only after I know the facts can I make a decision.

And when it comes to Afghanistan, it is becoming clear that Islam is the problem. Lots and lots of primitive, uneducated people, armed with weapons they could never manufacture themselves, motivated by a murderous and regressive religion.

You can't fix stupid, and you can't fix totally fucked up, either.

Posted by: Jack at May 06, 2011 11:32 AM (kCT7A)

4 Hermain Cain agrees with Mitt Romney that we should not release the Bin Laden photos. When he was asked whether his lack of experience should worry voters, he paraphrased Sarah Palin and asked, "How's that working out for ya?" I am beginning to see his appeal. NOT.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 06, 2011 11:32 AM (mHQ7T)

5 One quibble, he supported the Fair Tax, not the flat tax.

Posted by: Andy at May 06, 2011 11:33 AM (5Rurq)

6 Amity Shlaes should be in Congress if Herman Cain is in.... http://catchthedogs.com/?p=941

Posted by: Rob Birch at May 06, 2011 11:33 AM (dYwLI)

7 I thought Huckabee wanted a "Fair tax" which was some kind of national sales tax, not a flat tax which is the same tax rate for everybody and the elimination of deductions.

Posted by: Bill at May 06, 2011 11:33 AM (+Uv5V)

8 Herman Cain > Fuckabee

in a heartbeat

Posted by: logprof at May 06, 2011 11:34 AM (jN/Z/)

9 It is my belief that there is a large part of the party that wants to be convinced to abandon Afghanistan.
They are not convinced now, but conflicted, and want to be convinced
one way or the other; and they probably would rather be convinced to let
Afghanistan go its own tragic, bloody, rape-filled way.
That's me in a nutshell. I don't want Al-Queda to be able to use it for a base, but I also don't think we owe the squatting savages a democratic state. We should have just turned it over to the Northern Alliance and let them sort it out.

Posted by: toby928™ at May 06, 2011 11:34 AM (GTbGH)

10 Perhaps, Cain's answer -- noncommittal, vague, conflicted and weak -- actually strikes many conservatives as hitting the right tone.

He's our Obama!

Posted by: Cain Supporters at May 06, 2011 11:35 AM (mHQ7T)

11 It maybe good politics to pass on Afghanistan but it comes with a downside. If you're a novice candidate with no foreign policy experience, taking a pass on a nearly 10 year old war is pretty weak tea.


Posted by: DrewM. at May 06, 2011 11:35 AM (WNzUA)

12 Cain supports the Fair Tax, not Flat Tax.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at May 06, 2011 11:35 AM (UOM48)

13 OT: So there was a terror attack on trains being considered by al qaeda. This information was found at the Osama death site. So not only does waterboarding and intense interrogations help us gather this kind of information that saves innocent lives, but blowing a fuckers brains out and going through his shit also does.

Who knew?

Carry on.

Posted by: Dang at May 06, 2011 11:35 AM (TXKVh)

14 If we were going to remake the country, we would have to do as Ann Coulter suggested and got scorned for: kill the leaders and send in the Christian missionaries, but to have allowed them to adopt Sharia law, instead of forcing a secular state, we lost. So, if we are not going to remake the country, then we should leave. We'll be back, no doubt, because those states only end up one way.

Posted by: Robin at May 06, 2011 11:35 AM (VY112)

15 ...and they probably would rather be convinced to let Afghanistan go its own tragic, bloody, rape-filled way.
This. Cain may be onto something in describing the fuzziness of the mission. Especially the ROE that prevents us from taking out bad guys. The muzzies are laughing at us and our stupid (and false)sense of superiority that allows them to gain a tactical advantage. Being morally superior on the battlefieldjust to satisfy the painfully disconnected ruling elite class is getting too manyAmericans soldiers killed.
I'm old enough to remember when we fought wars to win against an enemy, not to "win their hearts and minds." What utter bullshit. That's no way to fight a war unless you're Mother Theresa.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at May 06, 2011 11:35 AM (d0Tfm)

16 CAIN!!!

Posted by: The caucasian guilt chip on the shoulder at May 06, 2011 11:37 AM (EL+OC)

17 11
It maybe good politics to pass on Afghanistan but it comes with a
downside. If you're a novice candidate with no foreign policy
experience, taking a pass on a nearly 10 year old war is pretty weak
tea.

I disagree.

Posted by: General Barry McJugears at May 06, 2011 11:38 AM (UOM48)

18 If Republicans want a sacrificial lamb for 2012 that will prove once and for all to Democrats that the reasons they oppose Obama are not motivated by racial animus, they could not lose more honorably than with Herman Cain.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 06, 2011 11:38 AM (mHQ7T)

19 Is Cain for the flat tax or the fair tax? I didn't see the debate last night.

The "fair tax" is a national retail sales tax. That is a political boondoggle and isn't going anywhere.

The "flat tax" is difficult politically, but is doable. Or, at least, we can compromise and get close.

Posted by: AmishDude at May 06, 2011 11:39 AM (73tyQ)

20 Posted by: General Barry McJugears at May 06, 2011 11:38 AM (UOM4

Which is exactly the point.

It seems a lot of conservatives and Republicans seem to think, "Hey, the Democrats got to elect an inexperienced cipher who made them feel good and now it's our turn!"

If only there were some proof that it was a bad idea before and likely would be again.

Oh wait there is...The entire fucking Obama administration.

Posted by: DrewM. at May 06, 2011 11:40 AM (WNzUA)

21 Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 06, 2011 11:38 AM (mHQ7T)

And there is a much more impressive, equally articulate, and probably as clean and neat black politician whose foreign policy bona fides are excellent.

Ryan/West 2012

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at May 06, 2011 11:41 AM (LH6ir)

22 Jane D'oh, see the correction.

Yeah it seems to be the Fair Tax.

Posted by: ace at May 06, 2011 11:41 AM (nj1bB)

23 Herman Cain > Fuckabee

This is the advantage in not having a record. I expect Cain will drop out quickly, though, since it's now plain to see he has no idea how to speak to voters, only FOX news diehards.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 06, 2011 11:41 AM (mHQ7T)

24 Believe me, most folks are NOT giving priority to Afghanistan. No one is saying, "Yeah, I like him now because he reflects my own concerns about Afghanistan."

Among conservatives and other average, normal folks, there is a widespread perception that America's politics has become thoroughly corrupt, and thus out of reach for honest people. They believe the corruption is destroying our prosperity and out culture.

In a sense, honesty and integrity are the "ideology" of conservatives, and that is what folks are looking for.

Posted by: Tonawanda at May 06, 2011 11:41 AM (bN5ZU)

25 oh and thanks for the correction, Jane.

Posted by: ace at May 06, 2011 11:41 AM (nj1bB)

26 @ 2: Folks are responding to the direct and human way Cain communicates. This is why folks love Sarah.


This trait also has the tendency to devolve into populism, which in my view is a huge negative. But alas, many people react to it positively -- it provides for them a visceral "rally-'round-the-REAL-folks" warm-fuzzy.

Posted by: Fartnoise at May 06, 2011 11:41 AM (bCxgV)

27 Compare and contrast:
JEF 2008: "I would do something different than just bombing villages and stuff".
Cain 2011:
"My point is," Cain explained, "the experts and their advice and their input would be the basis for me making that decision. I'm not privy to a lot of confidential information."

There's your campaign commercial. Follow up noting the US/Allied casualties that were suffered before Mr. Nobel Prize winnrer finally bothered to meet with his commander.

Posted by: Blue Hen at May 06, 2011 11:44 AM (Gzv/o)

28 Cain supported Barry's non-release decision the other day. Screw him.

Posted by: Barbarian at May 06, 2011 11:44 AM (EL+OC)

29 This is why Ace is great: he turns his fuckups into interesting insights.

Posted by: Monty at May 06, 2011 11:44 AM (/0a60)

30 Amateur moments in presidential candidate discourse #4,903,894:
The answer to Afghanistan is to be found in "confidential information."
Intelligence acquires a mystical status in this way of thinking. Intelligence helps solid strategic thinking--it's not a substitute for it.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 06, 2011 11:45 AM (B+qrE)

31 Cain/West
Business/Military experience
The both speak their minds with no pussy footing around.

Posted by: TC at May 06, 2011 11:47 AM (DYJjQ)

32 I'm already convinced that we need to leave Afghanistan posthaste, and on the way out, tell the tribal leaders that if we ever see a terrorist there, we will bomb everything they care about to slag.

Posted by: KG at May 06, 2011 11:47 AM (DeCj1)

33 As much as we LOVE the idea of a non-politician being in politics, you don't start out by running for top office - unless maybe you just beat Nazi Germany or put down a rebellion.

I posited in the thread last night that the GOP will nominate Pawlenty because he is "competent and not scary" and Cain will be his running mate, roping in the Tea Partiers and adding some ENERGY to the ticket.


As I said, we could do worse, and we probably will.


They'll give nice concession speeches.

Posted by: blaster at May 06, 2011 11:47 AM (l5dj7)

34 Cain's answer on Afghanistan was considered and measured IMHO. What would you do to remedy a sticky situation that you know only what the MSM says or doesn't say about it? That is known as a pig in a poke, and an excellent trap to be used by your enemies on the other side who DO know what is going on in Afghanistan.

Posted by: maddogg at May 06, 2011 11:47 AM (OlN4e)

35 Ryan/West 2012

It''s amateur hour at the House. Are you sure? Ryan just announced it’s now unlikely that any debt deal this summer will include the wholesale Medicare changes that had been envisioned in his ambitious budget plan adopted just last month. West says he won't be intimidated, but the top of your fantasy ticket has been. Move On is on the attack in FL, determined to interrupt Webster and West's town halls.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 06, 2011 11:47 AM (mHQ7T)

36 Republicans hate poor black people, want tornadoes to devastate the country, and stomp puppies.

Some retard relative of mine sent me this 'factual news article'. Enjoy. Oh, and did you know the Center for American Progress is "nonpartisan"? Yeah, neither did I.

Posted by: Earn free money while U drool at May 06, 2011 11:49 AM (weExl)

37 There are a number of problems with Cain's non-position:

1. You give him credit for crafting a cleverly-evasive response. I don't. It appeared to me that he simply doesn't have a well thought-out position and instead used the substitute "I need more information" in place of an opinion.

2. He's basically saying he can't tell us where he stands on this issue unless and until he gets a Presidential Daily Briefing. He can't tell us the very information we would like to have to evaluate whether he would make a good president until after we have voted him into office. Voters shouldn't have to rely on that degree of absolutely blind trust.

3. His "answer" doesn't even give us any clues about how he would evaluate the issue. He postulates that the important questions are "what is the mission" and "what are our interests" and "how do we define victory" without ever indicating what he thinks the mission should be, what interests could be implicated, and what victory might mean for him. He could have answered those questions without access to Top Secret info.

Posted by: angler at May 06, 2011 11:50 AM (SwjAj)

38 I am a business owner. I like Cain. He may not be perfect but he has been the trenches in the business world and knows the short cuts and tricks that are pulled by major corporations (GE, GM) that can kill a small town economy. I firmly believe he his the type to stand firmly on the side of business owners and will not have the wool pulled over his eyes.

We need am entrepreneur in office. Someone who understands we do need to look at alternate field, but not go out and crush our whole economy in the process. We are being held hostage by oil prices. Try buying anything today.

Posted by: Indian Outlaw at May 06, 2011 11:50 AM (7NcLZ)

39 And so, perhaps, Cain's answer, noncommittal, vague, conflicted, and weak, actually strikes many conservatives as hitting the right tone.
I think your characterization is overly negative. Our main source of casualties in Afghanistan now is trainers being killed by our nominal 'allies'.It's pretty clear Al Qaeda is in Pakistan and that the leadership of both the Taliban and Al Qaeda have a lot more to do with urban Pakistan than the rural goat aficionados ofAfganistan, who do what they're told for the most part.
So wondering about the mission has never made more sense.

Posted by: Beagle at May 06, 2011 11:50 AM (sOtz/)

40 Someone needs to feed the hamsters.

Posted by: blaster at May 06, 2011 11:50 AM (l5dj7)

41 The problem with "Bush's Liberty Agenda" is that it works just fine when you're talking about 10,000 of our elite (local dialect-speaking) troops interacting long-term with villagers.

You get lots of local support, personal friendships, intel on the enemy and the villagers get power, clean water, schools and a safe village. Pax Americana growing and spreading.

The problem is towns, cities, and metropolises (and the brigands, naturally.) For one, we don't have -and wouldn't field- the million troops needed for the same relative level of interaction.

Also:
In a village, the corruption is small scale and being spent locally. The mayor buying a new cow helps the villagers at least somewhat. Local construction means local workers, etc.

In the cities, the doubling of the price for a major water project (or whatever) ends up with new Mercedes Benzs, etc. Graft goes to personal and exotic luxuries that have little to do with the people of the area - or are spread too thin to matter. Or - and this is the kicker - going straight to fund the enemy.

This happens to be very similar to a lot of the conservative views on the home front: The money shouldn't be with "The Department of Education", it should be at the local school board. (And even the city school boards are too far away - they control too many schools!)

Posted by: Al at May 06, 2011 11:50 AM (MzQOZ)

42 35
Ryan/West 2012





It''s amateur hour at the House.

---

Haven't you been pimping Hunstman off on us lately?

Posted by: Y-not at May 06, 2011 11:50 AM (pW2o8)

43 didn't see the debate, so this is rambling on what was posted above, but I have no problem with someone saying "I don't have enough information and I want to get the recommendation of the GENERALS on the ground before making a decision". Look, we all have ideas, and personally I think it would be better to follow the Marines lead - *knock, knock - land shark* - but if the prevailing attitude of the military is we just can't win, then pull out. But by saying early on that he has a grand plan, and then IF he were to become the nomine or pres, and do a 180 on that position - he'd get cruicified for it.
Sure he should have SOME ideas, but being open to the intelligence feeds and the experienced personnel involved will have a better outcome, IMHO.

Posted by: todler at May 06, 2011 11:51 AM (fPOY0)

44 OT: Mittens: We shouldn't release OBL photos. Keeerist.

Posted by: Barbarian at May 06, 2011 11:51 AM (EL+OC)

45 that you know only what the MSM says or doesn't say about it
If you want to be President of the United States and your knowledge of Afghanistan policy is limited to media accounts, you're not a serious candidate.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 06, 2011 11:51 AM (B+qrE)

46 Not too much about T Paw. He's still boring.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 06, 2011 11:51 AM (mHQ7T)

47 I'm becoming one of the people who think we should probably call it a win after the Bin Laden kill and leave Afghanistan.

I just don't see it becoming a peaceful democracy.

If you want to break it up and support certain tribal groups and regions, fine. I could go for that.

But how long are we going to try to hold together a country that doesn't see itself as one country. Even the Taliban never controlled the whole of afghanistan.

Just because the maps say its a country doesn't make it so.

Posted by: Ben at May 06, 2011 11:51 AM (wuv1c)

48 2: Folks are responding to the direct and human way Cain communicates. This is why folks love Sarah. Because there is a hope that they will govern this way. See Chris Christie. He talks like this and he governs like this. Can you imagine any of our beloved House or Senate leadership blocking a tunnel In more than one sense of the word)?

