BREAKING: Cain Tells PJTV that he ‘Misspoke’ on the Gitmo Terrorist Question (Video Added)
"Mea culpa."
October 18, 2011 - 7:31 pm
Immediately after the debate, PJTV’s Alexis Garcia caught up with Herman Cain and asked him about this interview, in which he said he could see himself ordering all terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay released in exchange for one American hostage. Cain told Garcia that he misspoke, and would not order such a release.
Video of Cain’s comments from Vegas is on the way. Watch for it in this post.
Update: Here is the video. Cain claims that he “misspoke” because the interview questions shifted topics too quickly. Or something.
Cain also asked about the criticism of his 9-9-9 plan, and a reporter stumps him a bit after Cain accuses critics of not having read the plan. Cain does hit a nice stride late in the clip, when he rips Romney’s economic plan.
To be fair, the “instant response to questions without notice test” is not a very realistic measure of a candidate’s suitability. It may smoke out some hidden attitudes (as Joe The Plumber’s question did) but I don’t think this particular gaff is an example of that.
I love Cain, but it is clear he has not thought deeply about security issues. Backing off this statement was the right thing to do.
A sales tax is not a vat tax. I am shocked as to how misleading the other Gop candidates were on the differences between these two taxes.
Here is the calculator that Herman Cain mentions in the video.
http://www.999calculator.net/
Enjoyed the video, thanks for posting it, however, the camera position made for an awkward viewing of Cain and it was difficult to understand the jornalist’s questions.
Apples and oranges. The sales tax is a tax on the final consumer and is only paid by the final consumer. The corporation is not going to increase the price based on a sales tax their customer pays, no more than they increase prices for the state sales tax you currently pay.
The corporate income tax, on the other hand, is figured into the cost of the goods being sold. And it is assessed on each corporation based on their income at every stage of production. This may or may not be called a VAT since it occurs theoretically at every stage, but unlike a traditional VAT, it is based on income net of any costs (not sure what the plan allows). A true VAT is a tax assessed on the purchaser (at every stage) based on the increased value. So if you take a tree and cut it into lumber, the added value is taxed. Then you take the lumber and turn it into a bunch of pencils, value is added and taxed. Then when you paint the pencils, value is again added. Then you put 50 of those pencils in a box, value is added. etc etc. So an item is taxed at every level based on it’s increased value.
Michelle Bachmann was saying last night that the fact that each company involved in the process pays income tax on it’s revenue is a defacto VAT. That’s wrong. But a good talking point.
ummm.
nobody is calling the new 9% Sales tax a VAT tax. The corporate tax is the one that is a VAT tax.
Not that I care.
What I care about is that under the looney, useless, dangerous, disruptive, overly complicated (3 stages with different characteristics in each stage…Rube Goldberg would be proud) tax shuffling scheme, taxes for 80% of the country will increase.
But even that doesn’t rise to be the most important problem. The most important problem is that nobody proposing the looney, useless, dangerous, disruptive, overly complicated tax shuffling sheme will get to even 40% of the vote. Americans are NOT going to vote to increase taxes on themselves.
No, it is not a VAT. You’ve styled to lying, Proromney.
Stupid autocorrection. That should be ‘stuped’ not styled.
You mean “stooped” instead of “styled”. There is no such word as “stuped”.
According to Cain’s own financial advisers, the business flat-tax portion of the 9-9-9 plan is a modified VAT: http://is.gd/rs3rAM
But if capital gains and dividends are untaxed while ordinary income is, the tax advantage from dividends and capital gains offsets the effect of the corporate income tax on the cost of capital.
Please give us an example?
Not true. The calculator that Cain mentions in the video is at hermancain.com. I’m not sure where it is on that site – I haven’t been able to find it – but he definitely didn’t give the address you are citing.
Theresa, I have found there are a WHOLE LOT of people who don’t know the difference.
A few years back I was excoriated as an uneducated idiot for daring to suggest that a sales tax is levied ONE TIME on the final sale of a product to the end consumer, while a VAT is a tax added at each transaction along the entire production of a product, from raw material to finished product.
Of course, this is exactly correct.
The person who excoriated me claimed to be an economist. =:O
Because it is mostly hidden, the VAT is one of the most dangerous, most destructive taxes imaginable. No wonder it’s a favorite of leftists everywhere.
His support of a VAT is, to me, one of the BIGGEST downsides to Herman Cain.
That said, I’d take him over Romney GLADLY.
