Not very. In fact, he used it to gain an advantage over the other Republican candidate, suggesting that that other candidate is racially insensitive. There may be no more serious or damaging accusation available to wield against a white southerner in today’s political climate.
In fact, it was just a few short weeks back that Herman Cain, when presented with the opportunity to demonstrate some semblance of personal integrity by withholding judgment against a fellow conservative, chose instead to use a flagrantly biased piece of shoddy journalism as an opportunity to gain an advantage over Rick Perry. For all the endless complaints about dirty tricks and “another high tech lynching” from Cain’s defenders, no one can make the case that Cain is somehow above exploiting similar attacks on his conservative Republican rivals when the opportunity presents itself.
Again, let’s re-examine what he had to say to Christiane Amanpour when asked to comment on the painted-over word on a rock located on a piece of property on which Rick Perry’s family leased rights for a hunting camp in west Texas:
AMANPOUR: … And it’s been — it’s been painted over. But the report raises questions about whether this rock, this stone, with that word on it, was still on display even quite recently in the last several years. What is your reaction to that?
CAIN: My reaction is that is very insensitive…. And since Governor Perry has been going there for years to hunt, I think that it shows a lack of sensitivity for a long time of not taking that word off of that rock and renaming the place. It’s just basically a case of insensitivity.
AMANPOUR: It was painted over.
CAIN: Yes. It was painted over. But how long ago was it painted over? So I’m still saying that it is a sign of insensitivity.
As we now know, that wasn’t a case of insensitivity at all. That rock story was a straight up media hit piece, only even more thinly sourced than Politico’s hit on Cain.
There’s a thread running through all of Cain’s gaffes and how he handles negative stories: He’s just wingin’ it. No plans, no serious effort at counter attack, no evident thoughtfulness in how to handle situations responsibly as they arise.
So far wingin’ it is helping Cain in the primaries as he enjoys an understandable “circle the wagons” effect, but it will get him and possibly the GOP destroyed if he is the nominee. As a commenter noted in another post, Obama’s campaign and the DNC are not raising a vast war chest and deploying an army of volunteers just for fun or to explain his policies better — that’s all being set up so Obama can scorch the earth and nuke the GOP nominee in what will be the nastiest campaign we’ve ever seen. Hopefully it’s not too much to ask that whoever the GOP nominee turns out to be, they take enough care to see that they are able to defend themselves and other Republicans from the attacks that everyone knows are being built up right now.
Excellent article. Thank you for pointing this out. I think it’s Karma. What astounds me are the Cain supporters who threw such a fit when Rick Perry used the term “heartless” and which was, in my opinion, fairly mild but enough to make the Cainites hate on Perry forever give Cain a pass every time he says something stupid or gets caught in a bad situation. But then, he’s just joking.
“Heartless” is a sure loser for Republicans. It is how the Left slanders the Right, in order to “defend” their schemes. It is really a sore point.
By contrast, racist used to be as bad, but it has become a joke, now.
It is really about the degree of emotional response. For Perry to do the same thing the Left does (call Republicans heartless), and for the same purpose, was a complete faux-pas.
Make no mistake, Cain’s shooting off his mouth was a bad thing to do, and many of us protested against it. He later had to back-pedal. That part did not get mentioned here. Of course, the author, Bryan Preston, is a big booster of Perry.
I support Cain, but only because I feel he is the best option of a bad lot. It is a gamble, I know, because he is such a novice, but I pretty much know how the others would turn out. It may go sideways if Cain is President, but there is more potential upside with him. Believe me, I am not happy about supporting him. I do not like bologna sandwiches, but I much prefer them to crap sandwiches.
—————————————————————————-
This whole mess is because Bachmann blew herself up, back when she had the momentum. She and Cain have hired nasty political operatives, and it really shows at times, but such could not have the influence they do, without the candidates themselves being receptive.
I begin to wonder if women and blacks just make lousy candidates? Even when educated, they are under-educated. Bachmann and Cain are both highly-educated, but seem to lack knowledge of general things and try to wing it. So, they just shoot their mouths off. They are under-prepared and are also way too emotional in their responses.
I think it comes down to dignity… not the fake kind that Romney projects, but the real stuff. Nothing is a better shield against the poo flung by one’s fellow primates, and it also acts to prevent you from flinging poo right back. I look at the field of candidates, and I see no one with an ounce of dignity.
