Althouse: "If you don’t vote for me, you’ll be stuck with a bunch of losers."

June 6, 2011

"If you don’t vote for me, you’ll be stuck with a bunch of losers."

Instapundit paraphrases Herman Cain.

140 comments:

MadisonMan said...: ...and if I do vote for you, do I also get a loser?; 6/6/11, 10:29 AM
Scott M said...: I do love the idea of Cain, as the GOP nominee, going head to head with President Obama in a debate.; 6/6/11, 10:36 AM
hombre said...: He may be right. That's not yet completely clear.

What is clear is that he must be emerging as a serious candidate if the media is doing hit pieces on him already.

First smear the woman, then smear the black man. We can't have a serious Republican contender who counters the stereotype or the media template.

Only white males need apply.; 6/6/11, 10:36 AM
hombre said...: Re the National Journal's use of the Reagan admonition, "Say nothing bad about other Repubs": Isn't that a page from the Alinsky book? Use the other guys' standards against them.; 6/6/11, 10:40 AM
Fred4Pres said...: I really like Herman Cain. A lot.

Yeah I know he is a long shot. But I love the fact he is running, fighting for conservatism, and does not give a rat's ass what the opposition thinks about it. Yet he does it with a smile and enthusiasm.; 6/6/11, 10:43 AM
Tank said...: My guess.

When it comes time to vote in the next general election, we're all going to have a choice between two losers, one R, one D.

Just like last time.; 6/6/11, 10:44 AM
Brian G. Heyer said...: Herman (The Fail Train) Cain, one month before TARP was introduced and passed under threat of martial law, insisted the hunky-dory G.W. Bush economy was strong, & called it an "imaginary recession."

Here's a link to Cain's own column from Sept 1, 2008.
http://www.economicfreedomcoalition.com/news/press-opinion-090108.asp

Cain is either incompetent or a shill. His "I'll tell you what I think after I'm elected" comment on American Empire doesn't garner confidence either.; 6/6/11, 10:45 AM
Loren Ibsen said...: "Instapundit paraphrases National Journal's mischaracterization and selective placement of remarks by Cain."; 6/6/11, 10:53 AM
Fred4Pres said...: FADE FROM BLACK: Int. of Don Herman Cain's home office -day

Andrew Breitbart (seated in front of the Don's desk, facing the camera)

I believe in America. America has made my fortune. And I raised my daughter in the

American fashion. I gave her freedom, but -- I taught her never to dishonor her family. She

found a boyfriend; not an Italian. She was twittering with him; She was twittering all the time. Then he sent her a picture of his pup tent. This is disgraceful. I wept. Why did I weep? She was the light of my life -- beautiful girl. Now she will be the twitter pup tent girl.

[Breitbart breaks down. The Don gestures to RSM to give Breitbart a drink]

Sorry...

[Breitbart, taking the drink, sips from the shot glass]

I -- I went to the media, like a good American. This boy was brought to a media trial. The Democrat party gave them a suspended sentence. Suspended sentence!

He went free that very day! I stood in the courtroom like a fool. And that bastard,

he smiled at me. Then I said to Matt Drudge, "for justice, we must go to Don Herman Cain."

DON HERMAN CAIN (sitting behind his desk, petting a cat)

Why did you go to the media? Why didn't you come to me first?

BREITBART

What do you want of me? Tell me anything. But do what I beg you to do.

DON HERMAN CAIN

What is that?

[Breitbart gets up to whisper his request into Don Corleone's ear]

That I cannot do.

BREITBART
I'll give you anything you ask.

DON HERMAN CAIN
We've known each other many years, but this is the first time you came to me for counsel,

for help. I can't remember the last time that you invited me to your house for a cup of

coffee, even though my wife is godmother to your only child. But let's be frank here: you

never wanted my friendship. And uh, you were afraid to be in my debt.

BREITBART
I didn't want to get into trouble.

DON HERMAN CAIN
I understand. You found paradise in America, had a good trade, made a good living. The

media tollerated you. And you didn't need a friend of me. But

uh, now you come to me and you say -- "Don Corleone give me justice." -- But you don't ask

with respect. You don't offer friendship. You don't even think to call me Godfather. Instead,

you come into my house on the day my daughter is to be married, and you uh ask me to do

murder, for money.

BREITBART
I ask you for justice.

DON HERMAN CAIN
That is not justice; your daughter is still alive.

BREITBART

Then they can suffer then, as she suffers.

(then)

How much shall I pay you?

DON HERMAN CAIN (stands, turning his back toward Brietbart)

Breitbart...Brietbart... What have I ever done to make you treat me so disrespectfully? Had

you come to me in friendship, then this scum that ruined your daughter would be suffering

this very day. And that by chance if an honest man such as yourself should make enemies,

then they would become my enemies. And then they would fear you.