Teresa,
I think that calculator is wrong — has anyone vetted it? According to the site, 22% of the cost of a product is incorporated into the retail price to cover this cost. The site claim that under Cain’s plan, this would be reduced to 6%, and the saving passed on to the consumer.
This is false. Cain’s 9% tax on corp income is calculated on a different basis than the 35% average tax the site talks about. Depending on the basis of Cain’s 9% plan, a corp may actually pay MORE than they do currently, especially if they are a low-margin industry. Even if they do save on taxes, it will not be as much as the site claims.
The assumption that producers will drop their price in accordance with any tax savings and this is also far from certain. It depends on the industry and the amount of savinga. For example, an overall saving of 10% of cost is very unlikely to to result in any price drop, since history shows that a 10% decrease in price rarely stimulates enough extra sales to yield a competive advantage.
Overall, it seems very likely that people will pay considerably more for consumer goods under Cain’s plan than they do now.
Owen,
Your last example stands like a two-legged stool. You ignore the effect of competition in markets.
Two weeks ago, this comment from Cain, would have made me scratch my head. Yet watching the Giliad Shalit exchange, this comment from Cain, if made under the right mindset, actually makes me admire the man more.
Look at the difference in societal values that made the Shalit exchange possible. Shalit was NEVER forgotten nor sacrificed by his countrymen. Rather, this relatively unimportant soldier was worth over 1,000 of his enemies. Wow. That’s pretty cool.
That’s what I was thinking. What a message that sends to the world, how precious our children are.
Yes our children are precious and we have just guaranteed a thousand more kidnappings like this. Once we make it clear we’ll do anything to get a person back all they need to do is kill and kidnap more. They have to kill some or we won’t believe them when they threaten it. Also they hate us so killing and abusing their prisoners is just gravy.
That’s true. But we are talking about this in reference to Cain’s statement. I believe Cain, at that time he made this comment, stated that he did not agree with negotiating with terrorists, but he would consider it.
It makes me like him more that he would consider it. While deciding to do it might be a bad idea, good on him for being the type of person who values life enough to consider it. How is that a bad thing? Really now. Would you prefer that he said, “No Way! Screw them, let the die”?
I like this guy.
Yeah…real cool.
It will be real cool too when one of those animals blows up another bus full of kids. What do you think the odds of that happening are? Considering they released over 1000 scumbags, you wanna stake your life on it not happening?
Leaders have to make life and death choices all of the time. So, was the Shilat trade worth it when one of those a-holes kills 20 teens on a field trip?
Suddenly its not such a good deal anymore. So Becky, make sure to say how cool the trade was to the families of the next group of victims who WILL be killed by one of those released.
A statement by one of the first prisoners released: “Now to go and kidnap some more soldiers”.
Like Becky said, “pretty cool.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/8836933/Gilad-Shalit-release-freed-Palestinian-prisoner-vows-to-sacrifice-her-life.html
When we consider the many acts of terror which will be committed by the released monsters, Becky, it ain’t “cool” at all! Its sublimely stupid- even satanic.
From now on, Bibi and Israel can go straight to Hell as far as I am concerned.
It is good that we value or citizens on the par of 1,027 to one.
Should we negotiate with terrorists? No, I don’t think so …and…oh wait!….Herman Cain said the same thing at the time he made this comment!
I do like a man who, when ambushed with a question about rescuing a hostage, indulges his first impulse to want the hostage freed.
Remember, he didn’t say he would free them. He said he’d consider it. He’s a better man than the rest of you are.
Haven’t we had enough of this? We have a thing in the white house right now that had a lot of “ideas” and no experience. Now we have Cain who is claiming he has experience but has no idea on how to protect America from terrorists.
We have three candidates who are qualified to run this nation and those three are Newt, Bachmann and Santorum. They know the ins and outs of the corruption, fraud and lobbyists in DC. They have been exposed to evil and know how to deal with it. A game player is what we have had for the last 1000 days. We need real change and it will not come with Herman Cain. Get a grip America. DON’T make the same mistake again. Vote with intelligence.
“Vote with intelligence.”
i.e., Vote as I do
I vote with Paul on this. Judy blithely says, “Newt, Bachmann and Santorum” without any mention of the fact that the voters (other than Judy) don’t want any of them as president. That should work out real well. The real options are among Perry, Cain & the deeply unlikeable Romney.