Dignity. I think that is what folks mean when they say ‘Presidential’. Dignity. Grace. Manners. Gentlemanly or Ladylike. This quality is sorely lacking in all the candidates. Character-wise, we are choosing from our inferiors, not our betters. America is truly in decline. It just makes my heart ache, when I think of it.
Just winging it might be exactly what is going on with Cain. It makes one wonder how serious he is about getting the job.
As for Obama’s billion dollar war chest, I have no doubt that you are correct about his intentions, but I am doubtful it will help him much. His record is so bad that words fail me in describing it. I wonder if I could put my water meter reader up on a third party ticket, give them a couple hundred bucks, and whip Obama’s butt. Really, this election should be a gimme for anyone running against Barry….should be……
I agree, excellent. Very revealing.
Every time I think you can’t beclown yourself any more, you prove me wrong. Can’t you just grow up & move on?
Mr Preston isn’t being tough enough on Cain today, even though the nuke gaffe was just a misused word.
This other gaffe of Cain’s was not just his misspeaking or being unaware of a specific fact he should know. It’s more an indication that he’s wholly unaware of the current state of the nation and how we got here. At the very least he’s just a shill for Federal Reserve fools who he bizarrely still sees as TeenBeat cover boys. Herman Cain should be making pizza and going to Justin Bieber concerts to get over the Greenspan idolization.
http://polipundit.com/?p=34081
If you read Mr Preston carefully, I think you will detect that he has become discouraged with Perry as well. He hasn’t really boosted Perry in a while. I believe his main concern now is the same as mine…Cain needs to be stopped before we lose it all.
We are down to two viable candidates unless another one mounts a strong comeback…Romney and Newt. The bad news is that nobody in the conservative base is thrilled by either one. The good news is that they both can draw some votes from the middle. Romney is running a general election campaign. Newt isn’t really, and must be careful to not go too far right. I’m also not sure that Newt is really running a campaign to win…he could be running for VP or to stay on TV. It’s hard to tell because he hasn’t been able to raise enough money to compete hard nationally. My hunch is that from the beginning, he has been attempting to hang on and let the others fall by the wayside. If that was his strategy, it sure is working.
This Cain vs Perry, Perry vs Romney, Bachman vs Perry, Perry vs debating, …seems to have a consistent pattern and a consistent result.
Nobody…and I mean nobody…on our side of the fence…wins.
The mudslinging seems to center around one candidate…who doesn’t seem to be able to get along with many, if any…of the other candidates. That’s a problem.
It may be an unfair assessment and read of the facts on the ground. But, if the same guy seems to raise the level of animus in multiple places from his own side of the fence, it certainly is worth reviewing more closely.
More importantly perhaps, it doesn’t help him one whit to sling feces like a drugged monkey in every direction at his fellow Republican candidates. In fact, it hurts him. His debate performances and the in-fighting have nearly destroyed his candidacy. He needs to stop.
And the “well, Susie did it too and Tommy threw a spitball first” won’t save him from his current free fall.
Perry has some distinct advantages, but he is burying them beneath a ton of negativity. If his campaign put the hit out on Herman Cain on this NRA situation..he is toast. It would be a monumentally idiotic move…no excuses, no alibis, nothing…will resurrect his campaign.
In fact, if I was leading his campaign I would immediately begin to speak well of all other Republicans, every one. (I would be silent on Romney and Paul). I would admire the others strengths and focus on Obama administration. I would prepare and prepare and prepare some more…focus on my own positions and contrast them when necessary…but not slam my own side when we differ.
The ONLY way for Perry to survive and recover…is to being to act like a team player. He has completely turned off a huge section of the base he needs. If he is serious about wanting to get back in the thick of the race, he needs to abandon doing the dirty work of the Dems….no matter what anyone else does.
CF, I’ve been saying the same thing for sometime, but probably not as well.
This country, regardless of party, is desperate for true leadership. Quality leadership. Adult leadership.
The internal fingerpointing and mudslinging must stop. It’s childish, disheartening and demoralizing.
You dress for the job you want, not the job you have. If Perry et al want to have a real chance at winning the nomination and the election, they need to start thinking, speaking, behaving like leaders. Now.
Nobody…and I mean nobody…on our side of the fence…wins.
I give up on it. May as well get used to it and join in. When the right wing media is helping to drive it that is the way it will be until a candidate is selected. There is some truth in the charge that the GOP is the Stupid Party.