Posted by: Blue Hen at May 06, 2011 11:51 AM (326rv)

49 I may be the rare conservative, at least here, that is not conflicted over Afganistan, but it is time to end it and bring them home. Bin Laden is dead, yes he will be replaced by that other dude and we can use intel to knock him off someday too, but there will always be another replacement. Many afgans don't even know what 9/11 was, we can go back with missiles if the taliban reforms significantly. As opposed to Iraq that has some semblance of a society, Afgan is in the 3rd or 4th century.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at May 06, 2011 11:51 AM (IXLvN)

50 @ 33: As much as we LOVE the idea of a non-politician being in politics, you
don't start out by running for top office - unless maybe you just beat
Nazi Germany or put down a rebellion.

^THIS. Cain needs to run for Congress to acuire some political experience mojo.


Posted by: Fartnoise at May 06, 2011 11:52 AM (bCxgV)

51 Cain/WestBusiness/Military experienceThe both speak their minds with no pussy footing around.
Posted by: TC at May 06, 2011 11:47 AM (DYJjQ)
I'm pretty sure Democrats would suffer from Splodeyhead Syndrome if that was the ticket. The barrage of racist epithets would be staggering.

Posted by: Beagle at May 06, 2011 11:53 AM (sOtz/)

52 Haven't you been pimping Hunstman off on us lately?

The rules here are you tear down the other candidates without saying who you support. I'm just caught on slow.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 06, 2011 11:53 AM (mHQ7T)

53 Bleh, Fair Tax just leads to the same mess we have now. It starts off with exceptions, which means, of course, that more will be added.

Given a choice, of course, ditching the entire tax code and starting over is fine with me.

Posted by: t-bird at May 06, 2011 11:53 AM (FcR7P)

54 I'm for an 'alternative minimum tax' applied to all. No one should receive the benefits of our society without paying some minimum percentage of either what they earn, or what they receive from the government.

Flat tax would put a lot of accountants out of business and simplify April 15th into a five minute chore. That would be nice, though I'd lose massive write-offs. I don't think I'd immediately discount a 'flat-tax' politician.

"Fair tax" sounds too much like the EU VAT for my liking. Just another layer, without reducing what is already there.

Posted by: Downsized Upscale at May 06, 2011 11:53 AM (IhHdM)

55 You're a racist cocksucker, ace. Thanx for being honest.

Posted by: Charles Fourier at May 06, 2011 11:54 AM (BHSVg)

56 Also, i think if we left Afghanistan we wouldn't be undercutting our soldiers.
I think we should discern from George W. Bush's stated mission and the stated mission that the American people supported.
I think 8 or 9 out of every 10 americans would say we went into afghanistan to kill Al-Qaeda, not create a democracy.

Posted by: Ben at May 06, 2011 11:54 AM (wuv1c)

57 I support the Flat Tax, not the unFair Tax.

On Afghanistan when Obama decided to do his BS I determine then that we had no policy other than cut and run AFTER he protected his political ass. On that score my feeling was that he was killing American servicemen and women for political reasons. Not only is that despicable, but it is treasonous.

We should pull them out now. However.....

In the beginning the goal should have been to first, get the revolutionary islamics out and kill them all, install a stable government that does not support terrorism and then leave.

Posted by: Vic at May 06, 2011 11:54 AM (M9Ie6)

58 Because there is a hope that they will govern this way. See Chris Christie. He talks like this and he governs like this.

I won't vote for someone based on hope.

And Christie had mucho experience running a large, public enterprise as District Atty.

Posted by: Y-not at May 06, 2011 11:54 AM (pW2o8)

59 Cain looks like a candidate who will make a lot of mistakes to me, though he won't make the mistake Palin did by trying to talk through the mistakes.

In nearly every question, he either had a prepared, numbered list to answer the question or he did as he did in the Afghanistan question. People like honesty, but they also like simplicity, and Cain did that very well. Every problem in the US can be fixed with a three or four step process.

He was successful in answering a question broadly which allowed him to use the general lists he had prepared.

Nothing here convinces me that he not a conservative, but nothing here convinces me that he will be able to handle the back and forth of a campaign for well over a year.

Posted by: Paper at May 06, 2011 11:54 AM (VoSja)

60 Regarding Afghanistan, and any other Islam cesspool we may potentially get into in the future, if we're not there to win, win decisivly, and get out, then don't go.

IMO, I would back a candidate who says something like this: The truth is, we can't win in Afghanistan under the current ROE. So, we have 2 choices...A. change the ROE, start blowing up everything in sight, WIN and leave, or B. leave.

Conservatives, IMO, are conflicted, because we know deep down in our pudding storage areas, that the only way to win in a place like Afghanistan is to really take the gloves off...REALLY. And short of that, we're just spinning our wheels.

If someone had the stones to say this, or something close to it, I think conservatives would stampede to their camp.

Posted by: The Hammer at May 06, 2011 11:54 AM (32ubA)

61 The Damiano Doctrine as it relates to Afghanistan:

If the decision is made to send our military somewhere, it is for one purpose. To neutralize a threat and/ or protect our national interests. Once that decision is made, then the military is authorized to use all legal (as defined by US laws and military doctrine) means and tactics at it's discretion to achieve these goals.

I really don't care what quality of life in Afghanistan is. People create their own situation. History has proven, over and over again, that there is no dictator or regime that is, in the long run, capable of leading/ repressing people who reject their claim of authority. The can blow themselves up to their hearts content and stone whomever they wish... inside their own boarders.

We are in Afghanistan because they were not content to keep their rock throwing to themselves and supported those who wish to enforce their wacky, murderous beliefs on the US (and elsewhere... but again, I don't care about elsewhere. Elsewhere is Elsewhere's problem to deal with, unless it directly involves us). Their means to this end it murder and terrorism, in an attempt to scare us into incorporating their ways into our own (and ultimately making it their way or the highway). In the case of the current Administration and the media, they have been entirely successful.

The Damiano Doctrine is "if you fuck with the US, we will use every means at our disposal, in an eye for and eye, then escalating manner, to ensure that you will never fuck with us again".

Our mistake in Afghanistan in particular and this Mid East in general is that we are expecting savages who are bent on the destruction of our way of life to suddenly drop their entire belief system and civilization, built on a foundation that is thousands of years deep, and embrace our way. Our means of doing this is to send our military on humanitarian missions. This is stupid. Our military is designed and intended to do one thing: kick the shit out of you until you beg us to stop, then beat up your friends and kick you in the head once more so you don't forget not to fuck with us.

If I were President, our goal in Afghanistan would to beat the ever living shit out of them until they are no longer a threat to us and serve as a clear example to Pakistan and everyone else who has or is thinking about harboring enemies of the US. If that means annihilating every man, woman and child there, so be it; but I don't think it will come to that. Then we pack up our toys and come home. If, after that is done, they specifically ASK us for help, our question will be "What is in it for us?". If they have a good answer that offers us equal value, then we provide an equal exchange of value. Otherwise, let the fuckers living in their backward, Flintstone ways.

Posted by: Damiano at May 06, 2011 11:55 AM (3nrx7)

62 Cain/WestBusiness/Military experienceThe both speak their minds with no pussy footing around.
Posted by: TC at May 06, 2011 11:47 AM (DYJjQ)
I'm pretty sure Democrats would suffer from Splodeyhead Syndrome if that was the ticket. The barrage of racist epithets would be staggering.
Posted by: Beagle

Run them through MD or one of the other holes firstwhere you can get footage of the 'Uncle Tom' commentsand other disgusting conduct. Be prepared to create commercials and blitz.

Posted by: Blue Hen at May 06, 2011 11:55 AM (Gzv/o)

63 >>>So wondering about the mission has never made more sense.

Of course, but we usually expect a candidate to do more than wonder, present tense. We usually expect them to HAVE wondered (past perfect), and now have some conclusions from their previous wonderings.

Posted by: ace at May 06, 2011 11:55 AM (nj1bB)

64
Did you hear this?

MA Democrats are demanding to know why Scott Brown was duped by a phony dead Laden photo.

The MA Democrat party leader says, "Ted Kennedy wouldn't have made that mistake."

Posted by: Soothsayer at May 06, 2011 11:55 AM (uFokq)

65 There's a third reason, he's a blank slate. Every other candidate came in with political baggage and even if people don't admit it they have already formed an impression of each candidate. Cain gets to come in and define himself. Hell, his only gotcha question was he's never held public office. In this environment that is a plus not a negative and he knew it.

I doubt his popularity will last. The questions will get harder.

Posted by: JackStraw at May 06, 2011 11:55 AM (TMB3S)

66 Of course, the problem with abandoning Afghanistan is that it will allow the Taliban to take back power, after which they'll invite al Qaeda back in, after which they'll resume using Afghanistan as their base of global operations, after which AQ's North American offensive will resume with a vengeance. It will also remove whatever flimsy pressure is on Pakistan to at least pretend that they're not in cahoots with the Taliban and AQ.

Think of it as displacement. If we're in Afghanistan, it denies our enemies an asset they used in the past to attack us with devastating effect. If we leave, we're returning that asset to them. How is that a good thing for us?

The counterpoint to that is that the Obama regime has acquiesed in letting Egypt fall to the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas, which is a much bigger asset to Islamic Fundamentalists than Afghanistan ever was. Consequently, the forces we have in Afghanistan may well - will - be needed in now-more important theaters, and sooner rather than later.

Posted by: JASmius at May 06, 2011 11:56 AM (qtCHY)

67 That said, if he has no firm conclusions, it's at least honest to say as much.

But that is the reason eyebrows were raised.

It's a punt answer.

Posted by: ace at May 06, 2011 11:56 AM (nj1bB)

68
Really. They're trying to create a scandal out of it.

Dupegate?


Posted by: Soothsayer at May 06, 2011 11:56 AM (uFokq)

69 Oh yeah, flat tax is the only way, the fair tax is ridiculously complicated because they took an otherwise smart consumption tax and tinkered it in to a mishmash of stupidity.

We either believe in equal treatment under the law or we don't.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at May 06, 2011 11:56 AM (IXLvN)

70 T-Paw would, more or less, be a disaster. To be kind, he's too much of a soft-spoken kind of guy. Having your firebrand on the bottom part of the ticket doesn't work so well- especially since that firebrand will have to stick to the rather bland message of the top-of-ticket nominee.

I haven't seen Cain, so I'm not exactly on the bandwagon, but I'd be willing to see him and hear him speak. To Drew's "If only we had an example of an inexperienced..." There are two key differences between Herman Cain and Barak Obama (at least): 1- Cain didn't just make up an answer, he gave a very honest "Hey, I'm a private citizen with no access to the kinds of intelligence that congress people or the President have, so I can only say I'd listen to my advisers and take their advice." That's a far more honest and substantive answer that BHO ever gave during primary season. 2) Cain does have experience- just not in politics. He's a successful businessman- which requires far more decision making than anything BHO had done before becoming President- and I would suggest more even that he's done while in the office.

That said, the only audio I've heard was Rick Santorum's answer about how to combat BHO's supposed improved foreign policy bona fides: "Anything he's done right was a continuation of Bush policies... Anything that's come up while he was in office he's gotten wrong." I've got to say, I liked that soundbite.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at May 06, 2011 11:56 AM (8y9MW)

71 To be fair to Pawlewnty, in the polls isn't "generic republican candidate" doing better than Obama?

Well if there ever was a "generic republican candidate" it would be Pawlenty, no?

Posted by: Ben at May 06, 2011 11:57 AM (wuv1c)

72 I mentioned the race angle last night. I lived in Illinois during the Obama/Keyes election. Every single Republican I spoke to said something about being able to 'go after Obama and shut down the race card'. Only 'Keyes could be tough' on him.

It didn't work out that way, in fact, it failed miserably. Cain is a good candidate is he brings the characteristics to the table that allow for an electoral win, not if he balances out a race narrative we know is false. Support him for the former reasons because the latter just won't happen.

Cain is no Keyes. He has real business experience, and he is not crazy. But 'liberals heads exploding' is not an electoral strategy or a reason to nominate a candidate.

Posted by: Paper at May 06, 2011 11:57 AM (VoSja)

73 ^THIS. Cain needs to run for Congress to acuire some political experience mojo.
Sure. You don't want a bad apple? The thing to do is to age your apple in a barrel of rotten apples. That'll fix ya up.

Posted by: maddogg at May 06, 2011 11:58 AM (OlN4e)

74 MA Democrats are demanding to know why Scott Brown was duped by a phony dead Laden photo.The MA Democrat party leader says, "Ted Kennedy wouldn't have made that mistake."
Posted by: Soothsayer

Tis true. For the last five months of his 'term' he couldn't even aim in on a toilet. Didn't stop him from voting though, did it?

Posted by: Blue Hen at May 06, 2011 11:58 AM (Gzv/o)

75 56
You're a racist cocksucker, ace. Thanx for being honest.


Posted by: Charles Fourier at May 06, 2011 11:54 AM (BHSVg)

Hey, Fourier!
'Sup?

Posted by: Najeh Davenport at May 06, 2011 11:58 AM (jN/Z/)

76 35
It''s amateur hour at the House. Are you sure? Ryan just announced it’s
now unlikely that any debt deal this summer will include the wholesale
Medicare changes that had been envisioned in his ambitious budget
plan adopted just last month.

He said that but he also said he's still pushing for Medicare reform. If anyone deserves to be criticized for the handling of Medicare reform, it's Ways Means chairman Dave Camp, who refused to mark-up Ryan's bill. Ways Means is the most powerful committee on the Hill and Camp alone had the power to make that decision. He said no.

Chairman of tax-writing panel puts damper on GOP's
Medicare overhaul
Camp: No Medicare markup for left to attack


Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 06, 2011 11:58 AM (P+zzG)

77 It is my belief that there is a large part of the party that wants to be convinced to abandon Afghanistan. They are not convinced now, but conflicted, and want to be convinced one way or the other; and they probably would rather be convinced to let Afghanistan go its own tragic, bloody, rape-filled way.

This is what makes Cain's response a flub. Instead of citing a conflict in our way of thinking about Afghanistan he relies on his lack of knowledge. A Presidential candidate is being asked about the big picture. There is little about that which is classified.
A better response would be he supports our military and victory but his definition of victory in Afghanistan is evolving. Yes, dumb answer from Obama but it works sometimes. The GWOT is a constantly evolving issue.

Posted by: Rocks at May 06, 2011 11:58 AM (Q1lie)

78 The MA Democrat party leader says, "Ted Kennedy wouldn't have made that mistake."

Posted by: Soothsayer at May 06, 2011 11:55 AM (uFokq)
No...he was duped by a bridge.

Posted by: Tami at May 06, 2011 11:58 AM (VuLos)

79 The MA Democrat party leader says, "Ted Kennedy wouldn't have made that mistake."

*sigh*

Posted by: Mary Jo Kopechne at May 06, 2011 11:59 AM (UOM48)

80 The answer was perfect. I have to admit I have a bias towards Cain. I have been following him for close to a year or so. I disagree with him on the photos of dead ubl, but thats good. Cant agree with some one 100 % of the time.
Personally I like his style and speach pattern.
I would love to see Col West as Prez n Cain as VP.