Excuse me we just gave a $1,000,000 to the Iranian leader for two Americans roaming around their border. I can think of no bigger threat to our Country then Iran and there was no outrage from this transaction. Cain was stating that he believed after looking at everything and conferencing with his intel that he had the “leadership” to make that decision if it needed to be. The Gitom detainees are from several Countries. What if Iraq had one of our soldiers whose family was on TV every night crying and the media swarmed the airways with reports of mistreatment and photos, you honestly think that this Country would not consider bargaining? And you can’t say that bargaining with money is different then people. Money is needed to have terrorism. Mr. Cain was again stating he can make a decision no matter how difficult it may be. And I trust him with that totally. Don’t forget, the best President in my life time made a deal for hostages and I believe our Nation loves him.
Right On!
The point, though, is that you never, never set yourself up ahead of time, telling the opposition that you would be open to such a swap. Now, no matter what he will actually do, the moment that Cain is elected al-Qaeda will be rushing to kidnap U.S. soldiers and civilians.
Give me a break. I think they’ll be to busy worrying about the nuclear submarines he plans on placing around their Country. They will be so paranoid, I doubt capturing an American soldier would be on their list. The question was to test Mr. Cain’s strength on leadership, and I believe he could make decisions that will be very difficult.
Well said Judy. Herman Cain is not experienced in dealing with terrorists or any foreign policy. Bachman gave the best responsed and Newt backed her up when Crazy Ron tried to ensnare her and everyone else with a similar view by painting them as anti-Reagan. Newt simply pointed out the historic fact that Reagan regretted his decision.
Ah, but, I fear, Judy, you are confusing the people here who gave us the final three of McCain, Romney, and Huckabee in the last preidential race with the facts. They don’t want to hear it.
Hey, 999 is catchy. So, they will accept the Republican version of Hope and Change from someone who has attended a liberal church for many years. A church who’s former associate pastor and close friend has said that Herman knows the tea party is racist but can’t say so because he’s a politician. Sound familiar?
Newt is morally challenged; Santorum sided with Specter; Bachmann is Palin with an alias. We have to do much better.
Herman Cain’s 999 Plan has folks discussing tax reform
and that is a good thing.
Calculate it, vet it, dig deep to find benefits or faults.
Herman Cain has the nation talking about changing the Tax
Code and that is all good.
I hope Congress is listening to the discussion.
If he stays in the race long enough, Cain will eventually have to issue a statement saying he “misspoke” about what he had for breakfast that day. He’s not ready for this job; he’s not ready to beat Obama or be president. However personally likeable he might be (and I’m becoming less convinced of even that with each passing day), he’s shown over and over again…with his nonstop speaking gaffs and economic “plan” that looks less and less like a plan and more and more like a simplistic campaign slogan the longer you look at it and refusal to talk about anything other than his simplistic plan…he is not up to the job of beating Obama or of being president if he lucked up and managed to win. Conservatives are doing exactly the same thing with Cain that millions of people did with Obama in the last election…that is, they are projecting the candidate they want to vote for and have in their heads onto Herman Cain. Problem is, just like Obama, Cain isn’t that guy. Not even close.
I agree with davidinvirginia 100%.
Agreed. Coming up with ideas is the easy part. Heck–even I can do that. Coming up with ideas that will WORK and can be implemented…that’s the tough part and Cain has no experience doing that in government. Convincing a company to go along with your ideas when you are the CEO is pretty easy. Convincing Congress…different animal.
And, yeah…let’s not fall in love with a candidate just to prove that we aren’t bigots. That’s what the Dems did.
And, yeah…let’s not fall in love with a candidate just to prove that we aren’t bigots. That’s what the Dems did.
Oh, please! Nice straw man. That’s what the white Dems (and a lot of Indies and RINOs) did with Obama in 2008 because that’s who the white Dems (and a lot of Indies and RINOs) are. They truly are bigots and ‘white guilt’ racks their soul.
I can only speak for myself (a registered Indie and to the right of God fiscally and socially) but I couldn’t care less what color the guy is. I like Cain because he shoots straight. Yeah he gaffes sometimes but so what. He is not a career pol and that is exactly what we need right now. Because he is not a career pol he is unpolished in the ways of deception and telling you what you want to hear. You need to see ol’ Romney for this.
To clarify…I couldn’t care less if Cain is purple with pink polka-dots. His skin color might have something to do with some folks backing him to “prove” they’re not racist, but I think it’s mostly just people projecting their own hopes and dreams about a candidate onto the guy who is the most like the proverbial “blank slate” in this crop of Republicans (well, the most “blank” as in not having a public record to look at and analyze). Just like they did with Obama.
My problem with Cain is that the more I hear him say; the less I think he knows. And he doesn’t seem to feel any need to educate himself on things that he’s obviously clueless about. That’s not my idea of what a potential successful president should be like, at all.
