I cant help but ask...what's with the Cain craze? I like the guy, but I cant help but feel he is simply someone that the right has a crush on. When I hear him pressed on issues, he lacks substance and begins to fall apart. That concerns me big time! Obama is many things, but a bad debater is not one of them. At least Romney has stood strong in the face of constant challenge and is able to stay on message. Cain at the last debate started losing his message on his tax plan and began to muddle it with "apples and oranges" analogies. He later said the candidates were on his last nerve for challenging him. Really?....This was the first time he received fire from the others in the debate, and hes already on his "last" nerve. That was a pillow fight compared to what Obama and his cronies will bring. I cant help but feel people are over looking the tactical disadvantage that Cain brings.

My personal favorite in the race is Newt, however in my opinion Romney is the realistic candidate to defeat Obama. Some want to sit here and play the "purist" game of who is or is not a "true" conservative by their definition...go ahead, but while conservatives divide and bicker over such crap, Obama gets that much stronger for re-election. I at least realize there is much more to worry about for this nation then the tired old argument about whether Mitt has changed his view or not on abortion.

Guess what, Jane Roe....the woman who led the way for Roe vs. Wade has changed her stance on abortion. Lets call her a lip flopper too while were at it.

The position that many are taking is very short sighted. As a conservative, my number one goal is to remove this lame duck president and put into office someone competent. The GOP nominee could have 100% of the conservative vote, but so what.... without the independent moderates supporting the candidate, we lose anyway. Romney has this support, and so far is the logical choice. Unless Newt or Cain gain such support from the middle, It makes no sense to prop them up only to be defeated in 2012

What they are arguing is missing the point. Its like were sitting in the living room, and the room catches fire. So I get up and run to the kitchen to get a bowl of water to put it out, and you say "you know....that's not a true fire extinguisher, for the principal of it, you should really get a 'real' one." So I say "great! where is it!?" then you say "Oh....well...its not here, I have one at my house I can get."....Guess what....Obama is the fire, and we need the nearest and effective means to put that fire out now. we cant wait for you to go to your house, i.e. another fours years to get an "authentic fire extinguisher," i.e. what you call a "true conservative".

If we had a moderate in office, ok, perhaps we could afford to gamble, but the stakes are too high on this. It's victory or bust, and I'm not sure this economy can make it another four years under this clown. You want principle?...what about the principle of surviving period.

You want to starve to death waiting on steak...? fine, I'll eat the corn hash to survive until the steak is a realistic option. If the time comes, and its clear no other candidate can get the support of the independent vote, voting for someone who cant win is reckless and undermines this nation's future.


Below is what really made me question Cain. I really like the guy, but when I saw this interview, I was left with one eyebrow up saying huh!???? He contradicted himself and was clear as mud. This was just a simple debate with a light weight liberal. If he cant get this right, how can I feel confident he will be able to slay Obama in a one on one?

[This message has been edited by NickD3.4 (edited 10-23-2011).]

That was civil, lucid, very well written and made a valid point.
While my political viewpoint is very well known around here, I have to compliment you on that.

(tho I don't get the title...)
------------------

Drive safely!

[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 10-23-2011).]

Have you ever seen Obama try to speak without a prompter?

If you are basing your decision on what you view the media sees him, then I actually question your judgment and one of the biggest reasons why people shouldn't be allowed to vote in the first place.

Most people that vote only vote for one reason and that is who has the D or the R beside their name. When it comes to primary elections, it is the party die hards that get the select the candidate of their choice and they vote for who they think has the best chances of winning.

R's thought that McCain was the best choice due to military service and experience, although he had a train whistle stuck in his throat every time he talked. Baby Bush on name recognition and he couldn't debate or speak in public worth a crap.

Yes! You are right that Obama was selected and elected mostly due to white guilt and that may perhaps propel Cain to win the Republican nod, but how one debates or sounds like under the fast pace time constraints of commercial television has very little effect on the candidate.

The only reason why you bring this up and make a big deal about it is because you are not for him, period. Other than that there isn't any reason for your insignificant banter. You have your reasons why you do not like Cain other than this, probably because he is black I suspect.