BREITBART

Be my friend --

(then, after bowing and the Don shrugs)

-- Godfather?

DON HERMAN CAIN (after Bonasera kisses his hand)

Good.

(then)

Some day, and that day may never come, I'll call upon you to do a service for me. But uh,

until that day -- accept this justice as a gift on my daughter's wedding day.

BREITBART (as he leaves the room)

Grazie, Godfather.

DON HERMAN CAIN

Prego.

(then, to RSM, after Breitbart leaves the room)

Ah, give this to ah, Dan Collins. I want reliable people; people that aren't gonna be carried

away. I'm mean, we're not murderers, despite of what this web developer says.; 6/6/11, 10:57 AM
traditionalguy said...: Herman Cain could do a good job as President. The Media always scorns him as a Pizza owner who dares to act like he can be a leader. Herman is also a mathematician with a computer science degree from Purdue. He created business turnarounds for Burger king and Godfather Pizza while working for their corporate owner, Pilsbury. He is a former Federal Reserve Bank director. His Senate run in 2004 was a close loss for a first time candidate. Herman beat a stage 4 colon cancer three years ago. He is always a sharp and upbeat leader. Palin would do well put Cain on her ticket.; 6/6/11, 10:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Fail Train? Try to do better next time.

Herman Cain (born December 13, 1945) is an American businessman, columnist, and radio host from Georgia. He is best known as the former chairman and CEO of Godfather's Pizza. He is a former deputy chairman (1992–94) and chairman (1995–96) of the civilian board of directors to the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. Before his business and economics career he worked as a mathematician in ballistics for the United States Navy.[2] Cain's newspaper column is distributed by North Star Writers Group. He lives in the Atlanta suburbs, where he also serves as a minister.

In January 2011, Cain announced he had formed an exploratory committee for a potential presidential campaign for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, and on May 21, 2011, Cain officially announced his candidacy.[3] As of early June, 2011 Cain's candidacy was reported to have engendered enthusiasm among the Republican rank and file.[4]

Cain was born in Memphis, Tennessee on December 13, 1945, the son of Lenora (née Davis) and Luther Cain, Jr.[5][6] His mother was a cleaner and his father was a chauffeur.[2] He was raised in Georgia.[7] He graduated from Morehouse College in 1967 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in mathematics and received a Master of Science degree in computer science from Purdue University in 1971,[8] while he was also working full-time in ballistics for the U.S. Department of the Navy. Cain has authored four books: Leadership is Common Sense (1997), Speak as a Leader (1999), CEO of SELF (October 2001), and They Think You're Stupid (May 2005).; 6/6/11, 11:00 AM
Pastafarian said...: Go to the article to which Instapundit links. It's the worst sort of hackery. Multiple quotes from Cain are grotesquely distorted and misrepresented.

The author, for example, claims that Cain said "Palin is not a contender", when he really said, when pressed on whether she'd run, "If I had to guess, I'd say no."

He claims Cain said "Rick Santorum is a Disgrace to Reagan" when Cain stated that Santorum was too negative to fellow Republicans (as this negativity only helps the Democrats.) And the author then called Cain a hypocrite; because, I guess, this was a criticism of Santorum.

Someone more familiar with Instapundit, fill me in: Is he endorsing this buffoon's hatchet job, by linking to it without comment, basically parroting what this asshole Ujala Sehgal says in his shitty little article?; 6/6/11, 11:08 AM
Titus said...: Where are Godfather's Pizza? I assume the South because the love their chains.

And most importantly are they good?

I am very suspicious of chain pizza joints.; 6/6/11, 11:09 AM
test said...: He might be right. I find myself hoping Rick Perry runs. I don't know if he's the answer, but he's credible enough that anyone capable of beating him gains. And I suspect if he announced he'd be among the top three favorites virtually immediately.

I think the criticisms of Cain on his Afghanistan response carry weight. If you're going to throw your hat in the ring you do your homework on the major issues beforehand. Promising to catch up later is only better than those who have already concluded incorrectly.

This isn't being asked an arcane detail on energy policy. I think he hurt his chances with this reponse on this topic.; 6/6/11, 11:11 AM
mccullough said...: Herman Cain is a great example of what someone with a good attitude and strong will can accomplish. He is an example of American greatness in a way Obama is not.; 6/6/11, 11:12 AM
Scott M said...: Where are Godfather's Pizza?