He’s a career local Fed chairman, who said he would not audit the Fed before in his own John Kerry like way said he did not oppose it. Of course he never said he would audit it. When he answered Crazy Ron’s question in the last debate he said that you cannot believe everything you “read” on the internet. Interesting, I think Crazy Ron was referring to the recording of Cain when he substituted for Neal Boortz. We didn’t “read” that. Of course, the answer was an obfuscation even if the reference had been to a printed statement.
There’s been a whole lot of obfuscating going on since people actually read and started challenging Cain’s 9-9-9 plan.
I guess that’s why I don’t buy the “authentic” label many people are trying to sell him with either…once he started getting criticized regularly, he reacted just like any old run of the mill politician would; that is, with BS and non-answer answers.
Crazy Rance can sing-can’t dance.
Finally a real candidate with bold solutions.
If people are looking for a “savvy” candidate, it had better be Newt Gingrich.
Because if Herman Cain isn’t “up to snuff,” then Rick Perry is still trying to figure out how to get his pants on. He’s a hot-tempered moron at best. I’m not sure how he got to be governor of Texas, and I don’t really care.
And I’ll never vote for Mitt Romney again.
I have no doubt that Herman Cain is up to the job, and all of the “intelligentsia” that becomes incensed at his more human style of campaigning is an added bonus for me.
And I love 9-9-9. It will make the economy skyrocket. Period. It just requires faith in the free market that once these rates are set that prices will go down. Everybody already pays MORE than 9% in federal taxes for goods, they’re just too stupid or stubborn to see that. Prices WILL go down. A consumption tax is the only “fair tax.” It’s time we embraced it rather than running away from it screaming.
Cain has gone out of his way many times to point out that his scheme is “tax neutral” which means that under it, by design, overall taxes will remain the same. Obviously then, some peoples taxes will go up and others will go down. Clearly, taxes for the wealthiest people will go down. Just as clearly, taxes for people who arent wealth will go up.
How on earth is that going to make the economy “skyrocket”.
All the plan will do is DISRUPT the eonomy, in a major way, for years and years. Everybody who has praised the plan totally ignores the political ramifications (ie, raising taxes on 80% of the country), and the problems of implementing it (ie, 3 steps, 2 of which require totally revamping the tax collection methodology). Basically, they jump to the end point and say that lower “marginal rates” are better for the economy. It’s nonsense. The economy is helped when taxes are lowered, not when they are shuffled around. There is no evidence whatsoever that shuffling taxes around does anything besides creating winners and losers…because it has never been done.
Well, I’ve seen a lot of Herman Cain lately, and the more I see of him the more convinced I am that he is just not up to the job. 9-9-9 is just about the only arrow he has in his quiver because, as we have seen, once he ventures into the areas of foreign policy or national defense, his lack of knowledge, his obvious lack of familiarity with even the major features of the landscape, his lack of any experience in these areas and with these issues, is immediately apparent.
Play the hostage taker’s game, let them impose their conditions and demands on us, and empty out Guantanamo in exchange for one hostage, so that we have potentially hundreds of new individual terrorists and terrorist attacks to face, have to be threatened and harmed and bloodied by them all over again?
If that is how Cain would run the show, I want no parts of him. Haven’t we seen the damage that an under qualified, inexperienced President can do in the course of his One the Job Training?
Cain may be likeable, he may have a great Horatio Alger story to tell, he may have a talent for business, but that is a woefully slim and inadequate resume when you are applying for the job of President of a United States that is involved in—now with Obama’s insertion of U.S. Special Forces into Uganda—Uganda of all places!—four simultaneous wars—Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and, now, Uganda. Any day now I expect to wake up to hear that Obama has decided to intervene militarily in Greece, or Mexico, Canada, or Fiji.
For my money, Newt Gingrich—based on his very deep experience, knowledge, intelligence, and on his toughness and temperament–is really “the only adult in the room,” and the only candidate who has the experience, the vision, and the toughness to lead the U.S.—on both the domestic and internal fronts–in increasingly perilous times.
Mr. Cain has made flubs but I question how many of the debates in the last presidential cycle had questions that someone, I wonder who?, was prepared to take? I still like Newt Gingrich over any of these people. He has the most direct, intelligent, wise and honest assessments of the topics. And he recognizes really stupid faux journalists questions instead of trying to muddle through what can’t be answered logically. You can’t fix stupid, even when they look good on a nightly make up news TV program.