I will tell you this. Herman Cain is the only Republican candidate that has a potential to beat Obama. I say potential, because it is an uphill battle and timing will be everything (basically what happens in current events around the last weeks of October 2012). Any other Republican candidate gets the nod and it is 100% guaranteed that Obama will win a second term as President.... Guaranteed!

Obama has the power pulpit of incumbency, will have a one billion dollar war chest, Democrats out number Republicans and white guilt isn't going away, not this soon.

Debates do not change any body's mind. Al Gore and John Kerry were much better at the debates and made Baby Bush look sorry, but it still didn't matter, Baby Bush still won both elections. So keep that in mind while you think about who can debate better against Obama. The debates will not matter.

People will have already made up their minds on who they will vote for long before the 1st Presidential debates. The few who will be undecided will make their minds up a week before the election (long after the last debate) and they do it based on current events.

I know that some of you Republicans may not like this, but if you put a white person against Obama, you will lose. End of story. The young, the minorities and the white guilters will all vote for Obama and put him way over the edge in winning the election.

So either suck it up or check out. Either way, be very prepared for an Obama 2nd term.

[This message has been edited by Wichita (edited 10-23-2011).]

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: That was civil, lucid, very well written and made a valid point. While my political viewpoint is very well known around here, I have to compliment you on that. (tho I don't get the title...)

the title is referring to the fact that the left fell in love with Obama despite his lack of substance.

[This message has been edited by NickD3.4 (edited 10-23-2011).]

They day the West wakes up and realises that 'front-runners' are there simply because 'they can win'...FOR THE PUPPETEERS, NOBODY ELSE, we MIGHT just see some honesty and commonsense attitudes towards running our individual countries FOR THE GOOD OF THE PEOPLE, not just a few obscenely rich people obsessed with becoming even MORE rich,and therefore, more powerful. Why can't you see it? Don't you WANT to see it? Why should some rich person who lives 1000 miles from YOUR txown, be able to dictate to YOU where your money will go? Because, more often than NOT, you won't see the benefit of it in YOUR locality.
Just taking a look at out little town, you can see where the power lies: the area where the Controllers live. Opulent public gasrdens, the best of amenities, the safest area to live...all paid for by sucking the money from other areas and servicing themselves and there 'Pals' in power, whilst the rest are neglected.
We are just the WATER in the cauldron boiling the soup...and the 'chefs' are just sitting by on their greedy fat asses with a couple of giant ladels at hand, to scoop off all the goodness that MAKES the soup out of water, leaving us to boil away, empty, drained and useless, until they refill the cauldron with fresh materials to make the next batch of soup.
Government should be there solely to protect the People from invasion of their Land, to provide a united network of communication, ensure Law and Order, and NOTHING ELSE, IMHO.
Bring back autonomy to localised powerbases. Through out National Government, and devolve power to the PEOPLE.

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: They day the West wakes up and realises that 'front-runners' are there simply because 'they can win'...FOR THE PUPPETEERS, NOBODY ELSE, we MIGHT just see some honesty and commonsense attitudes towards running our individual countries FOR THE GOOD OF THE PEOPLE, not just a few obscenely rich people obsessed with becoming even MORE rich,and therefore, more powerful. Why can't you see it? Don't you WANT to see it? Why should some rich person who lives 1000 miles from YOUR txown, be able to dictate to YOU where your money will go? Because, more often than NOT, you won't see the benefit of it in YOUR locality. Just taking a look at out little town, you can see where the power lies: the area where the Controllers live. Opulent public gasrdens, the best of amenities, the safest area to live...all paid for by sucking the money from other areas and servicing themselves and there 'Pals' in power, whilst the rest are neglected. We are just the WATER in the cauldron boiling the soup...and the 'chefs' are just sitting by on their greedy fat asses with a couple of giant ladels at hand, to scoop off all the goodness that MAKES the soup out of water, leaving us to boil away, empty, drained and useless, until they refill the cauldron with fresh materials to make the next batch of soup. Government should be there solely to protect the People from invasion of their Land, to provide a united network of communication, ensure Law and Order, and NOTHING ELSE, IMHO. Bring back autonomy to localised powerbases. Through out National Government, and devolve power to the PEOPLE.