Posted by: Coldwarrior57 at May 06, 2011 11:59 AM (nYTrG)

81 Cain (and Huck and anyone else pushing) flat/fair tax is simply not serious. I'm not saying they aren't preferable to our current system but we're not going from here to there anytime soon. 51% of the country doesn't even pay income taxes. What's there incentive to fuck with the system?

I'd rather see some reasonable reform proposals along with something big like an end to witholding. If you could force everyone to write checks every quarter, you'd generate a hell of a lot more support for a flat/fair system down the road.

Short of that, you're just scoring cheap points in a primary and ensuring the current system lasts forever.

Posted by: DrewM. at May 06, 2011 11:59 AM (WNzUA)

82
Well if there ever was a "generic republican candidate" it would be Pawlenty, no?

Posted by: Ben at May 06, 2011 11:57 AM (wuv1c)
Well, a generic candidate isn't a specific candidate.

Posted by: KG at May 06, 2011 11:59 AM (DeCj1)

83 Not conflicted now, not after all these years.

Colin Powell can take his "You break it, you fix it" doctrine and shove it up his ass.

"More rubble, less trouble" should be our guiding foreign policy when it comes to military action.

Destroy it. Let the stupid assholes who allowed their country to force us into military action build it back on their own.

And Trump is indisputably right about one thing: All the oil flowing out of Iraq should be American property to be disposed of as we wish until such time we are satisfied that sufficient reimbursement for our efforts has been made.

Posted by: Dave at May 06, 2011 11:59 AM (Xm1aB)

84 23 Herman Cain > Fuckabee This is the advantage in not having a record. I expect Cain will drop out quickly, though, since it's now plain to see he has no idea how to speak to voters, only FOX news diehards.
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 06, 2011 11:41 AM (mHQ7T)
Cain has a record, just like Obama did. If people pay attention they would see a liberty loving record of success in the Free Market versus a record of failure in the parasite Marxist process. Right now he's speaking to the voters in the Republican primaries, then he can extend his remarks to the general electorate. But first he has to get nominated in the primary. Huckabee will never amount to more than a spoiler by taking away pure social con votes that have a very narrow definition of their perfect candidate (they'd voted for him over Reagan), but that's his ceiling.

Posted by: Andrew Breitbart at May 06, 2011 12:00 PM (gqqCJ)

85 Regarding Afghanistan, and any other Islam cesspool we may potentially get into in the future, if we're not there to win, win decisivly, and get out, then don't go.
But what is winning? Specifically in Afghanistan.

To me it was killing Al-Qaeda, knocking the Taliban out of power and that's about it.
To Bush it was about turning it into a modern quasi-democratic nation.

In my mind we've acheived victory, now lets GTFO. Or let it break up into ethnic regions and back the ones who are friendly to us.
It's not Iraq which is a modern(by middle east standard) Arab nation.

Posted by: Ben at May 06, 2011 12:00 PM (wuv1c)

86 Nation building.... enough already.

Posted by: Retribution at May 06, 2011 12:00 PM (wOaLi)

87 #63

Michael Steele ran in Maryland for the Senate and couldn't win a statewide election after being Lieutenant Governor. Why would you assume that having two black candidates would automatically help the Republicans?

Steele ran against a white candidate as well.

This narrative about race is dangerously close to the identity politics that Dems play, and there is no evidence that is 'works' in a general election.

Posted by: Paper at May 06, 2011 12:00 PM (VoSja)

88 >>>1. You give him credit for crafting a cleverly-evasive response. I don't. It appeared to me that he simply doesn't have a well thought-out position and instead used the substitute "I need more information" in place of an opinion.

To be clear, I'm not really giving him that credit. The answer initially seemed like a weak punt to me.

But facts are facts and opinions are opinions. My OPINION (and the Wash Examiner's) is that it was a weak punt.

The FACT which needs to be explained is that, at least according to Luntz' focus group, he not only won, but did so clearly.

My opinion was that he hadn't won, but had just done himself some good, like T-Paw and even Santorum.

But the fact is that a lot of people think he won. So I'm trying to figure that out.

In some cases I think my own opinion is important. In a lot of cases even *I* don't think my own opinion is important. In some cases it's the greater public's opinion that's important, and the only opinion I have that's important is my opinion, or guess, as to why they have that opinion.

Posted by: ace at May 06, 2011 12:01 PM (nj1bB)

89 But is he electable? That's my big worry. All it takes is one unfounded charge of sorcery or genie abuse and he's done for.

Posted by: t-bird at May 06, 2011 12:01 PM (FcR7P)

90 The MA Democrat party leader says, "Ted Kennedy wouldn't have made that mistake."
No, Ted Kennedy knows a dead body when he sees it.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 06, 2011 12:01 PM (B+qrE)

91 Knew. Past tense.
Thankfully.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 06, 2011 12:01 PM (B+qrE)

92 The MA Democrat party leader says, "Ted Kennedy wouldn't have made that mistake."

Well since he can just tap old Binny on the shoulder and ask him if that's the real picture, sure he'd know.

Posted by: Buzzsaw at May 06, 2011 12:01 PM (tf9Ne)

93 Pluses for Huntsman: ran a bigger business than Cain, international trade experience in both Bush administrations, youngest ambassador in over 100 yrs as Ambassador to Singapore under 41, popular Utah governor with an impressive economic record... BUT he accepted an ambassadorship for which he was eminently qualified from President Obama, and he wrote a very thoughtful note to his boss, which makes him a ninja lover. Huntsman is obviously too smart and insufficiently hateful to win a GOP primary. He might actually debate the issues instead of just calling names and winking.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 06, 2011 12:01 PM (mHQ7T)

94 When it comes to the unFair tax, Cain is a black Neal Boortz. This concerns me.

Posted by: Barbarian at May 06, 2011 12:01 PM (EL+OC)

95 Posted by: Andrew Breitbart at May 06, 2011 12:00 PM (gqqCJ)

--The Andrew Breitbart???

Posted by: logprof at May 06, 2011 12:02 PM (jN/Z/)

96 All it takes is one unfounded charge of sorcery or genie abuse and he's done for.
Major Nelson never went into space again, by the way.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 06, 2011 12:02 PM (B+qrE)

97

I think it struck a chord because we're tired of politicians pretending to be Omniscient.

This. We've seen Obama repeatedly do the wrong thing over the advice of experts because he believes his ideology informs everything. At this point a President who'll actually listen to his advisors (rather than, say, hire ideologically friendly czars to put the Cabinet at arm's length) sounds like a good thing.


Posted by: Ian S. at May 06, 2011 12:03 PM (cd11S)

98 Posted by: ace at May 06, 2011 11:56 AM (nj1bB)

It may be a punt, but at least its an honest punt.

And I'll agree with those who want him to do at least one term as Representative, or Senator, Cain before running for President. That's a fair cop, IMO.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at May 06, 2011 12:03 PM (8y9MW)

99 Michael Steele ran in Maryland for the Senate and couldn't win a statewide election after being Lieutenant Governor. Why would you assume that having two black candidates would automatically help the Republicans?Steele ran against a white candidate as well. This narrative about race is dangerously close to the identity politics that Dems play, and there is no evidence that is 'works' in a general election.
Posted by: Paper

I'm not actually reccomending that slate. If we have anything like that though, we should be prepared to make their disgusting behavior part of the message. Especailly since we know that the media won't. Hammer Dems with questions for repudiations, exactly how Republicans were hammered on 'birtherism'.

Posted by: Blue Hen at May 06, 2011 12:04 PM (Gzv/o)

100 >>>This is what makes Cain's response a flub. Instead of citing a conflict in our way of thinking about Afghanistan he relies on his lack of knowledge. A Presidential candidate is being asked about the big picture. There is little about that which is classified. A better response would be he supports our military and victory but his definition of victory in Afghanistan is evolving.

I don't really disagree but if we assume that Luntz's focus group is representative (and you are free not to assume that; even with a poll, with many more respondents, is just completely wrong 1 in 20 times) then you have to explain why that weak answer about an important, driving concern did not seem to really hurt him all that much.

Posted by: ace at May 06, 2011 12:04 PM (nj1bB)

101 What bugged me right off about T-Paw..and he was the only one to do it...wasin response tothe first questionhe felt it necessary to thank everyone from FOX down to whoever it was that sliced the crudite for the pre-debate nosh.
And the way he did it made him look like a hardware store owner getting an award from the Kiwanis Club for his landscaping or something. It was cloying and unpolished. His handlers need to work with him on that.
By the time he finished that, he didn't even have time to begin answering the question.
And, they need to stop asking stupid questions in these debates like the one Brett Baier did to Johnson about what kind of reality show he would have.
...I dunno...maybe he was just fucking with Johnson for his whining

Posted by: beedubya at May 06, 2011 12:04 PM (AnTyA)

102 @ 74: You don't want a bad apple? The thing to do is to age your apple in a barrel of rotten apples. That'll fix ya up.

Yeah, because it's institutions that are the cause of problems, not the nature of the people that are elected to them, right? I mean, wasn't that the argument behind Campaign Finance Reform -- that politicians, once elected, just couldn't help becoming corrupted by the vast amounts of money floated their way, no matter how upright their character going in?

Posted by: Fartnoise at May 06, 2011 12:05 PM (bCxgV)

103 I hate to sound like a lib, but: OUT OF AFGHANISTAN NOW! With a caveat: take satellite photos regularly, and bomb anything that looks different than the last one.

Posted by: FUBAR at May 06, 2011 12:05 PM (1fanL)

104 In some cases it's the greater public's opinion that's important, and
the only opinion I have that's important is my opinion, or guess, as to
why they have that opinion.
I see you, now. Apologies for mis-reading.

Posted by: angler at May 06, 2011 12:06 PM (SwjAj)

105 If I had to guess, I would say that Cain's support of the Fair Tax has a lot to do with living in Georgia. Boortz and the legislators who most strongly support the Fair Tax have been from Georgia as well.

The Fair Tax is a negative income tax (the prebates) with a national sales tax. I just don't get what the fuss is about. It would be a difficult political shift, and it will still have the problem of creating a very large group of people with negative tax liability.

Posted by: Paper at May 06, 2011 12:06 PM (VoSja)

106
And, they need to stop asking stupid questions in
these debates like the one Brett Baier did to Johnson about what kind
of reality show he would have.

...I dunno...maybe he was just fucking with Johnson for his whining



Posted by: beedubya at May 06, 2011 12:04 PM (AnTyA)
Seriously? That is a stupid ass question. If I had been taking the time to watch the debates and the mod asked a question like that, I'd be pissed at the idiot.

Posted by: KG at May 06, 2011 12:06 PM (DeCj1)

107 Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at May 06, 2011 11:56 AM (8y9MW)

I've never bought into the idea that business experience was the end all and be all when it comes to running for President. There are succesful politicians who have never worked in the private sector, I don't think that makes them qualified to run a big company. The skill sets aren't the same and only partially transferable.

I'd vote for Mitt Romney's resume (private and public sector success and throw in the hybrid of the Olympics). Too bad it's attached to Mitt Romney.

That said, I don't think there's any magic resume or really anyway to fully prepare for being President of the United States. It's simply a singular position, you can only hope a person is intellectually and emotionally ready for the challenges that will come up.


Posted by: DrewM. at May 06, 2011 12:06 PM (WNzUA)

108 Yeah, he's like Huckabee with the fair tax, and with regard to defense it sounded to me like Cain had read the Palin Doctrine that got some coverage a few days back.

Posted by: OceanusRex at May 06, 2011 12:07 PM (+oJRo)

109 Question, let's say Cain was our candidate, and i could live with that as he seems like an intellegent man with business experience, do you think he would peal off any black voters from the democratic party?
I can't remember what it was in 2008, something like 95-5 in terms of blacks voting democrat versus republican.
Don't you think any black person predisposed to voting republican is already voting that way? How many do you think are up for grabs?

Posted by: Ben at May 06, 2011 12:07 PM (wuv1c)

110 He said that but he also said he's still pushing for Medicare reform. If anyone deserves to be criticized for the handling of Medicare reform, it's Ways & Means chairman Dave Camp, who refused to mark-up Ryan's bill. Ways & Means is the most powerful committee on the Hill and Camp alone had the power to make that decision. He said no.

Thank you for that clarification. I want Republicans to support the Ryan bill and vote against raising the debt ceiling, but I'm not holding my breath.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 06, 2011 12:07 PM (mHQ7T)

111 T-Paw would, more or less, be a disaster. To be
kind, he's too much of a soft-spoken kind of guy. Having your firebrand
on the bottom part of the ticket doesn't work so well- especially since
that firebrand will have to stick to the rather bland message of the
top-of-ticket nominee.

Explain that to Bush/Cheney. I've never been a big fan of Pawlenty but I don't really see how anyone can take the nomination from him at this point. Romney has shit the bed and Pawlenty is the primary beneficiary.

2 things will be needed to beat Obama. The first is competence and experience to play against Obama's clear failings. Pawlenty as governor has both, in spades. Basically at this point if you aren't a former Governor you might as well go home.

The second is not be a firebrand. A firebrand, no matter how good, needs to butt heads with another to get anywhere. Butt heads against Obama and he just sits back and allows the press to sell him as "Professorial". Instead you need someone, like Ryan, to calmly make the point that Obama is an idiot without a clue and let Obama's ego take over. Again, here Pawlenty's demeanor is an advantage.

Posted by: Rocks at May 06, 2011 12:07 PM (Q1lie)

112 90
But is he electable? That's my big worry. All it takes is one unfounded charge of sorcery or genie abuse and he's done for.

Yet the left can run a candidate an win with the likes of "Rev." Wright, Ayers, etc. and win.

The Chicago machine and MFM will be working over time on whoever our candidate is trying to see if they stole a candy bar from the grocery store when they were six. And they'll be damned sure to check college transcripts, too. King Barry, the golden child, will continue to hide his.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at May 06, 2011 12:08 PM (UOM48)

113 Republicans are fair-tax curious.

I'd say a significant number of independents probably are as well, once you get through enough of the hard shell of obliviousness they have on any substantive policy topic.

Posted by: krakatoa at May 06, 2011 12:08 PM (MruVg)

114 That was a terrible answer. He should have done what I did - say that everything the last President did was wrong and bad and stupid and evil and racist, and then do exactly the same things once elected. Hypocricy FTW!

Posted by: Barack Hussein Obama at May 06, 2011 12:08 PM (c45xH)

115 then you have to explain why that weak answer about an important, driving concern did not seem to really hurt him all that much.
I think it's because most conservatives know we can't "win" in Afghanistan but are conflicted on just bugging out. So since we don't have a definitive answer we'll let him slide on that one.

Posted by: Buzzsaw at May 06, 2011 12:08 PM (tf9Ne)

116 Here's what we do in Afghanistan - turn a small, isolated section of the country into a U.S. Military base. Keep a small but deadly contingent of troops and equipment there, and send everyone else home. Then, if the terrorist are seen starting up their retarded training camps with monkey bars and other kindergarden playground equipment, we then strike with the team we have in place. If that's not enough force to handle the problem, then we have an established base where more troops can stay when they're flown in to deal with the idiots. Forget the hearts and minds stuff. Our job will become pest control. Don't worry about making the place better, just focus on keeping it from getting worse.