Look at all the Cain sheep. I’m not voting for Cain ever, and I felt that way pre-debate and definitely post-debate!!
I have done quite a bit of research before deciding that I like Herman Cain best of all the flawed candidates. I am not a sheep. Again, Stephanie, name-calling is universally recognized as a poor substitute for a substantive response and if you can’t supply any thought-out reasons for your candidate of choice, you’re not convincing anyone else to support him or her.
From the first debate on, Newt has been my favorite. In my opinion, he won every debate. I get so frustrated, as I did again last night, that he’s given so little time to speak. To me, he’s the most “presidential,” not because of his looks (a la Romney), but because of what he says and how he says it: from the heart, with a good mind, and a heck of a lot of experience. Quick wit doesn’t hurt, either. I haven’t written off Cain as a second choice.
I’m one of those who have watched Newt over the years and saw him go from awesome to icky. Its great to hear him go after the press and the Prez but I dont respect the man. He would make a great press secretary if you could stop him from developing his own policies.
The country needs the next president to have a free market plan for the economy and the tax code and be willing and able to work their butt off to sell it. Cain is one of the few candidates able to do that and the only one trying to do it with specifics. I really like that.
999 is a slogan not specifics. Larry Kudlow interview Rich Lowery (a Wells Fargo financial adviser not an economist who wrote the 9-9-9 plan) this past Saturday for the second time in 2 days. Afterward, he said he was even more unsure of how the 9% sales tax would work than before the two interviews. A caller said that he had taken all of his money from his IRA and paid taxes on all of it. Under Cain’s proposal he would pay taxes all over again. Many seniors are in his position. 999 is a slogan just like Cain’s candidacy is a gimmick to sell his new book. Those of us in California already had the Jerkinator, we don’t need the Herminator.
Cain is a great guy and a fine conservative, but he’s not politically savvy enough to be president. His original answer to the Gitmo was hair raising. If Cain is nominated the Federal Press will have no mercy on his gaffs.
It’s looking more and more as if Romney truly is the shoe in. If that is the case, the focus of conservatives must turn to winning the Senate & more House seats. Assuming we succeed, our next duty will be to keep the heat on the GOP to roll back the Obama disaster.
Ironic that you misspelled “gaffe”. Or are you claiming that Herman Cain wears some interesting undergarments??
The question on Gitmo was a “put yourself in Bibi’s shoes” question. Could I envision a scenario where I would let 1000 low level turds go for one Marine?
Yeah, I probably could envision it. Not likely to do it, but…I understand what Israel is going through.
Is this REALLY what we want to be discussing and stomping around about? Please.
None of the candidates is up to the task, frankly. Newt is a fine idea guy, articulate on stage, thinks on his feet better than the rest. Those are SOME skills necessary for a leader.
Perhaps more importantly, those are some skills that would come in handy against Obama in debating the issues.
But Newt’s “brand” is severely damaged. Like it don’t…but, turning a blind eye toward it or dismissing it out of hand is for fools. Just as Palin’s brand was severely damaged. The argument that it is horribly unfair for each… has legs. And, is somewhat irrelevant.
Perry doesn’t think well on his feet, sorry. He’s clumsy and awkward in this setting. He became petty and vindictive, instead of commanding.
Mitt is the backup ripcord you pull if your first parachute fails to open…and, you spend a minute seriously considering the alternative.
Ron Paul is a crank. He has fleeting moments of lucidity interspersed with bat spit crazy, dogs with rabies moments playing to his pack.
Bachman is going after the mom vote, possibly handing out one of her kids to every voter of hers.
Santorum is the Sam Kinison of politics. You have to appreciate his…um…volume, I guess.
That leads us back to Herman Cain. If we can get Newt to pull out and advise Herman on a daily basis, we could have the composite candidate who can win.
Otherwise, Obama just sits back and watches this WWF brawl tear down EVERY candidate, without him having to lift a finger to turn on the Teleprompter.
always enjoy your analysis, and usually agree with most of it, like today.
Except.
I’ve come to realize that Newt’s brand might not be as ruined as you think. If you won’t insist on playing the Watergate card, then I’ll cite Nixon, who couldn’t possibly have been more discredited after losing the Ca governorship the first time, yet came back in just a few years to become president.