I agree with everything you just said, but its going to take baby steps and work. Step number one....do what we have to in order to vote Obama out of office. That means getting the best person we can that is capable of defeating him. Anything else would take a civil revolution, something that we should not even to begin to consider right now.

Although I'm not yet signed on to a support position for Herman Cain, as a "student observer" of modern-day politics I have questions on the viability of his candidacy purely from an organizational standpoint.

In spite of his present position at the front of the "pack," if not in the eyes of the electorate certainly in the media buzz surrounding his POTUS bid, I don't perceive much of an "organizational" effort to his campaign beyond the grassroots groundswell. Admittedly, we're still early in the process and the "front runner" pole position seems to be fluid, at best. One week Romney, next week Perry, this week Cain....but of the candidates most often mentioned as viable in the race, Romney is the only one with a well-funded organized effort. The rest of the field seem to be self-marginalized by a lack of a wide-spectrum organization and a wide-demographic appeal base. Right now, the majority of the field seem not to be campaigning against Obama as much as they are positioning themselves as the "anti-Romney", who despite his organization and name recognition still only garners about 25% support at any given time.

Anyway, back to Herman Cain....

As we move closer to Iowa and New Hampshire, I think the development of or lack of an organized campaign strategy will become paramount in most of the bids presently being pursued, including Cain's.

quote Originally posted by NickD3.4: I agree with everything you just said, but its going to take baby steps and work. Step number one....do what we have to in order to vote Obama out of office. That means getting the best person we can that is capable of defeating him. Anything else would take a civil revolution, something that we should not even to begin to consider right now.

I agree that 2012 MUST be "ANYONE BUT OBAMA".

but
Baby steps will only have us continue to dance in drunken circles swaying between two groups backed by special interests. Need to take at least a FEW BOLD steps to move forward.

"civil revolution" is unlikely groups are too disorganized and unarmed.. as long as people can get a hold of the basic crap somehow... if they bleed the cities funding by OT for cops, it'll affect education and the lower groups. NOT the %1.

I was kind of liking Cain-thought he was a little outside the establishment, and perhaps actually had a brain.

Then he started going off about outlawing birth control, and gay marriage and the same **** that everyone else goes off about instead of talking about issues that matter: Re-building a pretty ruined country.

Then I saw this:



I get so tired of them having to be "hardcore conservative" enough to make it through the primary process. I get it! There ARE hardcore conservatives that get off on that stuff, but it just comes across to me as this issue that doesn't matter in the grand scheme, and they ALL do it.

"I want to outlaw gay marriage"

"Ok, I see that, and I want to repeal DADT(tell me, how do you push a 1000 queers back in the closet?)

"I see that, and I want to ban abortion."

"Yeah, I'll do that and more and I want to ban birth control!"

"Oh yeah! I'm so conservative that I want to ban nighttime emissions! If you cum, it should be for the purpose of procreation!"

And it just goes on, this sense of oneupmanship to the bottom.

ALL WHILE SAYING THEY WANT SMALLER GOVERNMENT! Um, smaller government means less regulation, yeah? Not more.

quote Originally NOT posted by Doni Hagan: Although I'm not yet signed on to a support position for Herman Cain, as a "student observer" of modern-day politics I have questions on the "ability of his candidacy to raise lots and lots of campaign money.".

The road to the White House is paved with campaign contributions.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: The road to the White House is paved with campaign contributions.

I agree completely and perhaps should've been more specific in my assessment. The ability to generate substantial campaign contributors goes hand-in-hand with what would be widely perceived as a viable campaign organization. They are one in the same in my opinion.

The question itself is a little ridiculous. Obama and Cain have nothing on common. Cain has actually DONE something in his life to qualify him for the White House. His popularity is not because of hype but because of reality. He is a thinker and a doer. Obama just fills a suit.

I think the real attraction is that the Republican party is largely considered the "Old White Mens' Club".
Can brings a "real-ness" to the table that hasn't been seen in a long while.
I listened to him for quite a while, when he was on the radio in Atlanta. He is quite good. He makes a lot of sense.