Posted by: Joejm65 at May 06, 2011 12:09 PM (0yeTf)

117 I am not conflicted about Afghanistan, I originally thought we would be out within 6 months. I thought we would go in, break as much stuff and kill as many bad guys as we could find and leave. Maybe we might have had to go back and do it again but that's what I thought.
I didn't just dream up those thoughts, George Bush told me to think that way. He said during his campaign that he wasn't into Nation Building, we couldn't afford it and we shouldn't be doing it. Then he spent his entire administration Nation Building.
I am not anti war, I am anti Nation Building. We havn't finished building our own yet.

Posted by: robtr at May 06, 2011 12:09 PM (MtwBb)

118 flat/fair tax is simply not serious. I'm not saying they aren't
preferable to our current system but we're not going from here to there
anytime soon.

I call poppycock. It can be done. A strong leader that can explain why a flat tax is right philosophically and economically with a seriousness to use a veto of everything and anything until a flat tax gets thru congress can get it done.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at May 06, 2011 12:10 PM (IXLvN)

119 Flat Tax > Fair Tax

Posted by: toby928™ at May 06, 2011 12:10 PM (GTbGH)

120 But 'liberals heads exploding' is not an electoral strategy or a reason to nominate a candidate.

No. But it would be fun.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at May 06, 2011 12:10 PM (8y9MW)

121 But the fact is that a lot of people think he won. So I'm trying to figure that out.



In some cases I think my own opinion is important. In a lot of cases
even *I* don't think my own opinion is important. In some cases it's
the greater public's opinion that's important, and the only opinion I
have that's important is my opinion, or guess, as to why they have that
opinion.

Ace --
I think he was perceived as winning because he just said what he thought, didn't blink when he didn't know something, and nobody watching had to cut through the BS and wonder if it was a politician lying or accidentally being forthright.

I gravitate to people who just say "here's what I know, here's what I don't know". Character flaw in me, no doubt.

His not wanting to release the photos didn't bother me a bit.
I'd release them, but half my friends wouldn't for lots of reasons, none of which involve offending Muslims.

Posted by: jwb7605 at May 06, 2011 12:10 PM (Qxe/p)

122 West/Gordon 2012


What?

Posted by: AoSHQ's worst commenter, DarkLord© at May 06, 2011 12:11 PM (GBXon)

123 I completely agree that we have to fight against liberals crazy and unhinged desire to make conservatives sound racist. We just can't let that desire get in the way of choosing the best candidate for a grueling, election.

Cain is really on to something, and other candidates would be wise to take notice. The Tea Party is not just about smaller government but about simplicity over experts and bureaucracy. People want their government to be intelligible and transparent, not full of 2,000 health care bills, absurdly complicated tax codes, and indiscernible spending.

We expect a leader who will buck the bureaucracy and the 'expert society' by allowing for state and local control rather than a leader who will use government to alter incentives in a different way (see Mike 'I'm really not a liberal' Huckabee)

Posted by: Paper at May 06, 2011 12:11 PM (VoSja)

124 Rush just described the debate as "inspiring" and "uplifting." Hmmm.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at May 06, 2011 12:11 PM (UOM48)

125 Posted by: ace at May 06, 2011 12:04 PM (nj1bB)



I think based on the reasons the folks gave Luntz they were reacting
more to how Cain said things (honest, direct, plain spoken were the kind
of words used to describe him), than what he said.



That's not all that surprising at this point in the process,, especially
since Cain was unknown to most of them before last night.

Posted by: DrewM. at May 06, 2011 12:12 PM (WNzUA)

126 Why is it so hard to have an intelligent plan for Afghanistan.

I would have said, "I want for Afghanistan what Ahmad Shah Massoud wanted for Afghanistan. He wanted an Afghanistan that had the chance to choose for themselves to right to determine their own futures, free of outside influence.

Massoud sussessfully fought against the Communist Afghan government and later, the Soviet Union for that chance. He was murdered by the Taliban two days before 9-11, trying to warn us about the dangers we shared from Islamic fascism.

Victory in Afghanistan will come when the Afghans are secure and able to determine their own destiny. I will rely on my field commanders' judgment as to when the Afghans have reached that milestone, and then we will withdraw. If they wish us to maintain a small presence after that, we will consider it if it is in our national interest."


Fucking simple.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 06, 2011 12:12 PM (FI38b)

127 Posted by: Andrew Breitbart at May 06, 2011 12:00 PM (gqqCJ)

Cain's path to the nomination lies in Iowa. It's make or break for him. If he wins there, experience becomes less of an issue. But running a business is an accomplishment, not a record.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 06, 2011 12:13 PM (mHQ7T)

128 111
Thank you for that clarification. I want Republicans to support the Ryan
bill and vote against raising the debt ceiling, but I'm not holding my
breath.
It's actually all rather confusing but the gist is that (1) Ryan's bill is still the starting point and (2) Medicare reform is still on the table. However, they don't expect to get a good deal and Ways Means won't be writing an actual bill based on Ryan's plan, at least not right now. From what I've read, I think the reason they're coming to this conclusion now is because of Obama's speech at GWU. But the media is trying to pretend they dropped Medicare reform altogether and the fact is that they didn't. The argument now is more about what they'll get tied to a debt ceiling vote.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 06, 2011 12:14 PM (P+zzG)

129 @ 125: Rush just described the debate as "inspiring" and "uplifting." Hmmm.

Has he admitted yet to being wrong over the past several years in his avowed assertions that Bin Laden was already dead, having "assumed room temperature" in an Afghani cave somewhere?

Posted by: Fartnoise at May 06, 2011 12:15 PM (bCxgV)

130 Question, let's say Cain was our candidate, and i could live with that as he seems like an intellegent man with business experience, do you think he would peal off any black voters from the democratic party?

Clarence Thomas is called an Uncle Tom...

Posted by: Retribution at May 06, 2011 12:15 PM (wOaLi)

131 Why does Cain prefer a fair tax over a flat tax?

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 06, 2011 12:15 PM (P+zzG)

132 Golly, ergie's got nothin'. How unusual.

Cain cannot run on strategic ambiguity. Eventually he'll have to lay out a plan. It wasn't a subtle tactic, it was an attempt not to commit to anything, and it's not to his credit. I think Cain will be out by March 2012 at the latest, and that will probably be a good thing.

Afghanistan: I really, really want a viable state there, one not beholden to the Taliban/ISI. The only way that's going to happen is if Karzai is assassinated and the Afghan army is stood up. Neither of those things seem to be in the cards. I want the Afghan people to have a future, but right now I'm drifting toward the "remove troops, leave behind special forces and CIA, carpet bomb as required, keep the ISI out" position. It's suboptimal but it's the only way to cut our losses and walk away with dignity.

Posted by: joncelli at May 06, 2011 12:15 PM (RD7QR)

133 --The Andrew Breitbart???

Since he has confessed to reading the responses here perhaps Ace should classify him as a "poster" and forbid anyone from sockpuppeting him.

Posted by: Vic at May 06, 2011 12:15 PM (M9Ie6)

134 I've never bought into the idea that business experience was the end all and be all when it comes to running for President.

I'm not saying it's the end-all/be-all. I was just pointing out that it makes him immeasurably better qualified (not that such a thing is hard) than BHO was when running for office.
The second is not be a firebrand. A firebrand, no matter how good, needs to butt heads with another to get anywhere.
Okay, not a fire-brand, but someone who can get the base excited. And Bush did that- he did it at least well enough to win the nomination all on his own. McCain kind of won by default in 2008, as did Dole in 96 and Bush41 in 88. But GW won through being (perceived as, if not actually) the best candidate who got the most primary voters excited.

T-Paw just doesn't get the base excited enough. I don't know that he's as bad as McCain was as far as "hold your nose and vote," but the candidate needs to be someone forceful in personality- not necessarily looking to butt heads with his opponent, but completely willing to do so when they are in direct disagreement. I just don't see that in T-Paw.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at May 06, 2011 12:17 PM (8y9MW)

135 Iam very happy today hereing that Presadent Obama has created over 244, 000 jobs. This is great and his plan is working. I don't understand why they are lying about the unemployment number going up to 9%, but I am sure it is something Boehnor and the Republi-traitors are doing hurt Presadent Obama. Obama has gotten bin Laden and now the economy is roaring !!!!!!!!

Posted by: Mary Clogginstein from Brattlebror, VT at May 06, 2011 12:17 PM (48wze)

136 #110

Steele received about 25% of the Black vote in a Maryland Senate race, Blackwell was around 20% when he ran, Keyes was about 15%.

I think 15%-20% would be reasonable if there was not Obama as an incumbent president. Because of that, I think 10% would be generous.

Posted by: Paper at May 06, 2011 12:17 PM (VoSja)

137 Cain's answer on Afghanistan was a cop out but probably smart politics at this point in the game. There is PLENTY of information out there not classified that he could generate his own general plan and he could then still say he would reserve the right to modify or change depending on whatever "classified" information he gains at a later date. Cain is unwilling at this point to commit to the direction he wants to go in regard to Afghanistan. I think he wants to wait and see where Obama goes with his Taliban negotiations and the supposed beginning of the drawdown starting in June of this year. May as well wait to see what the current CinC does before committing to an idea that may be worthless in 6 months.

Posted by: CDR M at May 06, 2011 12:17 PM (5I8G0)

138 Again, since ace is on this thread, I nominate M80sB for co-blogger. She brings the goods on the inner workings of Capitol Hill, imho.

Also, "diversity" and shit. ;-)

Posted by: Y-not at May 06, 2011 12:17 PM (pW2o8)

139 I think Cain just exudes "No Bullshit." And THAT is what people are looking for. We are just tired of politicans that will spout whatever Bullshit they think we want to hear.

Afghanistan's a mess. None of us thought we would still be there 10 years later. It is costing us too much in treasure and certainly too much in lives of our youngest and finest citizens. Al Qaeda has been essentially defeated. I would like to see Mullah Omar get the Osama treatment as some point but otherwise I think we can pretty much say "Mission Accomplished" and get the hell out of there.

I always thought the Grand Plan that the so-called "neo-cons" sold to Bush was that we invade Afghanistan and Iraq, set up democratic governments there, and create a pincer around Iran that will eventually force that government to fall without us having to invade it. Iran is the real prize and always has been. A peaceful, democratic, non-radical Iran solves everything in the Middle East.

Posted by: rockmom at May 06, 2011 12:17 PM (Y01Pi)

140 This is the genius of me ...

Humbly admitting your errors is your genius. (See LGF for what happens with hubris.) When I suggest this site to people, I describe it as an good, Irish bar - your the bar tender who pour a pint on the house when proven wrong.

Posted by: Jean at May 06, 2011 12:17 PM (WkuV6)

141 123
West/Gordon 2012


What?

Posted by: AoSHQ's worst commenter, DarkLord© at May 06, 2011 12:11 PM (GBXon)

--You mean, "Who?"

Posted by: logprof at May 06, 2011 12:18 PM (jN/Z/)

142 Since he has confessed to reading the responses here perhaps Ace should classify him as a "poster" and forbid anyone from sockpuppeting him.
Posted by: Vic at May 06, 2011 12:15 PM (M9Ie6)
I agree.

Posted by: maddogg at May 06, 2011 12:18 PM (OlN4e)

143 Santorum talks too fast.

Posted by: Indian Outlaw at May 06, 2011 12:18 PM (7NcLZ)

144 @141
He may be pouring out pints, but he's drinking them himself!

Posted by: Y-not at May 06, 2011 12:18 PM (pW2o8)

145 Again, since ace is on this thread, I nominate M80sB for co-blogger. She brings the goods on the inner workings of Capitol Hill, imho.

Seconded. I always enjoy her comments.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 06, 2011 12:19 PM (mHQ7T)

146 A peaceful, democratic, non-radical Iran solves everything in the Middle East.

As long as they have oil, there will be problems for us in the middle east. After their oil runs out, there will be problems in the middle east - just not ours. I think most recorded human history bears me out on that.

Posted by: Jean at May 06, 2011 12:19 PM (WkuV6)

147 Congressman West introduces bill to encourage businesses to hire the unemployed.

Posted by: Y-not at May 06, 2011 12:20 PM (pW2o8)

148 Ace it's been almost ten years and the best the 'ghanis have to offer thus far is President Chim-Chim Karzai and the reintegration of Tali Tim into government.....

it's time to come home.

Posted by: sven10077 at May 06, 2011 12:20 PM (kq1lG)

149
A peaceful, democratic, non-radical Iran solves everything in the Middle East.

Oops - my bad!

Posted by: Jimmy Carter at May 06, 2011 12:21 PM (7BU4a)

150 Steele received about 25% of the Black vote in a Maryland Senate race, Blackwell was around 20% when he ran, Keyes was about 15%. I think 15%-20% would be reasonable if there was not Obama as an incumbent president. Because of that, I think 10% would be generous. Yeah I'm thinking 10% max as well.

Posted by: Ben at May 06, 2011 12:21 PM (wuv1c)

151 146 TdP,

Thirded she brings the linkage and her commentary is good, reasoned, and politely offered.

Posted by: sven10077 at May 06, 2011 12:21 PM (kq1lG)

152 Iran is the real prize and always has been. A peaceful, democratic, non-radical Iran solves everything in the Middle East.
Posted by: rockmom at May 06, 2011 12:17 PM (Y01Pi)

Maybe that's behind Dinnerjacket's shitcanning. The mullahs want to keep dissent at a minimum now that OBL is dead and the US looks stronger for it.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 06, 2011 12:21 PM (mHQ7T)

153 Y-not -- I think that explains his absence on the ONTs, too drunk to drive the keyboard. Or, he is out trying to find that one kinky, conservative girl in NYC.

Posted by: Jean at May 06, 2011 12:21 PM (WkuV6)

154 As long as they have oil, there will be problems for us in the middle
east. After their oil runs out, there will be problems in the middle
east - just not ours. I think most recorded human history bears me out
on that.

Slightly modified: As long as we're dependent upon the oil they have, there will be problems for us in the middle east. The thing is, if we'd actually do something about it, we wouldn't be dependent upon their oil for all that much longer (in the grand scheme of things).

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at May 06, 2011 12:22 PM (8y9MW)

155 I would have said, "I want for Afghanistan what
Ahmad Shah Massoud wanted for Afghanistan. He wanted an Afghanistan that
had the chance to choose for themselves to right to determine their own
futures, free of outside influence.


Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 06, 2011 12:12 PM (FI38b)
Yes. With the understanding that if they, or Egypt, or any other pre-medieval savage country, vote in a group of thugs who harm US interests, we will happily, joyfully, carpet-bomb the crap out of the whole country. Not just the duly elected leaders, but the complicit population too.That's one of the main attractions of giving them representative government, for me. They can't hide behind the excuse that their rulers aren't their fault.

Posted by: FUBAR at May 06, 2011 12:22 PM (1fanL)

156 Santorum is delusional. When asked about President Obama's weaknesses last night, he described three elections that no one said he could win that he won.