It has been a long time since Newt left elective office. The impression of people under 40 will be formed by what he says, not that era. For those who remember, conservatives will vote for him anyway. And btw, the main problems from that era are that he allowed himself to be snookered by Bubba, and his personal behavior was, shall we say, less than exemplary and clearly hypocritical. ok. We are finding out that Romney (obviously) and Perry also have made what many consder to be serious political mistakes. Perhaps Bachman and Santoreum have not (from a conservative perspective), but neither is viable at this juncture. Cain hasn’t made such an error because he hasn’t been in the game. But the evidence at least hints that he is highly susceptable to poor judgement from time to time.
On the personal front, I have to confess that Newt’s bad behavior is shameful. I haven’t really heard what he has to say about it, but we will certainly hear more about it if he remains in the hunt. ok. Shame on him. I want to beat Obama more than I want to punish Newt, and I don’t think his behavior in 2012 will make a difference in a race between him and Obama.
If RR was running, or if Perry was a better communicator, I would have a different opinion. As things stand, Newt shouldn’t be discounted out of hand.
We shouldn’t worry about the dozens of mis-statements, retractions, embarrassing flubs and mistakes that Mr. Cain has made.
Anybody who has no governing or electoral experience would do the same. Particularly on foreign policy, one has to have thought about it to have a coherant view. Otherwise, anybody would be just like Cain, random and reactive.
And since he has never had to vote on anything and establish a track record of what his views are under pressure, he is free to change them easily when they are challenged. I like how glibly he does it. I don’t consider it to be lying at all, since he hasn’t really thought this stuff through anyway.
We need someone just like us as president since nobody can be worse than Obama. I can’t imagine what could go wrong with him as president.
His lack of experience plus many, many years in far left church is very similar to Obama. Obama’s biggest supporters were the big banks. Herman was head of the Kansas City division of the Fed (big banks).
Did that help your imagination?
We shouldn’t worry about the dozens of mis-statements, retractions, embarrassing flubs and mistakes that Mr. Cain has made.
Anybody who has no governing or electoral experience would do the same. Particularly on foreign policy, one has to have thought about it to have a coherant view. Otherwise, anybody would be just like Cain, random and reactive.
Your point is well taken, proreason. And you have been articulating Cain’s negatives brilliantly.
But, frankly…apply the exact same quote above to EVERY candidate left standing. Use the same standards…and then allow me to rip into every one of them for ADDITIONAL beatings.
Let’s face it. You and I don’t really have a candidate in this race. We have to bet on a horse and ours were scratched pre-post.
What is the best course of action now?
I really don’t put a lot of stock in being a congresscritter. A governor is a sound proving ground, but lacking in foreign affairs real life experience.
Let me tell you…there are a HUNDRED CEO types who could do the job better than anyone on stage and EVERYONE in the current adminnistration.
Herman Cain is flawed as a candidate. So are all of them. It just depends upon which flaws we are willing to tolerate. And actually looking at who can beat Obama, and will stick to his guns on key issues.
If Herman is more of a blank slate and is floundering…that is LESS of a concern than a guy who is lying through his teeth…and is floundering to my way of thinking.
You are not wrong…and I am not arguing with you. I’m just trying to find a way to the goal line. And all of the QB’s are weak backups in my opinion. We have to build a game plan around one of them…and stop destroying their brand in the process.
Read my response to your other post in this thread. I’m in Newt’s camp now.
And yes, I have been ripping Cain pretty ruthlessly, without saying a whole lot negative about the others even though they all have major flaws.
The reason is that I have concluded Mr Cain is extremely risky. If I didn’t feel that way, I wouldn’t be speaking up as loudly, since you know that I believe the real enemy is Obama. I originally wrote “dangerous” rather than “extremely risky”, but thought better. I believe Mr Cain is an honest man with a conservative, pro-American nature, who wishes the best for the country and genuinely believes he can lead us. He isn’t dangerous because he wants to help, not hurt the country, but he is risky because he isn’t nearly predictable as any of the others, all of whom have track records (even Romney, who we can realiably predict will go where the wind blows), and because he is highly unelectable.
In my view, we are down to a risk assessment. I’m a geniuinely conservative person who is desperately worried about the position the country is in, not just a political conservative. I look for the best reward for my dollar and efforts, understanding that there are no sure things. Rush Limbaugh, a hero of mine, is shooting for a supernova, and he thinks Cain could be the guy. But Rush and the other gamblers among us are either in very safe persaon situations, or by nature, not conservative in their approach to life, even if they fervantly believe in the Constitution. I’m looking for the person who has the best chance against Obama, not a home run that will return the Republic to the values of 1788 in a single day.