He is making mistakes because he is not a politician. He hasn't had years of experience in telling people what they want to hear.
Regardless of that, I still believe that he is better qualified to be president than the Teleprompter In Chief.
He'll either figure it out, or he won't.

In a debate, I believe that Cain will eat Obama's lunch. Obama stumbles worse than Bush when he has to "wing it".

I used to think he was un-electable. Now I'm not so sure.
I suppose that we shall see.

quote Originally posted by Raydar: He is making mistakes because he is not a politician. He hasn't had years of experience in telling people what they want to hear. I used to think he was un-electable. Now I'm not so sure. I suppose that we shall see.

I see that as both a blessing and a curse.

Right now he's concentrating on "preaching to the choir" as it were...but that's not how one converts the masses...meaning the majority of the voting populace. Regardless of one's approach, I personally don't buy into the premise that one can be actively campaigning in "politics" while not serving as a "politician." And, no, I don't see it as a simple matter of semantics. At present, his appeal is something along the lines of a "non-political politician" and that will serve him only so far.

I don't much care for what Cain has to say. Also that interview was BRUTAL. I am all for letting people chose to get high. I won't be one of them, but I don't want someone deciding that for me. I also am pro-abortion. I won't be having one of those either, but that isn't the point. Not a fan of Romney either, with his socialized medicine bull crap. Ron Paul is about the only other candidate I have any knowledge of. I simply don't know enough about Bachmann or Perry. I like me some Ron Paul.

------------------
Out of a week I stay in a lab for 6 days.

quote Originally posted by Doni Hagan: ...At present, his appeal is something along the lines of a "non-political politician" and that will serve him only so far.

I'll say that the Democrats asked for, and got, their Hope and Change^TM.

Regardless of that, the Republicans weren't doing too well with the "same old same old", either.
I'm ready for some new blood. None of the other candidates have really struck a chord.

This may have everything to do with the fact that I listened to Cain on the radio for a long time.
I've had a chance to hear what he thinks. He has some sense. He can think on his feet.
And even if he doesn't have all the answers, I believe he will have sense enough to choose advisors who will be good for him and good for us.

Other than Perry, I'm not real familar with any of the GOP candidates, Cain less than others, and the only reason I am familar with Perrry is having him as gov for so long--no, I am NOT a Perry supporter, and haven't been since his Lt Gov days.

Cain, may or not be electable, but should he succeeed, I would be more concerned with who he surrounds himself with after accension to America's top job--and how well he heeds their input. A very poor leader can be very effective by choosing the right advisors and actually listening to them.

IMO, Obama missed a golden opportunity by NOT listening to those he selected during the 1st 18 months of his presidency. As much as I dislike Rahm Emmanual, he did try to get Obama to put all his focus on the economy and jobs instead of getting mired down with healthcare. There were heated arguments over this, and of course the result is history. Once Obama went into healthcare mode, Emanual of course got onboard with it, but what we are discussing now might have been all moot had healthcare reform not been the primary focus in 2009-2010, and the economy been turned around by now. Obamacare won't be kicked in and implemented before election day, but the unemployment picture will still be very much on the voter's minds.

quote Originally posted by Raydar: .........the Republicans weren't doing too well with the "same old same old", either. I'm ready for some new blood. None of the other candidates have really struck a chord.

Certainly not a resounding chord....therein lies the problem as I see it.

In my opinion, you're simply giving voice to what it appears the majority of the party base is feeling, hence the fluidity among the "front-runners" for the primary nod.....#1 today, #2 tomorrow, etc... The problem for all of them, however, is turning that "in-house" support into that which encompasses a wider demographic. Unless one's base overwhelming represents the dreams and/or aspirations of the majority of the voting populace, it's simply not enough to insure victory in a national campaign.