So, basically, Obama's biggest weakness is Santorum. Never mind he lost by 18% in Pennslyvania only five years ago in a Senate election.

Posted by: Paper at May 06, 2011 12:22 PM (VoSja)

157 Why are we in Afghanistan? I forget.

Posted by: Indian Outlaw at May 06, 2011 12:22 PM (7NcLZ)

158 151 ben,

that extra 5% may be enough to tip the scales past Obammy's recovery point.

I'd say run him or draft blackwell I wanted Condi back in '08

Posted by: sven10077 at May 06, 2011 12:22 PM (kq1lG)

159 "I'm ignorant about Afghanistan" isn't going to sell well in the general.

Posted by: mr.midnight at May 06, 2011 12:23 PM (6xzTA)

160

Cain cannot run on strategic ambiguity. Eventually he'll have to lay out a plan.

You think so?

Posted by: John F'n Kerry at May 06, 2011 12:23 PM (7BU4a)

161 do you think he would peal off any black voters from the democratic party?Yes, but only because there is a secret ballot. It would be ugly.

Posted by: Beagle at May 06, 2011 12:23 PM (sOtz/)

162 158 IO,

to "get even with OBL's backers there"....

you know the 'moderate taliban" O'juggsy wants in power as we leave....?

Posted by: sven10077 at May 06, 2011 12:23 PM (kq1lG)

163 Again, since ace is on this thread, I nominate M80sB for co-blogger. She brings the goods on the inner workings of Capitol Hill, imho. Seconded. I always enjoy her comments.
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 06, 2011 12:19 PM (mHQ7T)
That hellraiser?? She's always trying to start shit with someone.

Posted by: beedubya at May 06, 2011 12:24 PM (AnTyA)

164 There used to be a metric in Republican circles - if the 'Pubs could get 5% of the black vote to flip they would control the House, Senate, and Presidency within three election cycles. It really put the polish on Colin Powell.

Posted by: Jean at May 06, 2011 12:24 PM (WkuV6)

165 West/Gordon 2012What?

Posted by: AoSHQ's worst commenter, DarkLord© at May 06, 2011 12:11 PM (GBXon)

--You mean, "Who?"


Posted by: logprof at May 06, 2011 12:18 PM (jN/Z/)
You mean "BIFF! KAPOW!"

Posted by: FUBAR at May 06, 2011 12:25 PM (1fanL)

166 Victory in Afghanistan will come when the Afghans are secure and able to determine their own destiny.

So never then or when they all convert to Christianity, Judaism, Hindu, atheist or something other then muzzie.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at May 06, 2011 12:25 PM (IXLvN)

167
I would have said, "I want for Afghanistan what
Ahmad Shah Massoud wanted for Afghanistan.

So why isn't Massoud a household name?

I don't know how often I hear, "We funded Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban in the 80s!!!!" and when I ask the person how they think Massoud fits in their scenario the only response is "who?!?"

Posted by: 18-1 at May 06, 2011 12:25 PM (7BU4a)

168 Afghanistan has always been nearly unwinnable. The logistics alone suggest it. My thought was that this was an unspoken reason for going into Iraq - that at least there would be a US/Bush/Democracy-Project victory somewhere.

the flat tax is marginally viable, but is difficult politically. the fairtax isnt, as part of it requires the repeal of the income tax amendment. not going to happen

Posted by: A.G. at May 06, 2011 12:26 PM (r1N2K)

169 Again, since ace is on this thread, I nominate M80sB for co-blogger.
She brings the goods on the inner workings of Capitol Hill, imho.

Seconded. I always enjoy her comments.
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 06, 2011 12:19 PM (mHQ7T) Also, there's a little-know codicil to an AOSHQ bylaw that says chick cob-loggers have to show their boobies to start posting. If they don't have a hump.

Posted by: FUBAR at May 06, 2011 12:27 PM (1fanL)

170 You're a racist cocksucker, ace. Thanx for being honest.
Heh. But anointing President Peter Principle as the new Messiah when he has no demonstrable competencies whatsoever, that's just liberal insight, not Magic negro racism, right erg?

Posted by: nickless at May 06, 2011 12:27 PM (MMC8r)

171 #165

That was an accurate metric 20 years ago when the minority share of the electorate was around 10%. Now that it is around 25-30% with around half of those Hispanic and Asian, it is not true.

Posted by: Paper at May 06, 2011 12:27 PM (VoSja)

172 So, basically, Obama's biggest weakness is Santorum. Never mind he lost
by 18% in Pennslyvania only five years ago in a Senate election.

Since PA has been a blue State for decades perhaps that is a good thing.

Posted by: Vic at May 06, 2011 12:28 PM (M9Ie6)

173 I'd say run him or draft blackwell I wanted Condi back in '08
See, I don't care for Condi at all, or Colin Powell for that matter, I've been the type of person who doesn't want to run a candidate just for a gimmick. I don't think we need affirmative action in the primaries or presidential election. Look at what we got with Obama.
However, that said, Cain is the first black man running for the presidency who I could easily see myself voting for. He's an accomplished man, unlike Obama, and has had his success in the real world, unlike Condi who is purely an academic.
And as for Powell, why would I want to vote for Schwartzkopf's second banana?
I would happily vote for Cain in the generals, however I need to see more of him in the primaries, and against legitimate candidates, not the the B-squad currently runnning

Posted by: Ben at May 06, 2011 12:28 PM (wuv1c)

174 Yes, but only because there is a secret ballot. It would be ugly.

Posted by: Beagle at May 06, 2011 12:23 PM (sOtz/)
How said is it that in 2008, and likely 2012, a large group of Americans will vote for Barack Obama for no reason other then the color of his skin?

Posted by: 18-1 at May 06, 2011 12:28 PM (7BU4a)

175 I call poppycock. It can be done. A strong leader that can explain why a
flat tax is right philosophically and economically with a seriousness
to use a veto of everything and anything until a flat tax gets thru
congress can get it done.
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at May 06, 2011 12:10 PM (IXLvN)

Right.

Show me the candidate who promises to veto "everything" until they get a complete reworking of the tax code.

If we can't stick to the real world, can we at least agree to abide by the rules of the known universe?

Posted by: DrewM. at May 06, 2011 12:28 PM (WNzUA)

176 161,

they don't get the gag do they?

Posted by: Barack T Ogabe at May 06, 2011 12:29 PM (kq1lG)

177 do you think he would peal off any black voters from the democratic party?

Just the racist one. Ow, my head hurts.

Posted by: FUBAR at May 06, 2011 12:29 PM (1fanL)

178
Cain did well with Luntz group for one very simple reason... but one which could very well swing the next election cycle.
He is NOTa Washingtonian... he is NOT a politician... his NOT part of the Political class which is destroying our country.
Obama tap'd into this sentiment to get elected, by running against Washington.... by saying he would Change things there....
Well, people did not get the Change they hoped for... they changed one political class, for another worse class of intellectual insiders... but they still do NOT see Washington as the solution.

Posted by: Romeo13 at May 06, 2011 12:29 PM (NtXW4)

179 "I'm ignorant about Afghanistan" isn't going to sell well in the general.

Posted by: mr.midnight at May 06, 2011 12:23 PM (6xzTA)
And that's why we are air-raiding those bastards!

Posted by: Barack Obama at May 06, 2011 12:29 PM (7BU4a)

180 The solution to Afghanistan is probably in leveling Pakistan and taking out the radical Islamist power structure there that is trying to turn Afghanistan into their equivalent of Iran's Syria.

Posted by: nickless at May 06, 2011 12:29 PM (MMC8r)

181 Yeah, Obama was very specific about his strategy in Afghanistan and Gitmo. It was all worthless bullshit, but he was specific.

Posted by: maddogg at May 06, 2011 12:29 PM (OlN4e)

182 Victory in Afghanistan will come when Pakistan knuckles under and stops sponsoring, harboring, training and commanding terrorist groups. Coincidentally, this will also make the region and the world a much safer place.
If we intend to bug out of Afghanistan, it should be for Islamabad -- or, given the nature of Pakistan, maybe it's better if we simply nuke it from orbit.

Posted by: stuiec at May 06, 2011 12:29 PM (Dr8Q5)

183 Cain is able, 2012.


Posted by: sifty at May 06, 2011 12:30 PM (b53ca)

184 Posted by: Y-not at May 06, 2011 12:20 PM (pW2o

Okay, well, he can't be perfect.

I'm really not down with the "tax credit" gimmicks. How about just cutting the corporate income tax, and extending a tax credit to anyone with a personal company (LLC or whatever) which shows receipts to that LLC (that is- as close as you can reasonably get to verifying they actually run a business).

Then, they'll have more money. Then, they may decide to expand- if it's in their business' best interests- an hire new workers. Who will then have money to buy more stuff, allowing those business to expand...

But these "tax credit for hiring unemployed Americans" schemes assume that employers are refusing to hire because they don't want to pay for the labor- not because they don't have work for said labor to perform.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at May 06, 2011 12:30 PM (8y9MW)

185 I support the Flat Tax, not the unFair Tax.

Posted by: Vic at May 06, 2011 11:54 AM (M9Ie6)

I thought that the 16th Amendment was a commie plot?

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at May 06, 2011 12:31 PM (LH6ir)

186 I would love to see Col West as Prez n Cain as VP.
Posted by: Coldwarrior57 at May 06, 2011 11:59 AM (nYTrG)
...but...but...but...they're.. *gasp*..black
Didn't you read the Tea Party bylaws????

Posted by: beedubya at May 06, 2011 12:31 PM (AnTyA)

187 If you're not privy to intelligence information, it's difficult to have a well developed PLAN.Cain could've stated it better, like "I'll formulate a plan based on the PDB presented by the intelligence community", rather than come up with campaign ignorance like, "I'll close Gitmo."

Posted by: boned to the bone at May 06, 2011 12:31 PM (0ba8c)

188 I don't really disagree but if we assume that
Luntz's focus group is representative (and you are free not to assume
that; even with a poll, with many more respondents, is just completely
wrong 1 in 20 times) then you have to explain why that weak answer about
an important, driving concern did not seem to really hurt him all that
much.





Posted by: ace at May 06, 2011 12:04 PM (nj1bB)

I think people just don't care that much about it so weak or strong it's doesn't hurt at this point.

Posted by: Rocks at May 06, 2011 12:31 PM (Q1lie)

189 174 ben,

until she went all in for Jugears she was a fairly blank slate on economics, but i wanted strategic continuity in vision....

I am not a 'gimmick' guy much either....

we could do a lot worse than run Dr. Walter E Williams though.

Posted by: sven10077 at May 06, 2011 12:32 PM (kq1lG)

190 Obama had a plan for the Middle East in general. It was also bullshit and totally worthless and going nowhere, but having a specific plan means he was ready to be POTUS. I wish some would listen to the silly shit they say.

Posted by: maddogg at May 06, 2011 12:32 PM (OlN4e)

191
Show me the candidate who promises to veto "everything" until they get a complete reworking of the tax code.

If we can't stick to the real world, can we at least agree to abide by the rules of the known universe?
Posted by: DrewM. at May 06, 2011 12:28 PM (WNzUA)
Really.... just where is the 100 Billion cut THIS year? If Washington is so disfunctional that they can't even do that very simple thing....
I'm very much afraid the system is so broken... so divorced from the will of the electorate... that change will have to come from some outside force.... not through the broken current political process.

Posted by: Romeo13 at May 06, 2011 12:32 PM (NtXW4)

192 Yes.  With the understanding that if they, or Egypt, or any other pre-medieval savage country, vote in a group of thugs who harm US interests, we will happily, joyfully, carpet-bomb the crap out of the whole country.  Not just the duly elected leaders, but the complicit population too.

Of course. That would be Appendix A - the photo of Osama Bin Laden's busted skull along with my note:

"We're giving you this one chance to do the right thing. You see your fucking guy, here? You see what happens when you fuck a stranger in the ass? THIS is what happens when you fuck a stranger in the ass. Cut out of line and we'll lay you out just like this fucking dickmeat."

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 06, 2011 12:32 PM (FI38b)

193 Cain is able, 2012.
Posted by: sifty at May 06, 2011 12:30 PM (b53ca)
Folks, we have a WINNAH!

Posted by: beedubya at May 06, 2011 12:32 PM (AnTyA)

194 Cain has to understand who he is...

Posted by: Harry Reid at May 06, 2011 12:33 PM (7NcLZ)

195 Well, people did not get the Change they hoped
for... they changed one political class, for another worse class of
intellectual insiders... but they still do NOT see Washington as the
solution.

Posted by: Romeo13 at May 06, 2011 12:29 PM (NtXW4)
This is hopefully something the Republicans will (and can) use in 2012.
Obama did not sell himself to the electorate as a far leftwing radical. He sold himself as a moderate, post partisan, who was going to end the WoT without losing, cut taxes, and while he didn't run as a deficit hawk specifically, he did run on being a good stewart of public finances.
So I think there is still a lot of support to running on these points, though the last has changed to support for steep cuts (though the specifics are problematic).


Posted by: 18-1 at May 06, 2011 12:33 PM (7BU4a)

196 186 CBD,

"fair tax' is where the games begin.....

Vic a 13-17% flat tax is 'fair'....

Posted by: sven10077 at May 06, 2011 12:33 PM (kq1lG)

197 18-1,

"I don't know how often I hear, "We funded Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban in the 80s!!!!"

Well the next time you hear it you can tell that person that the Taliban didn't exist in the 1980s. They were formed in the early 1990s and are a creature of the ISI, not the CIA.

Posted by: Ernie McCracken at May 06, 2011 12:33 PM (FUEui)

198 That hellraiser?? She's always trying to start shit with someone.

Posted by: beedubya at May 06, 2011 12:24 PM (AnTyA)
That's not important. What's important is how she looks topless.

Posted by: Typical perverted moron at May 06, 2011 12:33 PM (LH6ir)

199 Posted by: Vic at May 06, 2011 11:54 AM (M9Ie6)

I thought that the 16th Amendment was a commie plot?

It was a "Progressive Plot". That included a LOT of the early 1900s Republicans.

Posted by: Vic at May 06, 2011 12:34 PM (M9Ie6)

200 194
Cain is able, 2012.


Posted by: sifty at May 06, 2011 12:30 PM (b53ca)
Folks, we have a WINNAH!

Posted by: beedubya at May 06, 2011 12:32 PM (AnTyA)
--Isn't it too early to mark him?

Posted by: logprof at May 06, 2011 12:34 PM (jN/Z/)

201 Stand Cain next to Pawlenty last night. Cain was engaging, straight forward, unscripted and clear in his answers. Pawlenty was stiff, had a fake look on his face, waived his arms in an odd fashion, often just said what he had wanted to say even though it was not anything to do with the subject of the question and looked like an intellectually dishonest politician who is running to get the job, not running to fix the country. You might like him, Ace, but he is not what the GOP needs to get back to true conservatism.

Posted by: rightzilla at May 06, 2011 12:35 PM (SPVfc)

202 200 Vic,

and you knew most of 'em personally right?

*wink*

grin Just kidding champ.