I am absolutely certain that Cain’s odds are the worst of all the candidates. No experience, unprepared, too bold, and a plan that will cause many conservatives/Republicans to vote for the marxist out of fear for their own finances. The fact that Mr Cain is a nice and good man who shows well in public isn’t going to matter. He will be ripped to shreds and we will lose, not by a little, by a landslide. It could be so bad that we won’t win the Senate. I want the safer path, not the super-nova. In my small way, I’m attempting to head off a disaster.
I liked Cain but I never liked 999, I don’t like his Fed experience and flips.
Romney is a Robot and not a Conservative.
I am embarrassed after every debate at how childish the candidates are acting.
I still like Perry and Michelle but they also have their baggage.
I’m down to Newt. Newt is the only one who looks & speaks like an adult.
We have so much at stake in this election and a long way to go. Let us be very careful.
Before anyone caves in and goes with Mitt,I would seriously consider John Bolton
as a candidate. The man has national and international experience, is clear of any scandal, and has a mustache any man would be proud of.He would also eat the present candidates alive in debate.Bolton for president.
I was hoping Bolton would run. It’s a shame he hasn’t declared.
By the way, he’s not running.
This is no time for playing fantasy football with the Presidency.
Bolton would make a great Secretary of State. THAT is a real possibility, too.
I like Mr. Cain but this is the kind of answer I would expect from someone who has never heard of “the right of return”.
I respect a man who can admit his mistakes. Still, last night was not good for Cain.
The question has been raised before. Of those Republicans vying to be the nominee, which candidate could hit the ground running, and do the job of really being President from his first minute in office? And the conclusion I keep arriving at, over and over again as I listen to these debates–is Newt.
My view is that Herman Cain (as his recent “misspoken” statement that he would be willing to exchange all the hundreds of Muslim terrorists in Guantanamo in return for one U.S. soldier held by terrorists very clearly demonstrates) is just flat out unqualified–no matter how many “briefings” from “experts” he says he will get to bring him up to even minimal speed.
Moreover, despite his glib “apples” and “oranges” analogy last night, in the midst of his defense of his 9-9-9 program Cain admitted that his 9% national tax would be in addition to and imposed on top of any existing state or local sales taxes.
In addition, a lot of what he is saying about his various proposed taxes sound like he is describing a “value added tax,” a VAT tax like those that make things in Europe so expensive. And VAT taxes are levied at each stage that a product goes through where “value” is supposedly added–first on the extraction of raw materials, and then on their refinement, then on shipping, say, of metal ingots to a plant for fabrication, and then on the fabrication itself, on shipping again to the seller, and then on the final sale; a smothering cumulative,very high price tag as 9% is added on top of 9% for each of several “value added” processes.
Ron Paul is basically bat-shit crazy on most subjects.
Romney is way too moderate, is a RINO.
Nor is Perry really qualified, and Perry is far too soft on and has been compromised on the key issue of treatment of illegal aliens by his signing of the Texas legislation granting in-state tuition at Texas colleges and universities to illegal aliens.
Moreover, Perry’s attack last night on Romney over illegal aliens that were employed by the lawn service Romney hired to care for his lawn, is just a cheap shot. If we hire someone who looks like he might be a foreigner to do work for us, do we “ask to see his papers,” his green card, or certification that he is a resident alien, in the U.S. on a student visa, or is a naturalized citizen? I don’t imagine that most or, frankly, almost any of us, do. And I think it even less likely that we would try to vet every subcontractor or employee that the main person we hire to work for us had hired to help him or to do some or all of the work for him. That is the job of the government, or should be.
Santorum, much as I like his views on the issues, is just too conservative, and I view Bachmann, as I do Cain, as being a candidate with an almost exclusive focus on domestic issues.
So, who is left standing? Who can immediately step into the job of President with the absolutely necessary levels of knowledge, experience and confidence, and start doing the job–its domestic aspects, the international side, the defense side, and the legislative side, and every thing in between–on day 1?
The way I see it, only one candidate. Newt.
Well, duh.
Who is it that is so dense they needed to have that pointed out?
Cain is amassing far too many situations where he backtracks, corrects himself, changes what he meant to say, etc. It’s pathetic. Not good for someone who could be president. Oops. POTUS needs to be able to think clearly, sometimes quickly, often under pressure, and nail it most of the time. Cain’s willingness to say he made a mistake may be refreshing for some. But it’s getting old.
Mom of 3 Makes $379/Day and $8700 per Month Working from Home online , positions available! Read about it and Get started today MakeCash1. çom
that’s good
I respect a man who can admit his mistakes. Still, last night was not good for Cain.