First one I ever saw was in a little shopping center in Champaign, IL (U of I). I think I remember them in the Chicago area as well.; 6/6/11, 11:13 AM
Anonymous said...: I do love the idea of Cain, as the GOP nominee, going head to head with President Obama in a debate.

Scott M, one of our local radio guys has been playing a fantastic clip of Mr. Cain going head to head with Bill Clinton, in the 90's, over the proposed healthcare reform's impact on small business. Although Clinton doesn't do badly, Mr. Cain is just amazing- he knew the numbers and the issue perfectly, and was amazingly respectful but powerful to President Clinton while debating him. I'm not sure why the nat'l media hasn't picked it up yet, but I'm sure that you could find it on YouTube.

And Clinton's a lot smarter than Obama. I'm crossing my fingers; it'll be beautiful.

- Lyssa; 6/6/11, 11:14 AM
Pastafarian said...: Marshal, are you talking about during the debate, when he said that he didn't have a plan for Afghanistan, because he's not privy to all of the intelligence that would allow him to make an informed decision?

Because that sounds like a pretty rational, honest answer to me.

Cain dares to admit when he doesn't know something. We mustn't have that -- we have to have blustering bullshitters who think they know it all.; 6/6/11, 11:15 AM
Carol_Herman said...: Don't overlook a 3rd party run.

ONE NATION is a "tag" that follows "UNITED WE STAND."

Inside the GOP, Sarah stands a very poor chance. While the idiot, Karl Rove, holds sway; and "picks" the candidate you'll eventually get.

I give Sarah a real chance at winning a 3 way race! And, for good measure, she can ask Donald Trump to be her VEEP.

Sarah is not beholden to the GOP insiders. (Reagan? Yeah. He was. He gave a lot of leeway to the elder Bush, and James Baker.)

Sarah is braver. And, smarter.

It would be a hoot, AFTER the November 2012 elections ... to see the "elites" trying to snag onto some power! Kloppenhoppen can lead them.

Too funny, when voters actually speak out.; 6/6/11, 11:17 AM
Titus said...: I wouldn't do Herman Cain and I tend to be kind of a dinge queen.; 6/6/11, 11:18 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: And Clinton's a lot smarter than Obama..."

So is the average fifth grader.; 6/6/11, 11:20 AM
Pastafarian said...: "Dinge"? Does your gay card excuse racist epithets as well as it does misogyny?; 6/6/11, 11:22 AM
test said...: Pasta,

Yes. He should have stated an opinion [now that we're there we have to win] followed by a disclaimer that he of course doesn't have access to all data and cannot say with certainty what orders he would give his commanders. This places the uncertainty at a lower and more reasonable level.

You just don't have time to develop expertise from scratch on every topic. My first thought on this was 'well if he hasn't spent enough time to outline his basic thoughts on Afghanistan he probably isn't ready for anything else either. So are we voting for 6-12 months of uncertainty?'. This is not a winning message.; 6/6/11, 11:23 AM
TosaGuy said...: Godfathers Pizza is mostly in the Great Plains states and Illinois. Growing up in the 1980s, it was the first real pizza place to open up where I was a kid and we would go there frequently -- it was in the mall, which is now virtually dead. I still find it to be delicious and best medium thickness crust I ever had. During my recent visit to see family I had seen that it had finally closed -- the mall won't be far behind.; 6/6/11, 11:26 AM
MadisonMan said...: When it comes time to vote in the next general election, we're all going to have a choice between two losers, one R, one D.

Just like last time.

Agreed. The difference is that this time it won't be two Senators.

Still, it might happen differently. Maybe only one candidate will be a loser. That would be a refreshing change.; 6/6/11, 11:26 AM
Peter Hoh said...: hombre: What is clear is that he must be emerging as a serious candidate if the media is doing hit pieces on him already.

The National Journal article counts as a hit piece?

Did you even read it before leaping to that conclusion, Hombre?; 6/6/11, 11:27 AM
Peter Hoh said...: Next Hombre: Re the National Journal's use of the Reagan admonition, "Say nothing bad about other Repubs": Isn't that a page from the Alinsky book? Use the other guys' standards against them.

So this is what counts as a hit piece, eh? National Journal reported what the Cain campaign said about Santorum, and suddenly that counts as the writer pulling an Alinsky?; 6/6/11, 11:29 AM
Pastafarian said...: Marshal, no candidate is going to tell you exactly what they're going to do with Afghanistan. Even Obama doesn't know what he's going to do there.

But Obama can bullshit his way through a long-winded response, peppered with enough lawerly qualifiers that he can claim that he meant any one of 10 very different things 6 months from now.