Note Preston has not offered anything resembling a mea culpa for his previous bumbling attempt to paint Cain as so stupid and uninformed that he did not know that China had nukes. Instead he just moves on to another attack on Cain.
At least Ace quickly fessed up and admitted his error.
If I had to guess I’d guess Perry’s campaign is behind the “sexual harassment” attack on Cain. I don’t really have any evidence, just a suspicion that of all the candidates he would be most likely do it, maybe in retaliation for what Mr. Preston posted here. He also made a cheap attack on Romney in the last debate over employing illegals. Anyway, by Mr. Preston’s standards I don’t really need any hard evidence. Circumstantial suspicions are sufficient. And has Perry denied it?
I’d also like to know why Perry claims Texas public schools are teaching creationism alongside evolution. That is against the law of the land. So is
Perry overseeing lawbreaking in Texas? Or is he just stupid and ignorant about what is going on in Texas public schools? Which is it? Think the Dems and the MSM won’t be pounding away on this if he becomes the candidate?
For the record, I’m not a Cain supporter. My man is Newt. He had better watch out if he climbs any further in the polls, notwithstanding his pleas for civility amongst the GOP candidates. Sorry Newt, I don’t think trying to stay above the fray will work this time.
Yeah, Ace is so honest. I got banned because I made some comments about his boy Perry — namely that he would likely blow up in the GOP’s face if he became the nominee. I gave reasons for why I thought this would be the case, and I even tempered my remarks that this would have a lot to do with facing the Obama campaign machine. Yeah, I called Rick Perry “Herb Tarlek”, but dang it — the guy does come off that way and it does have an effect (I also was pretty disparaging in my remarks about the rest of the crop and also that commentors had better start excercising damage control rather than this free for all circular firing squad).
I guess that must have hurt Ace’s honest feelings (ironically this right after a post about Free Republic banning people who supported Romney). I guess I’m supposed to get all fired up and get behind Perry — well, forget it; the guy comes off as a disaster and quite honestly I think the Dems would roll him in the general (and cause a lot of damage to the Republican Party in the process). Instead I guess we’re all supposed to line up like good little children and make excuse after excuse for him…everything from questioning his record to calling his debate fails (and that speech) charmingly quirky and showing him to be “real”.
I’m beginning to think the Republicans — from the canidates to the pundits — really aren’t serious about this election to a man/woman.
And so much for “honest Ace” — wonder if he’s getting money from the Perry campaign; he sure likes to carry Rick’s water.
I haven’t seen the whole context, but the goofy Perry video that was circulating yesterday appears on the surface to be the nail in his coffin. It’s a shame because the Texas story is good and his platform is good as well. I thing he just became overwhelmed by the level of scrutiny he received almost instantly. When his wife spoke out a couple of weeks ago, it was obvious they are taking it personally. He had been very successful in Texas and had such sterling credentials as governor. But there is always a higher league, and Rick found out very quickly that they throw screwballs in the major leagues of American politics.
How much of Perry’s “Texas Miracle” is really because of him rather than the intrinsic nature of Texas (being a very conservative, pro-business state even before he was governor) and the way their state legislature is set up?
And just how conservative can a canidate be who proposes some of the things Perry, personally mind you, has proposed? I looked over his record after he announced because, hey he was highly touted as the great conservative hope — I see a Texan Romney; in fact, I wonder what would have happened if Perry had been in Massachusetts and Romney in Texas? Would the roles have been reversed?
Quite honestly the guy seems to be as big government as anybody running in the GOP right now, no matter what he says to the contrary — a lot of his small government initiatives seem based more in pay for play favors than any conservative bona fides. So what the heck — he’ll be a big government guy unless you grease his palms? Is that really what you want? Don’t you think the Dems would have a field day running against him?
Texas used to be heavily Democratic. They are gun-toting, Bible-clinging, Conservative Democrats. They are what the Democratic Party used to be. Perry is one of them, as are the Bushes. That is why you see the big-government leanings in these “staunch Republicans”. They are Democrats at heart. Once you have this piece of the puzzle, everything else make sense.
Makes sense — doesn’t make it any more palatable though.
And it’s almost laughable that such big time self-described conservative bloggers are now banging the pots for a blue dog Dem (and maybe not even all that much of a blue dog at that).