Mom of 3 Makes $379/Day and $8700 per Month Working from Home online , positions available! Read about it and Get started today MakeCash1. comONLY
Having said that I think Newt is the best candidate by far, the proposal he ended the debate with last night, a proposed series of several “Lincoln-Douglas” type, 3 hour each, un-moderated debates is just sheer fantasy.
It seems to me that–if the level of fratricide we saw on display last night is any indication–Newt’s chances seem to be looking up by the day. Should Newt be the Republican nominee, Obama would not in a million years put himself in such danger, but would, instead, opt for debate forums and rules which would minimize his danger and make his lack of substance and real debating chops the least obvious. So, in my view this proposal of Newt’s is just totally unrealistic and a stunt.
You are right, and I’m sure Newt knows that there is no chance of it happening.
The real purpose was probably to leave the thought in people’s minds that Newt is the candidate best able to confront the Marxist.
And there may be some value, if Newt were to get the nomination, of hammering obama with the idea. Commercials could pose the question of why Obama isn’t willing to engage in a REAL debate. If it was good for Lincoln when the Union was at stake, why not now when the future of the country is at stake? Obama would just ignore it, of course.
Do the nay sayers really think Cain would address this situation in real life without serious study and consultations? Come on folks, there is a huge difference between real life and answering a “what if” question off the cuff. Do you prefer a “typical” politician who would have talked for ten minutes without ever answering the question?
I appreciate much of the analysis above. The choice here will be difficult. I understand the concerns expressed about Cain, but think people miss some of the larger points. Our country is in bad shape because of the conventional approach taken by both parties. We need someone who can break through and provide leadership on a fundamental change of direction on basic economic and domestic issues. Cain has the right personality and right sense of direction. His 9-9-9 plan is a proposal, which points us in the right direction. I think people underestimate his point regarding the tax relief implicit in reducing the corporate tax, since much of the effect of that tax is built in or “invisible. But even if it needs to be adjusted, so what. Doing nothing, proposing nothing is a far worse alternative. All proposals will be subject to similar critiques and pose similar problems.
As for foreign policy. Its clear he lacks experience and knowledge. But what are the alternatives. Everyone will have a learning curve. The concerns about his off the mark comments, which are justified, appear to be a result of his openness. While this presents risks, it is also a tremendous strength in our present context, where we need someone who can communicate to us outside of the our current political conventions.
As various critiques, just over the last few days, have demonstrated, there is a lot of uncertainty about just what the effects of Cain’s 9-9-9 plan might be, and its is not at all clear or certain that it will be such a sure fire boon to all as you suggest it would be. You suggest the novelty of Cain’s approaches are a good thing. Well, we have had a whole hell of a lot of “novelty” with Obama & Co.s approaches–45 extra-Constitutional Czars, answerable only to Obama–we don’t really know who all of them are, or what their powers and their reach might be, nor do we know just exactly what they are doing, we’ve had government buying auto companies, Communist Van Jones in the White House, Mao on Christmas tree decorations and, of all things, an “in your face” advocate for homosexuality as Obama’s “Safe Schools Czars.” So, novelty is not necessarily always a good thing.
On foreign policy and national defense issues, you say that Cain, while he admittedly lacks knowledge and experience, will have a similar learning curve to that of all the other possible nominees but, that is just not true. Newt Gingrich has no learning curve to deal with, as they say he has already “seen the Elephant,” he has “been there and done that” as a long time member of the House, as its Speaker, and during the many years he sat in committees dealing with these very issues and working on these same issues in various think tanks. Does Cain or any other of the candidates have this wealth of knowledge and experience? Is any of them “up and running” right now? the answer is no.
You tout Cain’s openness. I would rather have knowledge, experience, and demonstrated competence.
Finally, I remind you that Cain’s or any of the other potential nominee’s “learning curve,” their slow acquisition of information and knowledge, is likely to come at the price of American blood and treasure. Would Cain be prepared on day one, or day five hundred, or day one thousand, to deal with any number of national emergencies that could be as severe or more severe than another 9/11? Quite frankly, I don’t think so, and I don’t want to bet the farm on taking a chance trying to find out.
I have a hard time reconciling novelty and big ideas with conservatism.
We already know what works in this country…the same stuff that has worked for 230 years. Last time I looked, human nature hasn’t changed much. Maybe we should try proven stuff instead of rolling the dice on another big talker with big novel ideas who we just met.
Yep. We need a return to what works, not a new experiment.
Low taxes work.
Hi, i must say amazing blog you have, i stumbled across it in Yahoo. Does you get much visitors?