If that's what you're looking for, bullshit, then vote for Obama. He's a goddamned 6th-degree blackbelt bullshit ninja assassin.; 6/6/11, 11:30 AM
Scott M said...: He's a goddamned 6th-degree blackbelt bullshit ninja assassin.

I'll give you the assassin part, but a real ninja wouldn't have lost the Olympics for Chicago.; 6/6/11, 11:31 AM
test said...: Pasta,

There are no positions other than exact certitude and zero knowledge? C'mon.; 6/6/11, 11:35 AM
Pastafarian said...: Peter Hoh, please link to a transcript that shows that Cain said Santorum is a "disgrace to Reagan."

Because that's what the article claims Cain said.

If that's not a hit-piece, maybe you'd like to receive the same treatment:

Peter Hoh hates all Hispanics, and questions their literacy: When debating a fellow commenter, Hoh spat out "Did you even read...Hombre?", his mouth flecked with spittle and his face distorted in hateful rage.; 6/6/11, 11:36 AM
Peter Hoh said...: Pastafarian, the headlines are not direct quotes. They are summaries, at most spun a little further than their supporting quotes. But they aren't misleading, which is what you are trying to do with what you've written about me.

If this National Journal piece counts as a hit piece, then you've got to develop a thicker skin.; 6/6/11, 11:38 AM
Pastafarian said...: Peter Hoh questions the quality of African American's skin, suggesting it's inferior to white skin: "If this National Journal piece counts as a hit piece, then you've [here referring to Herman Cain, African Amercian -- ed.] got to develop a thicker skin."

There, just summarized it for you.; 6/6/11, 11:41 AM
Pastafarian said...: Marshal, if by "exact certitude" you're making a veiled reference to that series of obscene photos showing a hirsute gentleman popping out of his loincloth, as I've explained to the authorities, I was #l33t-hacked!!1!; 6/6/11, 11:44 AM
Peter Hoh said...: Pastafarian, have I ever treated you less than fairly?

I'm here, posting under my real name. I don't expect you to bow down because of that, but if I'm going to be maligned on these threads, I'm out.; 6/6/11, 11:46 AM
Scott M said...: to that series of obscene photos showing a hirsute gentleman popping out of his loincloth

Popping out? I believe a Hanes' spokesman is on record as having said their product contained the weiner quite effectively.; 6/6/11, 11:46 AM
Pastafarian said...: Peter, of course, I'm kidding, you're not a racist. And you're usually a fairly reasonable if somewhat liberal commenter.

My point is this: This article might not be libel, but it's pretty fucking close. It's not honest, and it's hackery.; 6/6/11, 11:52 AM
Pastafarian said...: ScottM, my loincloths are hand-made from goat hide. Hanes has nothing to do with this; I think you're confusing me with the someone else.; 6/6/11, 11:59 AM
Titus said...: That's the official term Pasta.

It's actually thought of as a term of endearment.

I am about 75% dinge queen and the other 25% whatever floats my boat.; 6/6/11, 12:03 PM
Titus said...: I am not a rice queen though. Too small of dicks.; 6/6/11, 12:04 PM
Anonymous said...: Herman Cain has never won an election or held an elective office of any kind to my knowledge. He's a great conservative but he's not going to be president.; 6/6/11, 12:08 PM
Pastafarian said...: dinge: US derogatory slang, noun: A Black person

So derogatory is the new endearment?

Thanks for cluing me in. The next time I'm out and about and see an African American gentleman, I'll be all "Yo dinge, how's it hangin'!"; 6/6/11, 12:08 PM
Chuck66 said...: I like Cain, but he is not ready to go from business leader to head of the free world in one jump.; 6/6/11, 12:10 PM
Chuck66 said...: "Herman is also a mathematician with a computer science degree from Purdue. He created business turnarounds for Burger king and Godfather Pizza while working for their corporate owner, Pilsbury. He is a former Federal Reserve Bank director"

I guess that does beat "community organizer" any day.; 6/6/11, 12:12 PM
Pastafarian said...: Seven, I think we've already had this discussion. I see the fact that he's not a career politician as a plus.

And the last guy that won had something like 2 years experience in a state legislature and 2 years experience in the senate. Cain's experience at Godfather Pizza was more applicable to the job of POTUS than anything Obama ever did.

And no, Cain's lack of experience in the government swamp doesn't make him another Obama (anticipating your answer). He's nothing at all like Obama.; 6/6/11, 12:13 PM
Scott M said...: I like Cain, but he is not ready to go from business leader to head of the free world in one jump.