Posted by: sven10077 at May 06, 2011 12:35 PM (kq1lG)

203 Vic a 13-17% flat tax is 'fair'....

Posted by: sven10077 at May 06, 2011 12:33 PM (kq1lG)
Only if ALL other taxes/fees are repealed. Otherwise would set 15% at the limit.

Posted by: Vic at May 06, 2011 12:36 PM (M9Ie6)

204 Cain is able, 2012.
Posted by: sifty at May 06, 2011 12:30 PM (b53ca)
Folks, we have a WINNAH!
Posted by: beedubya at May 06, 2011 12:32 PM (AnTyA)
--Isn't it too early to mark him?
Posted by: logprof at May 06, 2011 12:34 PM (jN/Z/)
I give that a nod.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 06, 2011 12:36 PM (B+qrE)

205 It was a poor answer for Cain. I understand and respect the fact that 'how' decisions require full view of the facts, but no one asked 'how'. He was asked what his policy is. Whoever goes into the White House needs to go there with a defined policy, or vision of where things need to go. When then get there, their job is to create and lead of team of experts to figure out the 'how' stuff.

I like Cain and I like the idea of a "Cain-Type" candidate. The problem is that he does not meet the standards of his marketing pitch. He ran a large but mediocre company reasonably well. That sets him a notch above many, but does not make him exceptional or fit to be the leader of the free world. His messaging and communication are inconsistent, at best. He lacks a defined vision and is dependent on regurgitating hot-button, obvious talking points with a somewhat interesting dose of his unique story telling. That is not leadership, it's recycling.


Posted by: Damiano at May 06, 2011 12:36 PM (3nrx7)

206 This is what I've been looking at. Romney, Daniels, Pawlenty, and Huntsman are basically trying to be the same candidate in a different package. They are governors/senators with strong insider ties to the Republican Party that the establishment wants to run.

Huckabee, Palin, Bachmann, Cain, Trump, Santorum, Paul, and any others are basically the populists in the race. They don't have the financial or organizational support from the Republican Party, but they can put themselves in the mix by getting enough votes.

Is there a person in the second group who can stand above the rest, or do they all break the outsider vote apart and leave us with Romney (most likely) or one of the other three with institutional support? The second group has many more total votes, but the first group is smaller and will become even more focused in the next few months.

Posted by: Paper at May 06, 2011 12:36 PM (VoSja)

207 202 Rightzilla,

Pawlenty will make Liza Merkanzki look like a rock hard conservative by way of comparison I'd wager.

Posted by: sven10077 at May 06, 2011 12:37 PM (kq1lG)

208 I don't know how often I hear, "We funded Osama Bin
Laden and the Taliban in the 80s!!!!"

Well the next time you hear it you can tell that person that the
Taliban didn't exist in the 1980s. They were formed in the early 1990s
and are a creature of the ISI, not the CIA.

Posted by: Ernie McCracken at May 06, 2011 12:33 PM (FUEui)
That is another point, but I still think Massoud is the key. He's was the essential man for us in the 80s, and would have been in the 00s - which is why Osama killed him.It starkly repudiates the "supported Osama charge".
I also like to point out that contrary to Osama's claims, he never made it into Soviet controlled Afghanistan, he just raised funds for his incompetent Arab legion - which also throws a wrench in the "we supported Osama meme".

Posted by: 18-1 at May 06, 2011 12:37 PM (7BU4a)

209 Posted by: Ernie McCracken at May 06, 2011 12:33 PM (FUEui)

Facts! They are what the libs say they are.

Mujaheddin or Taliban. What's the difference?

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at May 06, 2011 12:37 PM (LH6ir)

210 18-1,
I don't know how often I hear, "We funded Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban in the 80s!!!!"
Well the next time you hear it you can tell that person that the Taliban didn't exist in the 1980s. They were formed in the early 1990s and are a creature of the ISI, not the CIA.
Sorry for the double post. AoS went wonky for a second.

Posted by: Ernie McCracken at May 06, 2011 12:38 PM (FUEui)

211 we could do a lot worse than run Dr. Walter E Williams though.

or Thomas Sowell for that matter.

=

Posted by: Ben at May 06, 2011 12:38 PM (wuv1c)

212 Posted by: sven10077 at May 06, 2011 12:32 PM (kq1lG)

I pretty seriously want Thomas Sowell as Sec. Tres.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at May 06, 2011 12:39 PM (8y9MW)

213 Its odd that we rail on and on about their being an elite political class out there that's ruining the country and the first critique of this candidate is:

"Why isn't he a member of the elite political class, because only they can run things?"

Posted by: Oldcat at May 06, 2011 12:39 PM (z1N6a)

214 Posted by: Vic at May 06, 2011 12:34 PM (M9Ie6)

I was joking.

But...you can't say that Lincoln was the root of all evil in America nd then support an income tax.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at May 06, 2011 12:39 PM (LH6ir)

215 Caaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Obligatory Star Trek II Reference at May 06, 2011 12:39 PM (jN/Z/)

216 Only if ALL other taxes/fees are repealed. Otherwise would set 15% at the limit.


Posted by: Vic at May 06, 2011 12:36 PM (M9Ie6)
I can't think of a fairer way to tax people then setting one rate that is almost impossible to not pay.
How the current system with half the working population paying all the taxes is considered "fair" is beyond me.

Posted by: 18-1 at May 06, 2011 12:39 PM (7BU4a)

217 I think I'll make a donation to Herman just so he can stick around and we can see if he has what it takes.

Posted by: toby928™ at May 06, 2011 12:40 PM (GTbGH)

218 I heard Sowell on Mike Gallagher's radio show a week or so ago. At the end of the interview Gallagher asked him who he'd like to seen run. He said Christie and West.

Posted by: Tami at May 06, 2011 12:40 PM (VuLos)

219 Joejm 65 stated above a variation of something I was thinking about .
Perhaps an over strength brigade size force to deal with pest control and nothing else . No training of indigenous afghan troops , no hearts and minds , unless it consisted of two rounds in the heart and one in the mind .It would shorten our logistic tail , maybe shrinking it enough to enable air only resupply , if necessary , while still keeping an obvious presence in the midst of jihadi central .
Just throwin' it out there as I have no real experience in real world strategic military thinking .
As a former E-3 , I'm more than willing to defer to the real military brain trust at Aof Spades .

Posted by: awkward davies at May 06, 2011 12:40 PM (YCW1b)

220 i am a rightwing Southern Redneck,gun packing, beer drinking, truck driving, baptist who would hit another car before i hit a dog. and i kinda like Cain.

Posted by: Racefan at May 06, 2011 12:40 PM (PepOk)

221 *see run

Posted by: Tami at May 06, 2011 12:40 PM (VuLos)

222 214 Its odd that we rail on and on about their being an elite political
class out there that's ruining the country and the first critique of
this candidate is:"Why isn't he a member of the elite political class, because only they can run things?"

+100 Oldcat ... maybe even eleventy!

Posted by: jwb7605 at May 06, 2011 12:41 PM (Qxe/p)

223 221 Racefan,

amen I lived amongst you for the better part of a decade and a half...

we are not racists, the issue with barry is 'red" not 'mocha'.

Posted by: sven10077 at May 06, 2011 12:42 PM (kq1lG)

224 Posted by: awkward davies at May 06, 2011 12:40 PM (YCW1b)

The British did that in Afghanistan occasionally. It worked too.

E-3? That's obviously above CinC, because you seem to have a better grasp of what's going on than Obama (pbuh).

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at May 06, 2011 12:43 PM (LH6ir)

225 OT: Were ObamaCare Waivers Responsible
for 25% of Private Sector Job Growth?

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 06, 2011 12:44 PM (P+zzG)

226 People may not mind the punt on AFG because maybe they want a candidate that has the capacity to make a correct decision. There is no reason that he or any other candidate has to pre-define everything he would do in office at this moment. I want to know about the decision making process. Is he a populist, pandering to the primary voters or is he honestly describing the method he would use to deploy his judgment. I didn't watch the debate and know next to nothing about this guy, but I'm fine with someone that doesn't pretend to have all the answers to everything if his philosophy and approach to making a call is on track.

Posted by: Ted Kennedy's Gristle Encased Head at May 06, 2011 12:45 PM (+lsX1)

227 4: yet you see the appeal of someone in the Obama administration. From what you've said, that's pretty much his entire appeal, because he'll appeal to moderates.

"Obama sucks! Vote for me, I worked for him!"

Posted by: Ken at May 06, 2011 12:46 PM (65RBP)

228 This isn't mysterious.
Cain didn't lie. Everyone else did, or seemed to. Even RON PAUL got weaselly.
These are candidates the audience doesn't know well, if at all. One of them answered the fucking questions, even if not in the best possible way—and seemingly without calculating what the best possible way might be. When Cain reached, he seemed to reach in.
That's all.

Posted by: oblig. at May 06, 2011 12:46 PM (xvZW9)

229 Rush thinks TPaw did a good job. Rush, come on.

Posted by: cherry π at May 06, 2011 12:47 PM (+sBB4)

230 Right now, here is where we stand in the sifty bunker:

1. West / Bolton or Bolton / West (tie)

2. Palin / Cain or Palin / West (tie)

3. FRED! / Bolton (dream team)

4. Palin / FRED! (oh yeah baby)

5. Cain / West (military smarts and business smarts in one ticket)

50. A Snuggie stuffed with chicken manure and crab lice

75. Mike Huckabee

4000. Ron Paul








Posted by: sifty at May 06, 2011 12:47 PM (b53ca)

231 But...you can't say that Lincoln was the root of all evil in America nd then support an income tax.


Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at May 06, 2011 12:39 PM (LH6ir)
Lincoln did not support an "income tax". He supported the corrupt "American System" which depended on high tariffs to benefit Northern industries and funded improvements in the North.An actual flat income tax on ALL income regardless of source with no deductions or exceptions would be the fairest tax there can be. I despise all other forms of taxation.I am not a big "L" libertarian or an anarchist. I do believe we require a minimum amount of government and that it must be supported by taxes.

Posted by: Vic at May 06, 2011 12:47 PM (M9Ie6)

232 Ultimately we'll probably do the Iraq solution: instead of declaring victory and getting out, we'll actually win and get out. The country will still be a shithole, but we'll have taken care of the Taliban.

Posted by: Ken at May 06, 2011 12:49 PM (65RBP)

233 Well damn CBd , having a better grasp than Obama is a bar I can probably clear , mostly because I don't have Valerie Jarret and the sisterhood advising me on foreign policy .
Which is nice .

Posted by: awkward davies at May 06, 2011 12:49 PM (YCW1b)

234 At this point, if we're not in Afghanistan to get our hands on their sweet, sweet mineral deposits we need to GTFO.

Posted by: Fritz at May 06, 2011 12:49 PM (GwPRU)

235 232 Vic,

Lincoln was an American system mercantitlist, crony capitalist graft swigging bastard....

and yeah 'flat" meaning 'flat"....

you pay 13 cents to 17 cents of every buch to uncle and Uncle learns to live on it.

Posted by: sven10077 at May 06, 2011 12:49 PM (kq1lG)

236 Sure. You don't want a bad apple? The thing to do is to age your apple in a barrel of rotten apples. That'll fix ya up.
I made this point last night. Here is the problem with running for the first time ever for the highest office in the land. Politics is like any other profession. To be really successful at it, a certain amount of experience is helpful. That is why when you are 16, and you get your first job at McDonald's, you are working the fryer or the counter and not running the store....because you don't really know what the hell you are doing. Same with politics.
Campaigining requires a certain amount of discipline to stay on message. It really isn't easy to get up and give the same speech 5 or 6 times a day with the same level of enthusiam needed to connect with your audience. There is a certain level of experience needed to deal with the media (yea, I know....ignore the media, don't let them pick a candidate. O.K. - don't think the media can influence an election, join me next week when I will have former Senator Allen on my panel).
Look at 2010. First time candidates had a good success rate at the House level. The Senate - eh, not so much. First timers Fiorina, Angle, Buck, the West Virginia Republican whose name has now escaped me and McMahon all lost. Rand Paul and Ron Johnson were the only ones who won - and Rand had Dad's guys there, so that gets an asterick.
Now,. you want a first time candidate to run for President? Other than Ike, it usually doesn't work out to well. That is 1 for 45..........which in baseball, would get you demoted to Double A if not outright cut.
Cain is interesting and refreshing. And for one night, he did well. But lets not forget, for that one night, it was a JV scrimmage.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at May 06, 2011 12:50 PM (OWjjx)

237 Stand Cain next to Pawlenty last night. Cain was engaging, straight forward, unscripted and clear in his answers. Pawlenty was stiff, had a fake look on his face, waived his arms in an odd fashion, often just said what he had wanted to say even though it was not anything to do with the subject of the question and looked like an intellectually dishonest politician who is running to get the job, not running to fix the country. You might like him, Ace, but he is not what the GOP needs to get back to true conservatism.
Posted by: rightzilla at May 06, 2011 12:35 PM (SPVfc)
Good analysis.
Another point that I think is vastly overlooked is the "man's man" factor. It's usually analyzedhow a male candidate appeals to women. I think the same "appeal" factor holds true with most men, but it's rarely discussed. Pawlenty, and especially Daniels, have a whimpy whuss factor of +10 that just tends to creep-out a lot of conservative men.

Posted by: Havedash at May 06, 2011 12:50 PM (sFD5n)

238 237 malamutt,

Ike was our Pompey

Posted by: sven10077 at May 06, 2011 12:52 PM (kq1lG)

239 In an election where we have a crashing economy, a socialist President, and massive deficits, why the hell are we talking about Afghanistan policy?

Posted by: Oldcat at May 06, 2011 12:52 PM (z1N6a)

240 It seems to me that there are two questions here:

1. What actions would you take in dealing with Afghanistan?

2. What principles would you apply to evaluating the Afghan situation?

Cain was right on the first question: determining the proper actions to take depend on the data, not all of which he has - and in fact, the situation could change drastically between now and January 2013.

However, I'm interested in what principles he would apply to evaluating those data: What should our strategic goal be in Afghanistan? How would he define victory? Those questions he could, and should, answer now.

Posted by: Brown Line at May 06, 2011 12:52 PM (VrNoa)

241 A flat tax insures the continuation of Big Brother IRS, Big Government's twin brother.


Posted by: Retribution at May 06, 2011 12:52 PM (wOaLi)

242 240 oldcat,

because the polls say the American people want to hit bottom at terminal velocity not a controlled parachute assisted freefall.

Posted by: sven10077 at May 06, 2011 12:53 PM (kq1lG)

243
Cain is interesting and refreshing. And for one
night, he did well. But lets not forget, for that one night, it was a JV
scrimmage.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at May 06, 2011 12:50 PM (OWjjx)
Yeah, so why are we ruling out anyone based on what happened?

Posted by: Oldcat at May 06, 2011 12:53 PM (z1N6a)

244 I caught nothing of the debate, but hearing Rush's sound clips of Cain makes me want to support him.

He's a great speaker and does so from the heart.

Posted by: logprof at May 06, 2011 12:54 PM (jN/Z/)

245 242 Retribution,

there is no way short of the federal government dying that the IRS will ever go away.