Maybe that’s why we get so many screwballs elected. Gov Perry isn’t a screwball and he it was obvious he wasn’t expecting that kind of pitch when he stepped up to the plate but he will make the best president (he or Newt) even though he’s not the most attractive candidate right now.
Again, Reps have a field of candidates who are good people and mean well for our country. But most do not have the knowledge and experience in the actual warfare into which 100 years of Progressivism has transformed political life. By their good natures they handicap themselves. The MSM is just as much the enemy to any Conservative, or just Republican, as Osama bin Laden. For 50 years the MSM have been root and branch entwined with the nomenklatura/government. MSM have a vested interest in maintaining their establishment and it’s works and pomps and perks. Candidates need to interact with MSM from a “Have you stopped beating your wife?” perspective. MSM begins coverage by trying to establish implicit, non-verbal assumptions that a Conservative or Republican is by definition unqualified, racist, or just plain dumb. Candidates should treat MSM in exactly that way first. Cain blew it . He should have demanded proof before replying at all. He should have attacked this as an example of the shoddiest muckraking. As the story has “evolved”, Cain looks evasive, and there is a strong smell of atrocious staff work and advice. If he really knew a week ago they were following this story, he should have fired first. Now he is going to look evasive or foolish or unprepared unless there is a full formal retraction of the charges. This is the latest in a series of Cain flubs that in sum indicate he isn’t ready to operate at this level. A great businessman, a good and decent guy, but unprepared to live in the “Moscow Rules” outlook every Conservative or Republican must embrace in all interactions with MSM. MSM will protect and coddle Romney until/unless he captures the party nomination. Then we will see the slimiest general election in history. Just me, I’m leaning more as a default position to the former # 3 man in the US government, who forced a nearly balanced budget on a Democratic President. Hope for massive change in 2012. GBUSA
you make an interesting point in Romney’s and Newt’s favor which I don’t think I’ve heard before. Both have had experience being smeared by the marxists. Perry and Cain have not. I don’t think anybody can understand that white-hot flame who hasn’t experienced it before.
In Perry’s case, he seems shell-shocked that the national media is 50 megatons worse than the texas media. In Cain’s case, he doesn’t think preparation is necessary…I wonder why.
“Just winging it might be exactly what is going on with Cain. It makes one wonder how serious he is about getting the job.”
I don’t think he’s serious at all, and I bet he is totally surprised that he has gotten this far. Of course, it’s too late for him to just back out, but I can’t help but feeling part of him is looking for a way to take some of the attention (and momentum) away from him. I mean, he had to have known this sex thing would come out eventually.
Plus, seriously, he’s just not ready. And, yeah, yeah, I know Obama wasn’t ready either, but I don’t think Repubs should make the same mistake with Cain that Dems made with Obama.
If the NRA story came from any of the GOP campaigns, it is more likely to be Romney than Perry. The media would never cover up their sources if it were Perry. After all, he’s a conservative. But they’re hot for Romney RINO just like they were for McCain. And that turned out so well for the GOP, they’d like to help us the same way yet again.
That said, I can’t get too worked up about how “unfair” this is for Cain. He’d be a disaster as the GOP nominee. We may as well nominate Christine O’Donnell or Alan Keyes and get it over with.
Cain simply hasn’t been properly vetted because we all like his frank, common sense style, like his smile, and want to keep liking him — while hoping there’s a good reason he’s leading the GOP primary race right now instead of someone like Sarah Palin.
Forget the Restaurant Association job for a moment. Slate asks: What did Herman Cain actually do at the Federal Reserve anyhow?
“I thought: Wow, the Federal Reserve wants me to serve on one of its boards!” writes Cain.
“According to a Cain fan at Ricochet, Cain was merely a “member of a Federal Reserve District Board.” In his book, This Is Herman Cain!, the candidate calls himself a former “head of the Kansas City Federal Reserve.” Maybe the mainstream media has figured this out? Maybe not. According to the Atlantic, he was a “Federal Reserve Chairman.” According to the Huffington Post, he was a “director of the Kansas City Fed.” It was Cain’s only high-profile government role, and 15 years after he finished it, the public that might make him president has no idea what it was or meant.”
Heckuva job Hermie, whatever it was.
However fair or unfair the current “charges” against Cain are, he’s dead to me as a candidate for playing the race card every time the MSM gives him the chance to do it. If I wanted to support a black politician who reacts to every criticism the same exact way that black Democrats (especially the one in the White House) always do – that is, by throwing down the race card – then I’d just vote for a black Democrat. Since that’s not what I want to do either, Cain is off my list for good.