I suppose, then, it's a good thing that the title of "leader of the free world" lost it's relevance to the American president a long time ago. Somewhere during Clinton's second term, by my reckoning.; 6/6/11, 12:13 PM
Lincolntf said...: Everyone see the new DM's from Weiner? To a 40-something in Nevada. Radar has them, Ace, etc. are linking.
Think "ridiculous bulge", then think "resign in disgrace".; 6/6/11, 12:14 PM
Anonymous said...: Pasta -- It's not so much the lack of experience, it's that he hasn't won anything. A track record of losing is a track record of losing.; 6/6/11, 12:16 PM
Titus said...: From my experience they are usually hanging pretty low Pasta so you may not even have to ask them.; 6/6/11, 12:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Anyone that is against Herman Cain for any reason is a racist.

This I learned in the last election.; 6/6/11, 12:25 PM
hombre said...: Peter Hoh wrote: The National Journal article counts as a hit piece?

Did you even read it before leaping to that conclusion, Hombre?

So Peter, suppose you find and cite a piece on any other candidate that details (including misleading paraphasing) comments taken out of context about opponents (plural) of the same party.

The fact that you don't get it has nothing to do with the nature of the piece. The media is still able to confound dupes despite its waning credibility.

Btw, of course I read the piece and you know it as is evident from your 11:29 post. Is a compulsion toward disingenuousness part of the nature of dupes? Do you think we are all dupes?; 6/6/11, 12:26 PM
Chuck66 said...: Weiner....as everyone knows, you either do stuff like that or you don't. No one does that just once (send goofy bulge pictures to little girls). I bet more come out.

Wonder if John Edwards has more skeletons.; 6/6/11, 12:30 PM
Chuck66 said...: NYT NYer.....John Gurwitz of San Antonio News has a column in syndication today that talks about how as of 01/20/09, suddenly the anti-war crowd not only dissappeared, but seem to support wars in places like Libya and Pakistan. How Cindy Sheehan suddenly no longer has "absolute moral authority".

Same thing will happen with so-called "racism" if Cain runs for President. Suddenly you can attack an African-American all you want. And even use real racism against him (remember Janice Rogers Brown and the cartoons>); 6/6/11, 12:35 PM
hombre said...: Herman Cain has never won an election or held an elective office of any kind to my knowledge. He's a great conservative but he's not going to be president.

His nomination serves many obvious purposes, not the least of which is redefining the Republican party in the minds of many independents.

Even if Cain can't beat Obama, he can shred the mystique without being called racist, while the Republicans go on to capture the Senate. A Republican Congress can blunt Obama's lunacy.; 6/6/11, 12:46 PM
Phil 314 said...: FYI, off topic.

As expected the dance arrests lead to a larger protest at the Jefferson Memorial

Looks like a large contingent of "Paulites"; 6/6/11, 12:48 PM
Anonymous said...: A positive story about Herman Cain from....wait for it....the New York Times.

A G.O.P. Hopeful Gathers Momentum as More Voters Like What They Hear; 6/6/11, 12:48 PM
Anonymous said...: I'd rather beat Obama that have the Senate.; 6/6/11, 12:49 PM
Fred4Pres said...: What you guys don't get is having some conservatives in the race and building enthusiasm with the grass roots base and tea partiers is a very good thing for the GOP. I know Cain has a very uphill battle, but if Obama could win, then Cain or Palin can certainly win too. But even if they do not, do you think their participation in debates makes other candidates better too? I do. Pawlenty evolved from a jelly fish to an animal with an actual backbone from exposure to candidates like Cain and Palin.

Jeff Goldstein is a bit peeved about the GOP Establishment and their treatment of Palin:

I’m through with [the GOP establishment]. Johnny Tobin can eat a dick. Eric Kain can have the balls. Davids Frum and Brooks can battle over first entry rights to the squeakhole, while Jen Rubin can have squatters rights over whatever’s left. Honestly, the idea that Palin would fuck up the standard, grade-school version of Paul Revere’s ride that these geniuses relied upon to ridicule her tells you just how much they hope she fails; that is, they were so invested in her proving her stupidity that they themselves were willing to believe that a woman who they KNOW has a hard on for this country didn’t know the popular mythology of, say, School House Rock.

Which tells you much more about this gaggle of pretentious douchebags than it does about Ms Palin.; 6/6/11, 12:53 PM
Anonymous said...: I encourage Herman Cain and Sarah Palin and everyone else to run if they want.; 6/6/11, 12:56 PM
Anonymous said...: The GOP establishment has not felt the ground shift below their feet.

They will soon find out.; 6/6/11, 1:00 PM
edutcher said...: He's got a good resume and gives a good interview - he's been on Cavuto a good deal over the years.

What he's doing now is differentiating himself from the field and a lot of what he says has some truth to it.

He can't make another mistake the way he did with Chris Wallace, though. The first time it's just being a rookie; second time and they'll nail him.