BTW....prior to this political cycle, I'll admit I hadn't heard much about or from Cain beyond his involvement with Godfather's Pizza. I have however been searching the "archives" of late to bone up on the Cain subject. You likely know much more about the man than I, having been listening to him for some time. As such, my observations are not as "Cain specific" as they are general to politics overall and how I perceive the race among the collective GOP candidates.

quote Originally posted by ls3mach: I don't much care for what Cain has to say. Also that interview was BRUTAL. I am all for letting people chose to get high. I won't be one of them, but I don't want someone deciding that for me. I also am pro-abortion. I won't be having one of those either, but that isn't the point. Not a fan of Romney either, with his socialized medicine bull crap. Ron Paul is about the only other candidate I have any knowledge of. I simply don't know enough about Bachmann or Perry. I like me some Ron Paul.

You do know that Ron Paul is anti-abortion and agrees with states that they can ban gay marriage.

There is a lot of things I like about Ron Paul on the fiscal side. He has no clue on the foreign policy side, maybe an edge over Sarah Palin on that. But he cloaks his social conservationism well and the Ron Bots have no clue about it.

It's like a lot of birthers and truthers are for Ron Paul and believe in the vast conspiracy of secret organizations, Masons included and Ron Paul is a Mason. LOL!

Oh well.

Had Obama put his full focus on the economy and let healthcare take a back seat when he took office he would be unstoppable in 2012. For myself, the push of his healthcare reform was the most disappointing part of his presidency so far. I also look at the level of problems with our Countries economy and believe that time and money are the only things that have the chance to fix it. A reduction in spending sounds nice, and it would help control the growth of the debt, but we need to start paying it back. There was and is no magic wand. The problems are too far reaching and run too deep. Our financial issues did not occur overnight. They were not created by Obama, Bush, or Clinton. They are due to the decisions of many over the last 30 or so years.

The infighting of the GOP candidates will be their demise. They will push centered voters away from their pick this way. I felt the same way during the last election when Clinton and Obama were going after each other in the democratic primary. The conservative party has lost focus. The issues list has become too expansive. Their focus is on retaining "conservative" voters, which to me would be a focus on the financial state of the Country. Unfortunately, we hear too much about the (dare I say it) religious or morality based issues, because apparently this is the base of the party voters. I think when most people hear the word conservative today it brings to mind first things like the list Gridlock gave at the end of his post. The fiscal issues have taken a back seat.

I want to see a political candidate that has the focus of only working our economic issues. A long term plan, not rhetoric and campain promises. The GOP should put forth a candidate with a plan to win the election. Not simply beat the other guy. I hear too often that people want to just get Obama out, but that always makes me ask the question "How and with who?" Typically there is no answer to the question.

quote Originally posted by Wichita: You do know that Ron Paul is anti-abortion and agrees with states that they can ban gay marriage. There is a lot of things I like about Ron Paul on the fiscal side. He has no clue on the foreign policy side, maybe an edge over Sarah Palin on that. But he cloaks his social conservationism well and the Ron Bots have no clue about it. It's like a lot of birthers and truthers are for Ron Paul and believe in the vast conspiracy of secret organizations, Masons included and Ron Paul is a Mason. LOL! Oh well.

I know. I don't care enough about either of those policies to detract me, as neither really have any baring on my life.

quote Originally posted by Wichita: You do know that Ron Paul is anti-abortion and agrees with states that they can ban gay marriage. There is a lot of things I like about Ron Paul on the fiscal side. He has no clue on the foreign policy side, maybe an edge over Sarah Palin on that. But he cloaks his social conservationism well and the Ron Bots have no clue about it. It's like a lot of birthers and truthers are for Ron Paul and believe in the vast conspiracy of secret organizations, Masons included and Ron Paul is a Mason. LOL! Oh well.

I get that with him too, but a little bit I believe that its his understanding that its the state's rights to do so that outweigh his personal convictions on the subject, and that even if he were pro gay marriage, he'd still see that its the state's rights to do as they see fit.

Or I could be completely wrong.

quote Originally posted by FieroRumor: I agree that 2012 MUST be "ANYONE BUT OBAMA". but Baby steps will only have us continue to dance in drunken circles swaying between two groups backed by special interests. Need to take at least a FEW BOLD steps to move forward.

I agree, but again, you cannot take those "bold" steps legally without the support of the Independent vote. We can vote anyone in and say "this is bold", but without the swing states on board, its all for not.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: The road to the White House is paved with campaign contributions.