Posted by: sven10077 at May 06, 2011 12:54 PM (kq1lG)

246 Ace, I think you're close to hitting the nail on the head.
(DISCLAIMER: I missed a bit of the debates last night and didn't see every bit of every singleQ and A, but I saw a lot.)
Cain did several things:
He answered economic stuff mostly right, or at least a whole heck of alotbetter than what we're getting now. Especially with regard to "big business".
He was decisive in his answers, and unapologetic.
He didn't seem slick, he didn't seem sleepy.
He saida fewof the sorts of things that we can't help but like out of Ron Paul, but he's not Ron Paul.
He said he didn't have enough information to make an informed decision on Afganistan.
(Like you, I suspect many of us feel the same way about Afganistan. Heck, I read the papers, I saw Charlie Wilson's War and I read Three Cups of Tea. I don't even remotely feel like I have anything like a handle on why we're in Afganistan and whether it matters. Yeah, I want those little girls to go to school, and I also hate that we're in a war inthe "graveyard of empires". I just don't know enough to say either whichway. We're not taught much, if anything, about that region and it's history in US public schools, and I am just plain uninformed on it.I'm so muchnot complaining that we don't muchknow,butmore just acknowledgingthat fact.)
I think Cain sounded mostlylike a regular American, but smarter than most when it comes to economics. It's the economy, stupid.
None of this cements me as a Herman Cain supporter for president by any means. I liked him, but I still think solidexperience in politics is a must. The double checkers champion isn't necessarily the one I bet on in a chess match. The game is different. I wouldn'tbe unhappyto see him as a presidentialadvisor, though--as far as I know.
Maybe this is the realproblem with republican politics and voting just now? We out here only know as much as we can know, and we have to make a decision. This is why we have to choose good LEADERS. For my money, I didn't see a standout good leader last night. What worries me most regarding the field so faris that Ron Paul may have done that best. He's got some leader energy. No one else displayed any. We need somebody reasonablewith a bit ofcharisma. Where are they?

Posted by: restless native at May 06, 2011 12:55 PM (ZREXl)

247 The first candidate that says about Asscanistan that the plan going forward is, "We win, you lose", gets my vote. You don't go into any war for any other reason. That's why they call it fucking war. The same should be done against the followers of the goatfucker. Any nation that harbors their sick asses gets the same, and we mean it. We have the means and the capability. I'm sick and damn tired of dancing around it.
All we do by trying to appease or make excuses for why we can't level the shit out of them just gives them more time to grow and recruit fucksticks like them.
Be damn thankful I can't be president, because by now most of the ME would be a giant fucking glass,man made lakesurrounded bycabanas and decent people would beserved cocktails, with little umbrellas in them, by hot ass cabana boys.

Posted by: Steph at May 06, 2011 12:55 PM (AkdC5)

248 A flat tax insures the continuation of Big Brother IRS, Big Government's twin brother.

Yes, we would still have the IRS but it could be made 99% smaller. Then it would be a "little tiny brother".

Posted by: Vic at May 06, 2011 12:55 PM (M9Ie6)

249 Wow, Rush played a clip of Barky last night at his Cinco de Mayo party.

Dude, pandering does no good if it's fucking obvious it's pandering.

Posted by: logprof at May 06, 2011 12:55 PM (jN/Z/)

250 #244

I'm willing to rule out Johnson after last night. The performance was laughably bad, and he had trouble giving a coherent answer on any issues.

He clearly can't think on his feet very well. Whether odd questions on the debate on the post-interview with Hannity, he doesn't show an ability to be clever. Clever is very important in a campaign with the near-ending media spotlight.

Posted by: Paper at May 06, 2011 12:56 PM (VoSja)

251
Be damn thankful I can't be president, because by
now most of the ME would be a giant fucking glass,man made
lakesurrounded bycabanas and decent people would beserved cocktails,
with little umbrellas in them, by hot ass cabana boys.

Posted by: Steph at May 06, 2011 12:55 PM (AkdC5)
I'd vote for you.

Posted by: Oldcat at May 06, 2011 12:56 PM (z1N6a)

252 awkward davies, thats "king of the hill" strategy. We secure a couple hard points, with enough stick that no local force could dislodge, then let the SF guys muck around enough to stay in contact with the locals, occasionally bringing in a hellfire when necessary to adjust local politics. The hard part is giving the locals a clear set of political boundaries that they can work with and not endlessly modifying them. The left hates the idea; likens it to a puppetmaster or indian reservation -- which is how they would run it -- picking winners and doleing out free beer. It could work, but only if we could resist sticking our fingers into the pie, and the big issue would be drugs.

Posted by: Jean at May 06, 2011 12:56 PM (WkuV6)

253 There used to be a metric in Republican circles - if the 'Pubs could get 5% of the black vote to flip they would control the House, Senate, and Presidency within three election cycles. It really put the polish on Colin Powell.

What never gets mentioned is this: if we were to get 60% of the white vote we'd be even more unbeatable. We'd also get more black and Hispanic votes, just as a side dish, due to their desire to be with a winner.

Republicans don't lose because they're perceived as racists. They lose because they're perceived as wimps.

Posted by: Ken at May 06, 2011 12:56 PM (65RBP)

254 Posted by: Vic at May 06, 2011 12:47 PM (M9Ie6)

You have said before that Lincoln began our country's long slide into communism. I was simply editing for brevity.

I agree about the flat tax. One of the problems with our tax structure is that their are 100s of small taxes on pretty much everything. Phone bills are a good example of the nonsense that our leaders have been allowed to get away with. I think that there 15 different taxes on my bill.

Our total tax burden (as you well know) is huge. On par with Europe's worst.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at May 06, 2011 12:57 PM (LH6ir)

255 I'm willing to rule out Johnson after last night.
The performance was laughably bad, and he had trouble giving a coherent
answer on any issues.

He clearly can't think on his feet very
well. Whether odd questions on the debate on the post-interview with
Hannity, he doesn't show an ability to be clever. Clever is very
important in a campaign with the near-ending media spotlight.


Posted by: Paper at May 06, 2011 12:56 PM (VoSja)
Ok, I'll amend it to: Why are we ruling out the winner of the debate?

Posted by: Oldcat at May 06, 2011 12:58 PM (z1N6a)

256 Someone up thread mentioned ROEs.

I would have loved to hear Cain (or anyone) say: 'The very first thing we need to do is change the ROEs. How can we know if we can win if we aren't letting our heroes do what they have spent years training to do?'

No one can answer, Can we win, because we haven't even fought. Ask anyone that has been in theater since BO took office. They will tell you, they aren't soldiers they are wall dressing*. They only way they can fight is if they ignore most ROEs.

Also, why wasn't anyone asked about the billions we have given to Paki in the last few years?

(Fight = kill the fucking bastards without prejudice. They have a gun? They're dead. Period. Thought I'd clarify it before someone yelled at me for saying our heroes aren't fighting)

* Direct quote from my nephew who spent little over a year in Iraq and earned several medals in the process. The ROEs are the main reason he isn't re-enlisting and he loves the military/combat.

Posted by: momma at May 06, 2011 12:58 PM (penCf)

257
Posted by: Vic at May 06, 2011 12:47 PM (M9Ie6)
I'm more for JUST a National Sales Tax... no exemptions... straight percentage... and NO business taxes at all.
That way, Imports are taxed at our level PLUS whatever their government puts on them (helping domestic production), and OUR Exports would have a HUGE advantage in the World Marketplace...
The Rich would still pay more because they SPEND more... but everyone would pay somthing, including anyone in the underground economy (they gotta get grocerys somewhere).

Posted by: Romeo13 at May 06, 2011 12:58 PM (NtXW4)

258 I hereby declare my unequivocal support for STEPH FOR PRESIDENT!

Posted by: Havedash at May 06, 2011 12:58 PM (sFD5n)

259 Cain's lack of background in Politics is not necessarily a negative. He doesn't have the baggage of being a member of the club and therefore owing too many favors. He may not know how to play the politics game...but that's what political advisors are for. Hell, it would be refreshing to see someone who wasn't a panderer.
He's not a dummy. He has a degree in mathematics (which ain't easy..just ask AmishDude), and a masters in computer science.
Something I did not know about him before is that he is the former Chairman of theFederal Reserve Bank of Kansas City!!!!! So he probably knows quite a bit about monetary policy and macro-economics. He's proven that he knows micro-econ, so he understands what businesses need for job creation and how policy can affect that.
As far as the Godfather thing is concerned, he turned a foundering company around in a very competitive market put them on the Fortune 500...and he ended up buying them out himself.
He catches shit because the product was pizza. So fucking what?? He turned this consumer commodityproducer into a hugely successful and profitable business entity.
He's got a shit load of money..and he's not a political careerist. He impresses me as someone who is seriously concerned about where this country is headed and who has the tools to form the skill set for the job.

Posted by: beedubya at May 06, 2011 12:59 PM (AnTyA)

260 everyone in the South is not racist...... sure some are but for the most part they are not. even some of my friends who are about as Southern Redneck as it gets are not.they dont care. black/white they dont care. you mess with their family or close friends they will shoot you no matter of your color.

Posted by: Racefan at May 06, 2011 12:59 PM (PepOk)

261 So what if race is a factor?

For one -- Cain has an authentic black accent. As opposed to the fake Jesse Jackson accent Hawaiian-born Obama uses when he campaigns in front of black people or tries to channel MLK to get rich, white liberals panties wet.

For Republicans it is somewhat heart-warming to hear Republican ideas -- free markets, strong defense, individual liberty, traditional morality, etc, etc, -- spoken in that black accent coming from a black guy. A guy who, unlike Obama, actually was the descendent of American slaves. And yet despite that, doesn't live in perpetual victimhood and America-bashing for the sins committed by America's forefathers against his ancestors.

The traditional black accent does have an effect on Americans. Obama uses it when he wants. Hell, Clinton used it. It's been a powerful tool to give liberal's absolute moral authority sine MLK died. I enjoy Cain using the vocal jujitsu to turn it on the libs. (Not that I think it's a conscious tactic, it's just the accent Cain grew up with in Georgia.)

Posted by: Clubber Lang at May 06, 2011 01:01 PM (QcFbt)

262 How about another thing:
Cain was the only one speaking like a grown man. Everyone either seemed whiny, frustrated or high on pain killers.

Posted by: VeeeDeee at May 06, 2011 01:01 PM (5d5ys)

263 OT

Where is BO getting the 'in little over a year, we've added more than 2 million jobs in the private sector' numbers?

Shouldn't he have to figure in the jobs we have lost?

Posted by: momma at May 06, 2011 01:01 PM (penCf)

264 264 Momma,

RACIST

//Lib

Posted by: sven10077 at May 06, 2011 01:03 PM (kq1lG)

265 Where is BO getting the 'in little over a year, we've added more than 2 million jobs in the private sector' numbers?

Shouldn't he have to figure in the jobs we have lost?


Posted by: momma at May 06, 2011 01:01 PM (penCf)
Well if he did that, it wouldn't sound nearly as impressive, would it?

Posted by: Oldcat at May 06, 2011 01:03 PM (z1N6a)

266 Another point that I think is vastly overlooked is the "man's man" factor. It's usually analyzed how a male candidate appeals to women. I think the same "appeal" factor holds true with most men, but it's rarely discussed. Pawlenty, and especially Daniels, have a whimpy whuss factor of +10 that just tends to creep-out a lot of conservative men.

True, but you miss the reason why. We don't oppose wimps because they creep us out, or because they won't throw a half-ass indoor football around with Sean Hannity. We oppose them because we've been a punching bag for the Left for the past two decades, we've started punching back, and we damned well want someone who's in the fight!

I'll vote for Arnold Horschak if he's willing to "get in their faces." By the same token, I have nothing but contempt for a steroid-abusing pushover like Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Posted by: Ken at May 06, 2011 01:03 PM (65RBP)

267
Something I did not know about him before is that he is the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City!!!!!
Posted by: beedubya at May 06, 2011 12:59 PM (AnTyA)

Ummmm.... and you think thats a GOOD thing? Having a Fed Insider as President?

Posted by: Romeo13 at May 06, 2011 01:05 PM (NtXW4)

268 I'm more for JUST a National Sales Tax... no exemptions... straight percentage... and NO business taxes at all.

Word.

Posted by: Retribution at May 06, 2011 01:05 PM (wOaLi)

269 Havedash and Oldcat...well, that's 2 votes.

Posted by: Steph at May 06, 2011 01:06 PM (AkdC5)

270 269 retribution,


Ooooo oooooo me too me too.....

that way it'll be easier for us to add back in income tax as an "emergency"

Posted by: Frau Botox at May 06, 2011 01:07 PM (kq1lG)

271 Havedash and Oldcat...well, that's 2 votes.

Three, if you promise to surround your abode with fire.

Posted by: toby928™ at May 06, 2011 01:07 PM (GTbGH)

272 267 ken,

hear hear....

ahnuld is a 92 pound political weakling compared to Sarah!

Posted by: sven10077 at May 06, 2011 01:08 PM (kq1lG)

273 I'm more for JUST a National Sales Tax... no exemptions... straight percentage... and NO business taxes at all.

I am not in favor of sales taxes for several reasons:

One they can be too easily avoided.

Two they require the merchants (small business) to collect them.

Three the would operate on a negative feedback cycle. Sales tax is the first thing to drop off during an economic downturn. That is killing us here in SC now after they have raised sales taxes in most locations to the 10% range.

Four unless you made them prohibitively high (31% in the case of the fair tax) they simply will not generate enough revenue. The shortage comes in because people who make a LOT of income would still pay a low amount of taxes compared to others because you would really have to be a conspicuous spender to keep up the amount of taxes that you would have paid on a flat tax on ALL income.


Posted by: Vic at May 06, 2011 01:08 PM (M9Ie6)

274 Other than Ike, not a fan of Grant, Zachary Taylor, or Hoover are we ...

Posted by: Jean at May 06, 2011 01:09 PM (WkuV6)

275 Better add a few for me, Steph.For a candidate like you, I'd vote early and often!

Posted by: Havedash at May 06, 2011 01:11 PM (sFD5n)

276 Better add a few for me, Steph.For a candidate like you, I'd vote early and often!
Posted by: Havedash at May 06, 2011 01:11 PM (sFD5n)
You know, I just don't get why every war in my lifetime has not been just that. A damn war fought to win. What we get instead is a bitch fight. You pull my hair, I'll pull yours back. I really don't want to hit you hard enough to draw blood, because that might get icky, and some people get sick at the sight of blood, so let's just play chicken for a while. You first, then me until one of us just gets tired.
Screw that shit. If you slap me, I'm going to beat you to a bloody fucking pulp. You don't get the chance to get back up and slap me again.

Posted by: Steph at May 06, 2011 01:19 PM (AkdC5)

277 Republicans don't lose because they're perceived as racists. They lose because they're perceived as wimps.

Posted by: Ken

============

The reason that metric works isn't racism or perception of the electorate at large -- it's the gerrymandered districts and the states that are dominated by a single urban center (can't help Illinois, sorry) pulling both Senators and the EV to the Left. That 5% flip puts Mich, Wisc, Mizzou, PA, etc. into the 'Pub column and wipes out all the bluedogs in the South. Remember a 5% flip means an actual voter, not a poll value, a proven get-up on Tuesday and go vote person - so it is -5% to the Dems and +5% to the Pubs.