Cain is a man who thinks he’ll have an opportunity to sign a constitutional amendment. The gaffes are piling up day after day, and incredibly, people are calling for PERRY to drop out because people have been attacking him unfairly since he entered the race?
This is incredibly dysfunctional thinking.
A president has to have decent instincts and a knowledge of how government works. Cain has neither. If he manages to pull out the nomination, there is no doubt in my mind we will live to regret it. And in that event, if he somehow managed to beat Obama (something I wouldn’t expect), we may regret that too. He is in no way qualified to be President of the United States.
Finally someone has raised the point that Cain took WaPo article as gospel and responded before Perry even had a chance to. I know that many of you don’t like Perry but he has done a really good job here in TX. And mostly by getting govt out of our way as much as possible. If you have 15 minutes, check out the link below. Wish he could come across like this when the debate lights are turned on.
http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2011/11/01/gov-perry-at-the-iowa-republican-presidential-forum-on-manufacturing/
Sigh. Is this all you’ve got? I will give you credit for writing the entire exchange so that we can see for ourselves how trivial this accusation is.
Cain gets asked a question which makes it sound like Perry has been hunting for years in a place that has a rock with a very offensive word on it and Cain responds that it seems insensitive and asks the question that remains unanswered, “How long ago was it painted over?” Sheesh. BFD.
All this hullabaloo about winging it and dirty tricks and race cards is beyond silly. There is nothing wrong with Herman’s response. It seems entirely appropriate.
One word: Lame. No…two words. Really lame.
There are things about Herman Cain that I want to know more about before I throw my full support behind him. I can see I’m going to have to go elsewhere to get a fair assessment.
You just might be at the only place where Cain can get the kind of assessment you want to see. Let go of it. No politician is worthy of real loyalty anyway.
I was coming here because I was hoping I could get a fair assessment – because I have no loyalty to Cain or anyone else. I liked the fact that the hard questions were being probed rather than swept under the rug. Should I pay attention or tune it out?
As for this article, from the headline, I expected something more than Cain just saying it was “insensitive”.
You know what, it was insensitive. Cain doesn’t say it is the end of the world, or that Perry is a bigot or racist or a bad person. He said it was insensitive and …. reality check…. it was insensitive. Do you really want to stand behind the idea that it wasn’t?
Becky-
What, exactly, was insensitive about Perry’s actions?
Without knowing the timeline, it is irresponsible to make that claim. Tell me how Perry’s actions differed from the “proper” response. And remember, speculating about timing is not allowed, because attacking somebody based on an unproven story is really low.
In reality, Cain should have done what Perry just did when the roles were reversed: make it clear that you don’t comment on this kind of speculation.
Cain was stupid. Does not even get that the Perry family does not own said property. They lease the rights to hunt on it. Period. They cannot build on it. They cannot alter the fences, foliage, out buildings or property in any way. They can only go and hunt on it. They must clean up after themselves or lose the lease.
The whole thing shows utter ignorance and stupidity around hunting leases in Texas. By all concerned.
Cain is being set up on the harassment thing. Can you say virtual lynching? Period. Full stop.
Preston is right. You are only seeing the first attacks from the Marxist. They will have us fighting amongst ourselves to the death and laugh all the way at what simple rubes we are. And be completely correct.
I believe their ultimate wish is to spark insurrection so that they may seize power at the point of a bayonet, the muzzle of the gun. Suspend all of our rights for our own good.
They are evil incarnate.
Let me just ask you this: Would you lease the rights to a hunt CAMP or a photography CAMP or a drum circle CAMP where it’s known nick-name was sported a rock near the entrance that included any of the following:
cu**t rock; K**ke rock; Sp**ck rock; Pu@@y rock? Would you lease land on a camp that’s entrance sported a picture of Christ in urine and then do nothing to remedy it?
I repeat myself: Cain did not call Perry a bigot, or racist or even a bad person. He said it was insensitive and asked a question that deserves an answer: how long was it like that before it was painted over?
Who among you are willing to stand up and say that it was not insensitive to lease a camp with this name? Cain’s comments to CNN were appropriate.
Are you intentionally misleading, or do you believe what you are writing?
You say (via your analogy) Perry did nothing to remedy the situation, which is a lie. You can’t even say he took ‘too long’ to fix it because the timeline is unknown.
As far as leasing a hunting camp by that name being insensitive, you must realize that word is used in geographic names across the country (and the world). Should those places be forever abandoned because of this? I don’t think so. Renaming it is enough for most folks, I imagine.
Cain may have had a point (if the story panned out). But commenting ahead of proof like he did was practically slanderous.
You give Becky too much credit. There is one thing eveident from the beginnning of Cain’s campaign. The people who support him are just like the hope and change Obama maniacs from 08. They don’t want to hear anything negative about their jesus and will use every weapon they have to destroy anypne who doesn’t worship their god. Look back at what happened to Hilary CLinton and her supporters, the same thing is happening now with Cain.
I personally think it is caused by their desire to look at themselves and say “I can’t be racist because I voted for a black man”, well we can’t afford another unqualified race-card player, so work your issues out on your own time. Do not hurt the rest of us so you can have better self-esteem.
Are you intentionally throwing out strawman arguments or are you just so eager to support YOUR candidate that YOU are the one seeing mountains in mole-hills from that exchange between CNN and Cain in the article above?
1. I never said he took too long to fix it. Nor did Cain.
2. MY point is that it was reasonable for Cain to ask the question about the timeline, given the sequence of the CNN interview noted above.
3. And yes, my entire point is that the name has been “insensitive” since the 60′s. Apparently you disagree and think that everything in the history of mankind needs to be changed because it would have been a nice thing to paint over a freaking rock with the “insensitive” N word on it.
Cain didn’t bring it up. He was asked by CNN in an effort to get dirt on Perry. The fact that you can’t be fair in evaluating his answer says much more about you than me.
Your position is inconsistent at best. What would/should a ‘sensitive’ Perry have done that he didn’t do?
Unless you (or Cain) have a good answer to that, you are merely name calling. Cain should have never opined on the matter without the facts beyond saying, ” I don’t know the facts. ”
Why is that hard to understand?
There is no strawman in my post. If Perry was guilty of insensitivity simply by setting foot in that camp, then you would condemn him no matter what.
I will ask again: what should Perry have done that he didn’t do?
Also, part of Cain’s argument most definitely involved the amount of time it took Perry to paint over the rock. Go back and read the transcripts. He says that to have hunted there FOR THAT MANY YEARS before painting it is insensitive.
okay, I’ll bite. Since I’ve bothered to type, please bother to read.
I would agree with you if Cain had brought up the subject for his gain, but he was only answering this question in an interview:
AMANPOUR: … And it’s been — it’s been painted over. But the report raises questions about whether this rock, this stone, with that word on it, was still on display EVEN QUITE RECENTLY in the last several years. What is your reaction to that?
Note the “even quite recently in the last several years”
Cain answers that it is insensitive, which it is. He’s not calling Perry evil or racist. His reaction is that if it was still on display recently, then he thinks it is insensitive. You have to be drooling over Perry not to agree with Cain on this one.
Then, because Cain says —–
” I think that it shows a lack of sensitivity for a LONG TIME of not taking that word off of that rock and renaming the place. It’s just basically a case of insensitivity”—–
Amanpour corrects Cain by telling him that it has been painted over.
So Cain defends himself by saying, “yes, but when was it painted over?” The direct implication is that she just told Cain it had been there “even recently in the last several years”, so it is a legitimate question for him to say, “yes, but when was it painted over?” to justify his statement.
He did not say that Perry waited too long to paint it or that Perry is racist , he’s correcting Amanpour who just corrected him as if he hadn’t heard her say it the first time that the rock had been painted over.
And unless you love Perry or hate Cain, it does appear to be “just a case of insensitivity”. Cain is not even close to pulling the race card here. I don’t see any dirty tricks, or winging it.
You may think he could have answered it better by saying he didn’t have the facts, but it is hard to deny that he is answering the question as it was presented in a fair and reasonable manner.
First off, I believe the question of who brought up the topic has very minor impact in the debate of whether or not Cain unfairly slandered Perry in this interview.
Second, Cain is certainly implying that the amount of time that rock stood on the land with that word has significance in the debate. Your quote just reinforces that.
Third, I don’t know if it’s intentional or not, but you’re missing the point. It is bad politics (and shows a character flaw) to attack (and yes, calling somebody racially insensitive is an attack) a fellow Republican with only a thinly sourced article as evidence. He should have waited until the story was confirmed. Even giving him the benefit of the doubt that it was a “hypothetical”, he should not have gone there.
Finally, I come back to the same question I posed to you earlier: what should Perry have done differently that would have made him not ‘racially insensitive’? You continue to push the theme that Perry acted insensitively. I would like to know what YOU would have done in his position.
I don’t think you bothered to read what I wrote, but whatever. Your question asking about what I think Perry should have done is irrelevant. I’m talking about the answer that Cain gave to the question asked by Amanpour. I think it was a reasonable response to her question.
If you think Cain saying that saying it was “just a case of insensitivity” that Perry leased a hunt camp labeled N rock is “dirty tricks” and “pulling the race card” then, so be it.
You are entitled to your opinion. I am entitled to mine. We don’t agree.
I make points specific to what you wrote and you claim I didn’t read it? Really?
The fact that you think Cain’s response was reasonable implies that you, also, believe Perry’s actions to be racially insensitive. So, yes, your opinion of what Perry did wrong is relevant. You see, I am specifically calling Cain out because he attacked another candidate when, as far as I can tell (and I would have liked to hear your explanation) Perry did nothing wrong. If, in fact, Perry did nothing ‘insensitive’, then Cain screwed up (either by trusting their facts, or knowingly ignoring others).
Cain jumped on the dogpile early and beclowned himself.
“The fact that you think Cain’s response was reasonable implies that you, also, believe Perry’s actions to be racially insensitive.”.
Yeah, that’s right, I do think it was racially insensitive to lease a hunt club well known and still identified as ni&&er rock.
I don’t think it means that Perry is a racist. But, yes, I do believe that Perry was not being racially sensitive when he made the decision to do so.
How freaking hard is that to grasp?
“Would you lease land on a camp that’s entrance sported a picture of Christ in urine and then DO NOTHING TO REMEDY IT?” [Emphasis mine]
November 3, 2011 – 6:00 am
versus:
“I never said he took to long to fix it.”
November 3, 2011 – 11:08 am
“Nor did Cain.”
November 3, 2011 – 11:08 am
versus (In this case, not only do you contradict yourself, you contradict what Cain said):
“His reaction is that if it was still on display recently, then he thinks it is insensitive.”
November 3, 2011 – 4:04 pm
“And since Governor Perry has been going there for years to hunt, I think that it shows a lack of sensitivity for a long time of not taking that word off of that rock and renaming the place.” – Herman Cain
Perry’s ‘insensitivity’ from Cain’s perspective is tied to the amount of time Perry hunted at that camp before ‘doing something’ (painting over the rock) everytime he talks about it.
The fact that YOU think hunting at a camp that was ever named N*ggerhead is racially insensitive is fine. It is not what Cain was arguing.
Not only have you altered your position throughout the course of this discussion, but you’ve parsed Cain’s words and changed the very obvious intention of his statements. And now you say that your point should be easy to grasp. It’s hard to understand an internally inconsistent argument.
The whole rock story exposes a huge disqualifying flaw in Herman Cain. Like most American blacks, his race trumps everything. He can’t move past his blackness for whatever reason. His first reaction when question was to slander a supposedly fellow Republican. That tells me two things, first Cain regards race as more important than beliefs and second that he is a Republican of convenience. He isn’t really a conservative, it’s just that it is easier for him to be regarded as a candidate by Republicans who are easily fooled by his act.
Really though, Cain’s con man act reflects more poorly on the weak minded fooled by him. They attack non-believers and defend and excuse blindly any screw up by Cain. I wish that Cain’s supporters were smart enough to see the irony in their words compared to the blind Clinton and Obama supporters. It is amazing to see just how they are in many cases the exact same. For example, Cain’s bimbo eruption, you Cain people have called them whores and liars and members of your imaginary vast left-wing conspiracy. The same exact words as Clinton supporters used. You ought to be ashamed.
amazing how feverishly your imagination conjured up images of the mindless depravity you imagine in others over the simple fact that Herman Cain stated, “it was just a case of insensitivity” regarding a Perry’s lease and use of a hunt club with the N word front and center.
wow.
Well, remember also that Cain used to be a Democrat. But no question, for 95% of them, they will pull the race card. It’s usually just a matter of time.
Cain figured those women were paid off long ago and would not resurface. He sure miscalculated on that premise.