I once heard that after his election, Lincoln was mulling over requests for jobs from folk who had played a big part in the campaign.
He remarked to an aide; "Too many pigs and not enough tits".

quote Originally posted by NickD3.4: Did you not read my post and watch the video?.....Im am forming my opinion based on his continued poor performance when pushed on an issue. Once he is asked to explain things in detail, he gets really vague and confusing.

He sure had me confused when I watched the video. He brought up the constitution and then didn't develop it's relation to legalizing drugs. Then he said that abortion should be a woman's choice then countermanded it by saying abortions should not be legal. He was as clear as mud-typical politician. Just the same, hem may be the GOP's best chance. OTOH, I'm unsure that he'd attract many minority votes from across the isle.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: The question itself is a little ridiculous. Obama and Cain have nothing on common. Cain has actually DONE something in his life to qualify him for the White House. His popularity is not because of hype but because of reality. He is a thinker and a doer. Obama just fills a suit.

It's not ridiculous. Yes they are very different, but in some ways there are similarities. There was a ton of learning on the job with Obama, the same would be for Cain, just in different areas. Obama lacked substance, but had a infatuated fan base that supported him despite that. When I first heard Cain speak, I really liked him. The the more I heard him in interviews and in debates, the more I began to realize he has a TON to learn. Especially in foreign diplomacy. Where it hit me hard though was his lack of substance and ability clearly define his positions. That reminded me of Obama....the man goes on for hours without really saying anything. Cain has a better message, but constantly, like in the above posted interview, he becomes very vague and there is no meat and potatoes behind his position. Watch the below video.....When asked about Iran, he keeps saying "have a serious strategy". When pushed further he talks about stopping Iran from getting a Nuke by driving down oil cost.......uh.....sorry, that's foolish. I would rather him say "I don't know the right answer now, but I will research it and get back to you. Trying to BS an answer always looks bad.



Then watch the debate.....Normally, I don;t care about flip slops too much, THEY ALL DO IT, but when it's on a topic as serious is this as national security, it has me wondering...is this guy really a good pick for lead ticket? Perhaps he would be better as a VP where he can get his feet wet as a public servant first.

He says he would authorize freeing all our prisoners for one, which is negotiations with a terrorist group such as Al-Qaeda.
then watch at the debate.....



As you may or may not know. I am a counter terrorism major. This is an area I take dead serious.....When I saw this at the debate along with the other interviews, my view of Cain greatly shifted. I still like the man, and feel he is a good person, however I would like to see him become more familiar with national security and various other issues before I could support him as a lead candidate.

[This message has been edited by NickD3.4 (edited 10-23-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Doni Hagan: I see that as both a blessing and a curse. Right now he's concentrating on "preaching to the choir" as it were...but that's not how one converts the masses...meaning the majority of the voting populace. Regardless of one's approach, I personally don't buy into the premise that one can be actively campaigning in "politics" while not serving as a "politician." And, no, I don't see it as a simple matter of semantics. At present, his appeal is something along the lines of a "non-political politician" and that will serve him only so far.

Consider that he is running for the GOP nomination right now, not against Obama for the presidency. I'd expect his focus to change from "the choir" to the full electorate if he gets the nomination.

The more I listen to him, the more I dislike him. I don't think he really knows exactly what he wants besides his 9-9-9 program. He has been spewing what people want to hear... I'm really not trusting what he says anymore.

Still a Ron Paul supporter... probably always will be.

Sigh! Some people.

You have to look at the person's track record and also you have to understand that it isn't so much what a President needs to know or must posses in certain areas that a President will have to deal with. The Executive is effective if he/she knows how to place good and smart people in the positions to make the entire Executive Branch work.

Obama's biggest failure as President is that he is surrounding himself with people who are like minded as he is and never question anything he does and just lock steps with him because they are exactly like him. That is a sign of executive weakness. Other than placing Hillary as the Sec. of State and keeping Gates as Sec. of Defense, everybody else is all patronage and mouthpiece puppets.

It is as if everybody expects the President to be some sort of God and some how is suppose to know everything, present themselves flawlessly and remain perfect in all accounts to extreme platform of party ideology in order to be Presidential material. There is NO SUCH PERSON!

Executives are gauged by effectiveness and productivity. Herman Cain, Romney and yes Perry have executive experience. But a good executive knows how to place the right people in the right positions. If you do not think that Herman Cain can do that, then fight against his nomination. Other wise, leave politics to the experts and sit your asss at home and don't vote, because you dilute the process and are part of the problem.

quote Originally posted by Wichita: Sigh! Some people. You have to look at the person's track record and also you have to understand that it isn't so much what a President needs to know or must posses in certain areas that a President will have to deal with. The Executive is effective if he/she knows how to place good and smart people in the positions to make the entire Executive Branch work. Obama's biggest failure as President is that he is surrounding himself with people who are like minded as he is and never question anything he does and just lock steps with him because they are exactly like him. That is a sign of executive weakness. Other than placing Hillary as the Sec. of State and keeping Gates as Sec. of Defense, everybody else is all patronage and mouthpiece puppets. It is as if everybody expects the President to be some sort of God and some how is suppose to know everything, present themselves flawlessly and remain perfect in all accounts to extreme platform of party ideology in order to be Presidential material. There is NO SUCH PERSON! Executives are gauged by effectiveness and productivity. Herman Cain, Romney and yes Perry have executive experience. But a good executive knows how to place the right people in the right positions. If you do not think that Herman Cain can do that, then fight against his nomination. Other wise, leave politics to the experts and sit your asss at home and don't vote, because you dilute the process and are part of the problem.

I pretty much agree, but if you look at all the self contradictions Cain has made in the past 4 months, it's pretty hard to know where exactly he stands on issues. Just watch all these and tell me, do you know where he stands?.....I sure as hell don't. I'm looking for clarity and instead get mud.

[This message has been edited by NickD3.4 (edited 10-24-2011).]

I don't think Cain is the answer either. I don't even care if Obama wins again, as long as more centered people take over the other branches of government. That alone will help our country out better.

quote Originally posted by KidO: Had Obama put his full focus on the economy and let healthcare take a back seat when he took office he would be unstoppable in 2012.

True, but the reverse is also true. Had Obama gone full out on the economy and it NOT rebound, a Xerox copy of one of George W. Bush's socks could beat him in 2012.
By avoiding the economy he's able to keep trying to blame it on Bush and say "we're recovering, but it takes time. You know, that Bush guy really messed up, so it's going to take me two terms at least to fix it all."

As long as people buy the "It's W's fault" excuse, he can get away with anything (or nothing) on the economy, the wars, or just about anything else.

The big reason Cain is seeing some popularity is he brings blackness to the race. Sorry to say it, but I think a lot of people voted for Obama solely because he's black, and a lot of conservatives are tired of being called racist and are looking for a way to "prove" they're not racist by supporting a black man. I think his platform is less important to his base than his skin color.

Cain may have the chops to be in office, but I don't think he's ready to be POTUS. Perhaps VP, or a Cabinet position if he doesn't run for Congress later.

quote Originally posted by NickD3.4: It's not ridiculous. Yes they are very different, but in some ways there are similarities. There was a ton of learning on the job with Obama, the same would be for Cain, just in different areas. Obama lacked substance, but had a infatuated fan base that supported him despite that. When I first heard Cain speak, I really liked him. The the more I heard him in interviews and in debates, the more I began to realize he has a TON to learn. Especially in foreign diplomacy. Where it hit me hard though was his lack of substance and ability clearly define his positions. That reminded me of Obama....the man goes on for hours without really saying anything. Cain has a better message, but constantly, like in the above posted interview, he becomes very vague and there is no meat and potatoes behind his position. Watch the below video.....When asked about Iran, he keeps saying "have a serious strategy". When pushed further he talks about stopping Iran from getting a Nuke by driving down oil cost.......uh.....sorry, that's foolish. I would rather him say "I don't know the right answer now, but I will research it and get back to you. Trying to BS an answer always looks bad. Then watch the debate.....Normally, I don;t care about flip slops too much, THEY ALL DO IT, but when it's on a topic as serious is this as national security, it has me wondering...is this guy really a good pick for lead ticket? Perhaps he would be better as a VP where he can get his feet wet as a public servant first. He says he would authorize freeing all our prisoners for one, which is negotiations with a terrorist group such as Al-Qaeda. then watch at the debate..... As you may or may not know. I am a counter terrorism major. This is an area I take dead serious.....When I saw this at the debate along with the other interviews, my view of Cain greatly shifted. I still like the man, and feel he is a good person, however I would like to see him become more familiar with national security and various other issues before I could support him as a lead candidate.

I understand the point you are trying to make but it still doesn't make sense to me. Why not compare him to Sarah Palin then? She was inexperienced in foreign Affairs too. There are plenty of candidates out there who have no clear plan on Iran or nuclear proliferation or trade relations, etc. So what is is about Obama and Cain that is similar in a manner in which no other candidate is similar? Aside from the fact that they are both black males I see no similarity, and even that similarity is not worthy of note any more than pointing out that Ron Paul and Rick Perry are both white males.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: The big reason Cain is seeing some popularity is he brings blackness to the race. Sorry to say it, but I think a lot of people voted for Obama solely because he's black, and a lot of conservatives are tired of being called racist and are looking for a way to "prove" they're not racist by supporting a black man. I think his platform is less important to his base than his skin color.

I don't know if I agree with that premise in totality though I will say that the GOP supporting someone based on their skin color in order to deflect criticism has been tried before....and failed miserably.

Ask Michael Steele.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: The big reason Cain is seeing some popularity is he brings blackness to the race. Sorry to say it, but I think a lot of people voted for Obama solely because he's black, and a lot of conservatives are tired of being called racist and are looking for a way to "prove" they're not racist by supporting a black man. I think his platform is less important to his base than his skin color. Cain may have the chops to be in office, but I don't think he's ready to be POTUS. Perhaps VP, or a Cabinet position if he doesn't run for Congress later.

I agree with the first half of this statement. Obama was definitely voted in because he is black. Democrats are filled with white guilt. But The GOP doesn't think like that and is likely to vote for the best candidate. Right now, Cain has a lot fo support for the simple reason that...well, have you looked at the field? Perry is a disaster if required to open his mouth. Romney is a Rino, Bachman is unelectable on various grounds, Paul is crazy, and the rest are just there. Gingrich is the only one who everyone agrees has the experience needed but he has baggage as well as a currmugeonly demeanor that is unpopular with voters. So what's left? A conservative businessman with a no non-sense approach. Yes, he is unseasoned. But many feel he can grow into the role.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: I understand the point you are trying to make but it still doesn't make sense to me. Why not compare him to Sarah Palin then? She was inexperienced in foreign Affairs too. There are plenty of candidates out there who have no clear plan on Iran or nuclear proliferation or trade relations, etc. So what is is about Obama and Cain that is similar in a manner in which no other candidate is similar? Aside from the fact that they are both black males I see no similarity, and even that similarity is not worthy of note any more than pointing out that Ron Paul and Rick Perry are both white males.

You don't don't see the similarity? Here is how I see it.

Cain: no government experience .....Obama:no executive experience.....both require on the job learning in different areas

Obama: lacked substance when pushed, would change position on things after short period, i.e. "Iran is not a threat and a little country...days later, "Iran is a big threat". Cain....... lacks substance when pushed, changes positions on things after short period, i.e. the debt ceiling, the federal reserve, and the terrorist negotiations.

Obama....despite the changing of positions and and lack of substance, the obama crowd cheered him on anyway and put their love for him above the man, and ignored the short comings and red flags.

Cain.....Despite his recent changing positions, and lacking of substance on these positions many conservatives are choosing to ignore this and cheer lead on the Cain band wagon. Their ignoring the red flags popping up, While I am simply pointing them out...

see how they are similar?...I can't make it anymore clear then that. Palin is not a comparison at all, she was a governor and a successful one with high approval as well. She also was not shifting around constantly on her positions. Their skin color has nothing to do with my comparison. That's ridiculous.

[This message has been edited by NickD3.4 (edited 10-24-2011).]