I would be content just keeping them unenthused and at home.

Posted by: Jean at May 06, 2011 01:21 PM (WkuV6)

278
Posted by: Vic at May 06, 2011 01:08 PM (M9Ie6)
Almost all business's are already collecting sales tax, the infrastructure already is in place...
Its as easy, or easier, to avoid an income tax, as it is a sales tax... there will always be cheaters.
Yes, there will be a negative feedback loop where if there is less spending the Government TAKES less taxes, but thats a Feature, not a Bug. Less income being taken by the Government will HELP the economy, and allow it to come out of that downturn faster.
And yes... if it needs to be 31% then thats fine with me. Let people SEE just how much they pay for this Government, instead of all the hidden fees and taxes we pay every single day without really knowing it.

Posted by: Romeo13 at May 06, 2011 01:21 PM (NtXW4)

279 not a fan of Grant, Zachary Taylor, or Hoover are we ...
Not exactly a ringing endorsement there for first timer either.
But historically, you are correct. So that is 4 for 45. Still way below the Mendoza line.
Grant is like Ike, the War General Hero. So, that explains the success. And the campaigns of the 1800s are no where similar to the campaigns of today.
But, you are factually correct, so I tip my cap to your historical prowess.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at May 06, 2011 01:21 PM (OWjjx)

280 280 Malamutt,

aHEM......


(federalist begat whig)

Posted by: George Washington at May 06, 2011 01:23 PM (kq1lG)

281
But, you are factually correct, so I tip my cap to your historical prowess.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at May 06, 2011 01:21 PM (OWjjx)
William Henry Harrison, Washington, Andy Jackson....

Posted by: Oldcat at May 06, 2011 01:24 PM (z1N6a)

282 You know, I just don't get why every war in my lifetime has not been just that. A damn war fought to win. What we get instead is a bitch fight. You pull my hair, I'll pull yours back. I really don't want to hit you hard enough to draw blood, because that might get icky, and some people get sick at the sight of blood, so let's just play chicken for a while. You first, then me until one of us just gets tired.
Screw that shit. If you slap me, I'm going to beat you to a bloody fucking pulp. You don't get the chance to get back up and slap me again.
Posted by: Steph at May 06, 2011 01:19 PM (AkdC5)
WWII seems like the last war America fought to win. It's truly sad. I thought immediately after 9/11 that is was going to be on, but I knew differently as soon as I heard Bush do his "we are not at war with the peaceful religion of islam" speech.

Posted by: Havedash at May 06, 2011 01:25 PM (sFD5n)

283 Posted by: George Washington at May 06, 2011 01:23 PM (kq1lG)
General, do I need to remind you of your service to the First Continental Congress? That counts as a campaign to get elected to something before you ascended to the Presidency. Your stint there ended when you walked out o the room when they were voting to make you General of the continetal Army. Remember that event --- you showed up in full military dress.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at May 06, 2011 01:25 PM (OWjjx)

284 Ummmm.... and you think thats a GOOD thing? Having a Fed Insider as President?
Posted by: Romeo13 at May 06, 2011 01:05 PM (NtXW4
Fuck yes. Being an insider doesn't mean you're corrupt yourself.
.... he's no Timmeh Geithner,that's for sure...and he probably knows where some bodies are buried

Posted by: beedubya at May 06, 2011 01:27 PM (AnTyA)

285 William Henry Harrison, Washington, Andy Jackson....
Washington served in the Continental Congress. Jackson was a Senator. Harrison was a Senator.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at May 06, 2011 01:28 PM (OWjjx)

286 284 Malamutt,

"campaigning" hardly describes the results of my dignified approach to the race....

I KNEW I had 100% of the Electoral Vote old boy.

Posted by: George Washington at May 06, 2011 01:29 PM (kq1lG)

287 Harrison was also elected to the House in 1816 - which entailed a campaign of some sorts.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at May 06, 2011 01:30 PM (OWjjx)

288 seriously mal,

GW never campaigned in the sense we think of it at all....

of course he hardly had to he was perceived as a giant god among men in a lot of ways.

Posted by: sven10077 at May 06, 2011 01:30 PM (kq1lG)

289 I KNEW I had 100% of the Electoral Vote old boy
Yes General. But my point(made some time ago) was that as a general rule, first time candidates for office running for President do not have a very high success rate because campaigning requires some level of experience. The one general exception to that rule is the Great War General Hero. So far we have you (Revolutionary), Grant (Civil) and Ike (WWII).

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at May 06, 2011 01:33 PM (OWjjx)

290 Posted by: sven10077 at May 06, 2011 01:30 PM (kq1lG)
And yes, comparing campaigns in the late 18th century to today is kind of like comparing my fastball to the fastball of The Greatness.....That Is........Zach Greinke.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at May 06, 2011 01:34 PM (OWjjx)

291 251 #244I'm willing to rule out Johnson after last night. The performance was laughably bad, and he had trouble giving a coherent answer on any issues. He clearly can't think on his feet very well. Whether odd questions on the debate on the post-interview with Hannity, he doesn't show an ability to be clever. Clever is very important in a campaign with the near-ending media spotlight.
Posted by: Paper at May 06, 2011 12:56 PM (VoSja)

While I agree he did not perform well, I contend it was because he was never asked serious questions and was purposefully marginalized by the panel. Asking what reality show he would have was plain stupid and was so much so that he couldn't even answer it. There simply isn't an answer unless you are shallow. I admit I did not see his post interview, so am basing all of my answer on how the debate itself went. As far as clever, I am tired of clever. Just answer the damned question.

Posted by: rightzilla at May 06, 2011 01:36 PM (SPVfc)

292 Damn fine analysis, but that could be that it mirrored mine exactly.. Plus, the lack of political BS. He was able to get away with saying "I don't have a specific answer to that question" without seeming like he was ducking the question or looking incompetent. To the point, Cain seemed to be the only non-politician BS'er that was also not a wacknut but was competent and Presidential(Santorum came damn close). He's gotta do something about the finger counting though...

Posted by: TrueGrits at May 06, 2011 01:49 PM (S5shW)

293
"And so, perhaps, Cain's answer, noncommittal, vague, conflicted, and weak, actually strikes many conservatives as hitting the right tone."

yes, it did with me, because just like you say in your piece i am very conflicted about Afghanistan right now, I don't see what good we are doing anymore and now that Osama is dead i'm struggling to find a reason we should stay there, i've got family over there and I want them to come home now.

please kill everyone on your way out and don't forget to turn off the lights.

Posted by: Shoey at May 06, 2011 01:49 PM (jdOk/)

294 This is the genius of me: I make so many errors and mistakes
that they support each other in a logical, consistent framework in
which, in their combined double-negative wrongness, they wind up being
sort of right.
They cancel each other out.

Posted by: rdbrewer at May 06, 2011 02:05 PM (BLd0J)

295 Obama wants to turn Afghanistan over to the Taliban, but only on the condition that they form a coalition government with the Communists who used to rule it. I agree, but for different reasons.

Posted by: Allahpundit at May 06, 2011 02:25 PM (65RBP)

296 238. Pawlenty always makes the fishing opener, wears hockey jersey and skates like he's spent time on the ice, did havea gun malfunction a year or so ago, but just leaves one, well, vaguely nauseated doin' the guy thing.
Like when he appeared a couple years with his wife, a former judge and a looker, at some outdoor venue and complained weakly of no sex. I mean, what kind are we talkin' about?

Posted by: gary gulrud at May 06, 2011 02:52 PM (/g2vP)

297 "158 Why are we in Afghanistan? I forget."

We have always been at war in Afghanistan.

Posted by: Winston Smith at May 06, 2011 02:57 PM (VXBR1)

298 One point that I think was missed in here was the fact that this was in SC, and their "hot button" issue is that deal about the govt interfering with Boeing's plan to put a major plant there. I don't remember exactly, but I thin Cain had a pretty good answer on that.
He had a number of good moments, in my estimation, but a lot of neutral ones too.
The Afghanistan thing was a horrible answer, and I'm surprised more people in here aren't critical of it. The "I'm not privy to all the facts" stuff is refreshing, but the huge blunder was the "'Because it's not clear what the mission is." Huh? As president, he would be pretty much defining the mission himself! As a candidate, he should be taking a stand on what he thinks that mission should be. Total "cop out", as somebody above called it.

Posted by: Optimizer at May 06, 2011 03:24 PM (F56VB)

299 but the huge blunder was the "'Because it's not clear what the mission is." Huh? As president, he would be pretty much defining the mission himself! As a candidate, he should be taking a stand on what he thinks that mission should be. Total "cop out", as somebody above called it. Posted by: Optimizer at May 06, 2011 03:24 PM (F56VB)
I would have called that an "incomplete answer."I don't know whether he intended to complete it later or just didn't ever want to go there.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at May 06, 2011 03:33 PM (bxiXv)

300 112 Explain that to Bush/Cheney. I've never been a big fan of Pawlenty but I don't really see how anyone can take the nomination from him at this point. Romney has shit the bed and Pawlenty is the primary beneficiary.2 things will be needed to beat Obama. The first is competence and experience to play against Obama's clear failings. Pawlenty as governor has both, in spades. Basically at this point if you aren't a former Governor you might as well go home.The second is not be a firebrand. A firebrand, no matter how good, needs to butt heads with another to get anywhere. Butt heads against Obama and he just sits back and allows the press to sell him as "Professorial". Instead you need someone, like Ryan, to calmly make the point that Obama is an idiot without a clue and let Obama's ego take over. Again, here Pawlenty's demeanor is an advantage.This!

Posted by: BruceTheRobert at May 06, 2011 03:51 PM (re6ik)

301
and what on earth makes you think Pawlenty would EVER take on The One?
Timmie peed is pants over Al Franken for God's sake!
he doesn't have a solid bone in his whole body.

Posted by: Shoey at May 06, 2011 04:51 PM (jdOk/)

302
and by the way, now that Osama is dead, exactly what is our mission in Afghan.?
if the best you can do is nation-building, that ain't enough for me to lose my nephews over.
we've been trying to build a nation there for 10 years... it ain't working.

Posted by: Shoey at May 06, 2011 04:55 PM (jdOk/)

303 I liked Cain because he seemed more open and unrehearsed than everyone else (except Johnson who rarely got to speak). I liked his answer on what to do with the troops which I heard as "I will listen to the guidance of those who are in charge of that department and have the most history, knowledge, and skills in those areas" which is what great business managers do. Obama wants to micromanage everything based on his philosophical world view, instead of facts, history, or what the pros think. I also think I am attracted to someone with a strong business angle because I think our focus right now needs to be fixing our budget/spending, encouraging non-govt job growth, using our own energy resources, homeland/border security, etc. Foreign policy needs to take a backseat, we need to be less reactionary for awhile and build back up allies and partnerships that make sense for America, freedom, and security. Not keep going out to rescue people who don't want those things, hate us, or require that we continually apologize for existing.

Posted by: TWC at May 06, 2011 04:58 PM (H4a9N)

304 I liked Cains answer regarding Afghanistan because, for once, heis not a politician, rather a problem solver...something we desperately need. To solve a problem, you need to know a whole lot of stuff before you can decide on the course of action. Admitting you don't have enough info to make a good decision is a truthful answer. Remember Obummer exclaiming "I'm closing Gitmo right away!" Then he found out, with more information, that maybe not. Then it was "We are pulling out of Iraq. Mission is accomplished." Ahem...we're still there. By telling us in no uncertain terms, during his campaign, exactly what he would do, and then after elected decided differently, made him look like an amature. I am sick of politicians making important decisions without thought to unintended consequences. Cain showed me that he is intelligent enough and non-political enough to admit he can't tell us what he would do without more information. It sounded like a truthful answer to me...what you can't handle the truth?

Posted by: DailyDish at May 06, 2011 06:03 PM (sQGkL)

305 Escarpins Pas Cher Adidas Sneakers Scarpe Puma Scarpe Timberland Coach Outlet Canada Louboutin Chaussures Escarpins Louboutin Christain Mary Janes burberry Lunettes De Soleil Burberry Outlet London Burberry Canada Christian Louboutin Sale Uk Jimmy Choo Sale Timberland Schoenen Online Mbt Scarpe Mbt Zapatos louboutin chaussures

Posted by: louboutin chaussures at May 06, 2011 09:37 PM (oVF6r)

306

Normal
0



7.8 磅
0
2

false
false
false

EN-US
ZH-CN
X-NONE















































































































































































/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:普通表格;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.5pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-font-kerning:1.0pt;}



With SWF Video Converter,Convert Flash
SWF files to AVI, XviD, DivX, MPG, MPEG1, MPEG2,WMV, MP4, 3GP,FLV, MOV, MPEG-4,
H264 formats. Swf to video
converter This article will show you how to convert
movies and other videos to iPad, ipad converter so that you can watch videos on iPad iPad 2. ipad converter for mac ipad to mac
transfer dvd to
ipad ipad
transfer dvd to ipad dvd to ipad dvd to ipad dvd to ipad dvd to ipad dvd to ipad dvd to ipad dvd to ipad dvd to ipad dvd to ipad dvd to ipad dvd to ipad dvd to ipad dvd to ipad

Posted by: romains at May 06, 2011 11:57 PM (pw9Ln)

307 There is definitely historical precedence a FairTax Huckabee/Cain connection. The last election cycle CNN tracked viewer reaction when Huckabee talked about the FairTax. It was off the charts: http://bit.ly/kRD5Vg

The bottom line is that the more details Americans hear about the FairTax, the more they like it. They want to keep their paychecks and not the IRS!

As someone who's been promoting the FairTax for over 7 years (before it was 'cool' and the books came out) I find this very exciting. More info at www.fairtax.org

Posted by: Aaron at May 07, 2011 12:24 AM (VjU93)

308 You made various nice points there. I did a search on the issue and found most persons will go along with with your blog.

Posted by: Wholesale Jerseys at May 07, 2011 02:51 AM (wcrZU)

309
One quibble, he supported the Fair Tax, not the flat tax




this website is very good, you can go and see it




http://www.shoes4world.com/

Posted by: shoes4world at May 07, 2011 10:15 AM (ELbvE)

310
Cain at CPAC. http://tinyurl.com/3qbuzoa

Posted by: Steve In Tulsa at May 07, 2011 01:21 PM (f7ylG)

311 This is a good post. Thank you so much. Keep up the good works. Bothbest bamboo flooring bamboo flooring, bamboo plywood, bambusparkett, parquet bambou, Ç¿»¯µØ°å gives you best support.

Posted by: ÖñµØ°å at May 09, 2011 03:19 AM (xDoPn)

312 a leading worldwide wholesale company (or ucan say organization). We supply more than 100 thousand high-quality merchandise and

famous brand name products all at wholesale prices.

Posted by: wholesale christian louboutin at May 09, 2011 06:00 AM (gFL/q)

313 NFL jerseysfyhgjjkikhff557887

Posted by: http://www.discount-nhl-jersey.com at July 13, 2011 10:32 PM (YSLrL)






Processing 0.07, elapsed 0.0853 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0427 seconds, 322 records returned.
Page size 209 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat