Is this political suicide?
Herman Cain is doing something. The question is what?
Is he just grossly unprepared for a national campaign and a national office or is there something else going on?
What has Cain done now?
From the Journal Sentinel:
"I'm not supposed to know anything about foreign policy. Just thought I'd throw that out," he said, a dig at his critics.
"I want to talk to commanders on the ground. Because you run for president (people say) you need to have the answer. No, you don't! No, you don't! That's not good decision-making," said Cain.
Cain thinks he is not supposed to know anything about foreign policy?
The sound you just heard was the sound of my head exploding.
Is Herman Cain deliberately trying to tank his own campaign? At this point, that is not an unreasonable question.
Elections rise and fall on a number of issues. Those issues vary from election to election. This election’s issues are mostly domestic, but the President is going to have to make decisions about foreign policy.
It is great if the President happens to be an expert in that area, but even if he or she is not, they should at least have a passing knowledge and have some core beliefs.
Today, Cain went to Miami to reach out to the Cuban American population. If you are going to reach out to a group like that, common sense dictates that you make sure you have at least a passing familiarity with important issues, particularly when you have been taking a beating over that in the last few days.
From the Miami New Times:
Michael Putney was the first to ask Cain about the "wet foot, dry foot" policy (which says that Cubans, in general, can stay in the U.S. if they make it to dry land, while those caught at sea are returned) during his earlier stop in Sweetwater. He was met with stony, baffled silence by the ex-pizza magnate, according to Bill Cooke at Random Pixels.
Herald reporter Marc Caputo later tweeted that another reporter at Versailles repeated the question, and Cain "refuses (to) answer," with staff promising he'd address the question later. Moments later, Caputo tweeted that Cain's staff changed their mind.
I know many Herman Cain supporters do not like the fact I have been very negative towards him.
If you don’t like what I am writing, then please explain this.
Cain has not one gaffe, but one right after another. He does not want to have knowledge about foreign policy, yet says he will surround himself with great people.
Great people? Would that be people like Mark Block?
Herman Cain may have been a great executive but as a Presidential candidate, he is a walking disaster.
Does he really want to be a candidate or is he just using the campaign to sell books and raise his profile and speaking fees for a life after the campaign?
Mistakes are one thing. Candidates can overcome them. But when you make the same mistake over and over again and show no interest in correcting the problem, something else is going on.
I do not know what it is, but I do know this, I want to see Cain out of the race and let a serious candidate consolidate the conservative vote so we can stop Mitt Romney and move on to defeat Barack Obama.
Herman Cain is a glib man. But, he is not ready to lead America.
You said that Newt Gingrich was ".....the establishment politician that he was when he was Speaker of the House."
That's just name-calling, nothing more. Why do you do that, in the middle of the extremely serious problems that our county is in?
You made that up.
At the time he was Speaker of the House, he did a phenomenal job of driving spending down, driving taxes down, and ending up with a budget surplus, in spite of Clinton being President.
How does THAT equate with "establishment politician" ?
Let's not muddy the water with useless and divisive comments that Libs can use against us.
I think what he means is Newt sounds really good a lot of the time, but then he says things like, "We are going to have to isolate, and crush the secular socialist left, and we're going to have to replace their failed systems with systems that succeed. This is what George Washington would have approved of". Why would he want to replace the lefts failed systems.
Not knowing what systems he is talking about, I would say if they where the lefts that they are unconstitutional. If they are should they not be eliminated? If they are unconstitutional, would not George Washington be against them? How is replacing illegal systems with other systems that would have to be illegal, be good for this country?
I think you're reading too much into George's(?) comment. And for that matter, quotes attributed to Newt.
I heard the audio, he did say that. There is no attributed about it.What is there to read into "replace their failed systems with systems that succeed"?
The only George I mentioned is George Washington, the first president of the United States.
For what it's worth, I agree with you John! Good Call!! I couldn't have said it any better, Thanks!
900 days without a budget! At least there was an attempt to create one! There is no excuse for this! Is there a constitutional mandate that there should be a balanced budget? I know that my family would fail without one - imagine a country without one! Criminal!!
George - perhaps this will help you with a few details that can determine if he is another establishment politician or not:
Newt was was on the cover of TIME magazine as "Man of the Year" in December 1995. Under his leadership, Congress passed welfare reform, passed the first balanced budget in a generation, and passed the first tax cut in sixteen years. In addition, the Congress restored funding to strengthen defense and intelligence capabilities, an action later lauded by the bipartisan 9/11 Commission. He was considered the chief Republican opposition to President Bill Clinton in the 1990's.
Gingrich's congressional career ended in 1999 when he resigned from Congress after poor showings from Republicans in the midterm elections and being investigated by the House ethics panel:
"Democrats filed 84 politically motivated ethics charges against Gingrich. All of them were found to be without merit. The last three were dismissed on Oct. 10, 1998. The fact is, not a single ethics charge filed against Speaker Gingrich was ever found to be based in fact -- not one. Gingrich was cleared of any and all wrongdoing. The fallout in the case resulted in an IRS investigation and a federal court case. Ultimately, Speaker Gingrich was cleared of any wrongdoing by the bipartisan House Ethics Committee, the IRS and a federal judge."
The impetus of the ethics charges against Newt was that he was exposing some long-standing, serious and actual (not made up!) ethics violations among some long-time, and extremely powerful, representatives.
Newt was a long way from "establishment". Haley Barbour was head of the GOP at the time and they worked together to do a very un-establishment thing - win a GOP majority! For 40 years the GOP had been content to sit on the sidelines and when they did win some power they weren't quite sure what to do with it. Newt was making them very uncomfortable so he was battling resistance from BOTH parties! John Kasich, now governor of Ohio, was a staunch supporter of what Newt was trying to do but Boehner not so much. At press conferences Boehner always looked like he thought it was unseemly for a Republican to be speaking so plainly!
Cain is the only candidate with an economic plan that will grow our economy and create private sector jobs. Without those things, does anything else really even matter?
No Steve there are other people.