Titus said...

Where are Godfather's Pizza? I assume the South because the love their chains.

Cheap shot, muchacho.; 6/6/11, 1:00 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: Fuck, I say that shit every day. It's a common black refrain, actually.

Don't hate me.; 6/6/11, 1:06 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: Scott M,

That's all good, as long as you're read how not to pick a president.; 6/6/11, 1:08 PM
Crunchy Frog said...: The problem with CEO types as politicians is that they are used to being in charge, and having their commands followed to the letter. That works well in boardrooms and in the military, but not so well when you are dependent upon the collective will of 535 congresscritters to implement your program.

Dear Arnold learned that to his detriment at the state level when he tried to take on the Cali legislature, and got his balls chopped off in the process.

wv: scheases "Heases, scheases. Who's to know who's right?"; 6/6/11, 1:12 PM
Anonymous said...: Yes Chuck66 I remember those Janice Rogers Brown cartoons and I also remember the vicious Condoleezza Rice cartoons as well.; 6/6/11, 1:15 PM
Lucius said...: Cain should be a serious contender for Sec Treasury or Commerce in the next administration. But he shouldn't be winning any primaries.

Let him run, sharpen himself and other candidates, by all means. Let him be a gadfly. But let's not start deluding outselves that gadflies should be running the country.

@Fred4Pres: I see you've staked out on the Freeman Hunt territory. A worthy effort. I'm sorry it hasn't received more accolades!; 6/6/11, 1:16 PM
Scott M said...: He would make a helluva VP. Successfully winning in that regard puts him into OJT mode for 4 to 8 years.; 6/6/11, 1:17 PM
hombre said...: Let him run, sharpen himself and other candidates, by all means. Let him be a gadfly. But let's not start deluding outselves that gadflies should be running the country.

So criticizing the political class qualifies one as a "gadfly?"

Did I say, "Only white males need apply?"

I should have said, "Only white males from the political class need apply."; 6/6/11, 1:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Hombre -- He's a gadfly because he has no chance of winning the nomination. Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul are also gadflies.; 6/6/11, 1:27 PM
MadisonMan said...: Even if Cain can't beat Obama, he can shred the mystique without being called racist, while the Republicans go on to capture the Senate.

The Democratic Nominee in 2004 was picked in part because Party Leaders thought a former Soldier would be swell to blunt Bush's Mideast military maneuverings. Look how well that turned out.

That's my way of saying picking a candidate to blunt the perceived strengths of the other candidate is a losing strategy.; 6/6/11, 1:30 PM
Carol_Herman said...: Cain's is the false argument.

Holding only one vote, you should stick to supporting someone you like!

The idea that you can "pick" someone everyone else likes ... is what gave you McCain. And, Dole. And, the Bush set.

If you stick with being happy with someone, yourself, the odds are that other people will also free themselves of this "casino nonsense" ... that you can bet your home on bad odds.; 6/6/11, 1:35 PM
Chuck66 said...: Good point MadMan. One problem Kerry had was that he got 3 purple hearts in 4 months, even though never been hospitalized, then got sent home, and then spit on other veterans.

I don't think Cain was a Black for only 4 months, and I would be really surprised if he joined an anti-Black organization and gave testimony to congress about how bad Black folk are.

But yes, I do agree with your point. You don't nominate someone primarily due to the fact that they can check off membership in a group (well, Obama has dark colored skin, so it did work for him). Republicans need someone who can win on their own. Now, the VP position is known as the checklist spot.; 6/6/11, 1:36 PM
edutcher said...: Crunchy Frog said...

The problem with CEO types as politicians is that they are used to being in charge, and having their commands followed to the letter. That works well in boardrooms and in the military, but not so well when you are dependent upon the collective will of 535 congresscritters to implement your program.

Dear Arnold learned that to his detriment at the state level when he tried to take on the Cali legislature, and got his balls chopped off in the process.

The first point has merit, but Ahnold was never a CEO that I know of. And his big problem was listening to Maria.; 6/6/11, 1:37 PM
Roger J. said...: Seven: I have admired your posts for some 4 years now--I dont agree with you on "electibility" but you make the obvious argument. I think the times have changed enough to merit considering Mr Cain's argument--now I suspect he could get the job done.

And it would be wonderful to seeing Mr Cain go head to head with Mr Obama--

I continue to argue the election of a cloture proof republican senate is the best antidote to Mr Obama's lunacy--if the republicans have to sacrifice a presidential nominee for (what I think) is the larger good of emasculating Mr Obama in the congress, then we as a nation will be better for it.

As always YMMv; 6/6/11, 1:41 PM
serfer1962 said...: That's a way to insult Americans; 6/6/11, 1:45 PM
Anonymous said...: I love Herman Cain's arguments. But he's not going to be the nominee.

There's a difference here you may not be noticing, so let me spell it out for you. I say that Palin should not be the nominee, though I think if she runs she has a good chance of winning the nomination. I say that Cain will not be the nominee. He has no chance of winning.; 6/6/11, 1:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Obama has strengths?

Besides TelePromTer reading and the flashiest set of Chiclets you ever did see, what are they?

Pundits and lefties talk about a weak GOP bench but God Almighty look at the wreckage nationally and globally that this man has wrought.

Whatever Mojo Obama had last time around is g-o-n-e.

One case in point:

On College Campuses,
Obama's Not Cool Anymore; 6/6/11, 1:47 PM
Lucius said...: Our "elites" have a lot of mess-ups to answer for, but that doesn't mean you can just run a country based on good messaging, or the right attitude.

Even idealistic presidents elected by idealistic people for idealistic reasons have to go into rooms full of cynical, hardened types (Congress, foreign leaders, even the cabinet room) and hammer out compromises wiley enough not to jeopardize anything essential and maintain a winning hand for the next engagement.

Some people seem to think you can just cast the James Bakers and Schultzes and Scowcrofts overboard and have a world run by nothing but Reagan Reagan Reagan, or Cain Cain Cain-- and that'll be it.

This is delusional. Even if you don't want your political professional, worldly-wise realistis and RINOs at the top, those people *are* part of what makes the world go around. Short of a Robespierrist bloodbath, they ain't going away (and they'll always come back!).

I'm not saying this to anyone in particular: I'm just saying. People need to make a little peace with reality.; 6/6/11, 1:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Lucius nails it. This is what I have been saying -- not as well -- about Palin as well. The world won't change because one person is elected. That's not how the sausage is made, even in the best of times.

I urge you all to read this person's post carefully and consider it.; 6/6/11, 1:59 PM
hombre said...: Madison Man wrote: That's my way of saying picking a candidate to blunt the perceived strengths of the other candidate is a losing strategy.

I think you are missing the point. It is not about winning, it is about shredding the Obama mystique while capturing the Senate.

For example, see Roger J (1:41) channelling hombre (12:46).; 6/6/11, 2:07 PM
Anonymous said...: It is not about winning, it is about shredding the Obama mystique while capturing the Senate.

Not a worthwhile goal.; 6/6/11, 2:08 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Hombre, my response to your first post happened before I read your second post, in which you mentioned specifics. I wrote a quick response, mostly because I read the National Journal article yesterday, and I thought it was a pretty good piece for the Cain campaign.

Now to be honest, I don't know how often National Journal blends the chattiness of an opinion column with a straight news piece. The "What Cain Really Thinks" is a bit of a mash of the two.

But I'm willing to bet that Cain won't be complaining about the it. The writer treats him as a serious candidate, and that's got to make him happy.

I think he is a serious candidate. He, more than any other announced candidate for the nomination has a legitimate claim to being an outsider, and this year, that has a certain appeal to a large slice of the GOP base.

I can see that you and Pastafarian have taken umbrage at the headings, but I think you are being too sensitive about the headings.

There's no claim that Cain said Palin is not a contender. That's a paraphrase, spun just a little to create some interest. It's not too far from the supporting quote.

Are you going to go after Reynolds for paraphrasing Cain? After all, Reynolds doesn't provide a link in which Cain is quoted as saying, "If you don’t vote for me, you’ll be stuck with a bunch of losers."

Does that make Reynolds' post a "hit piece"?; 6/6/11, 2:13 PM
MadisonMan said...: I think you are missing the point. It is not about winning, it is about shredding the Obama mystique while capturing the Senate.

So you want to sacrifice the Candidate on the altar of winning the Senate.

Kinda insulting to the Candidate. We support you but we don't think you'll win, but we'll win the Senate. Thanks You get your Consolation Prize -- what does the Candidate get?; 6/6/11, 2:18 PM
hombre said...: I urge you all to read [Lucius's] post [1:52] carefully and consider it.

It's a cynical, straw man argument based on the notion that people who are looking for a nominee other than a typical white, male Republican member of the political class are oversimplifying the solution to the country's problems.

The one doesn't follow the other and it is patronizing to suppose otherwise.; 6/6/11, 2:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Hombre -- You miss the point entirely. Your nearly eschatological beliefs about what a Palin or Cain presidency will bring are not realistic. That's the point.; 6/6/11, 2:22 PM
hombre said...: Kinda insulting to the Candidate. We support you but we don't think you'll win, but we'll win the Senate. Thanks You get your Consolation Prize -- what does the Candidate get?

The candidate gets his or her wish, a shot at being President. Was there ever anything else?

No offense, MM, but you are grasping at straws here.; 6/6/11, 2:23 PM
hombre said...: Hombre -- You miss the point entirely. Your nearly eschatological beliefs about what a Palin or Cain presidency will bring are not realistic. That's the point.

Multisyllabic mischaracterizations aside, you have no clue what I think about the likelihood or the results of a Palin or Cain presidency, yet you speak as though you do.

That is the point.; 6/6/11, 2:31 PM
Anonymous said...: Hombre -- I'll bite. Tell us what will happen in a Cain or Palin presidency. I'm sure your vision of the rapture and tribulation is different. Of course, isn't everyone's?; 6/6/11, 2:34 PM
hombre said...: Seven Machos whined: Hombre -- I'll bite. Tell us what will happen in a Cain or Palin presidency. I'm sure your vision of the rapture and tribulation is different. Of course, isn't everyone's?

Oh, sorry, Macho, did I touch a nerve or is there some other reason for the Christian-baiting?; 6/6/11, 2:42 PM
traditionalguy said...: My reaction to the joyful new attacks on Cain as a clown who flips pizza dough is to recognize a sign that the "Palin is a dope" meme has lost its traction. Cain gets to be the next scapegoat that no political writer cares about destroying. Bob Dylan once wrote,"... they have knives and forks on their table, so they have to cut something." But watch for Herman to skewer them right back.; 6/6/11, 2:44 PM
clint said...: Ugh.

The piece reads, to me, as a complete hit piece on Cain.

If the MSM keeps this up, I may have to go watch his performance at the stealth debate...

Seriously -- go read the "article."

My paraphrase of the first several sentences:
- Cain seems loveable, but he's not.
- Cain is just the token black.
- Now he's trying to be a "maverick" (everyone roll your eyes in unison with me, please.)
- Most candidates are careful not to criticize each other, because they are looking for possible VP slots and allies, but Cain doesn't. (Take home: stop talking about him as a great VP choice.)

And that's before she gets started with twisting his words.

Example: Rick Santorum dismissed Herman Cain, saying "He's never won an election." Herman Cain's spokeswoman replied with a very boilerplate invocation of Reagan's 11th commandment, a call to our common mission to defeat Obama, and her belief that Ronald Reagan would be proud of Herman Cain.

Ujala Seghal paraphrased this exchange as: "Rick Santorum is a Disgrace to Reagan."

Her paraphrase certainly seems to support her assertion that Herman Cain is "candidly denouncing" the other candidates -- the actual remarks, from his spokeswoman, clearly don't.

Heck, she just completely made up the "denouncing" of Pawlenty. Her words: "... we'd assume Cain feels the same about [Pawlenty]." Love the royal "we" there.

I could keep going on -- he was asked if he thinks Sarah Palin will run for President and he said he was uncertain, but if he had to guess he guessed no. She paraphrased this as, "Sarah Palin is Not a Contender."

Seriously. Go read the entire article --- if you skim the bold-faced paraphrases at the start of each paragraph, you are sure to find something mean and nasty he supposedly said about someone you like. If you read the text, you'll find he said nothing remotely objectionable.

I don't even particularly like Herman Cain, yet, but I can spot a ridiculous hit piece like this one a mile away.; 6/6/11, 2:44 PM
hombre said...: Peter Hoh wrote: Are you going to go after Reynolds for paraphrasing Cain? After all, Reynolds doesn't provide a link in which Cain is quoted as saying, "If you don’t vote for me, you’ll be stuck with a bunch of losers."

Does that make Reynolds' post a "hit piece"?

Was Reynolds paraphrasing Cain or was he paraphrasing the article?

Do you see a difference? I do.

Evidently you are declining my invitation to cite a similar piece about any other candidate.; 6/6/11, 2:50 PM
Anonymous said...: Hombre -- Not Christian baiting at all. There's nothing about religion here at all. Nothing. It's a metaphor: I assert that you believe that there will be some massive, permanent change in the political landscape if only [insert outsider's name here] is elected.

Perhaps you just don't read well.; 6/6/11, 2:56 PM
clint said...: (Having now read through, I'm delighted to see everyone else saw through this too.)

The thread winner:
Loren Ibsen said... "Instapundit paraphrases National Journal's mischaracterization and selective placement of remarks by Cain."; 6/6/11, 2:59 PM
mccullough said...: Like 7 Machos, I don't think Cain has much of a chance of being the nominee. That said, I can say why the media will jump on him. A successful black businessman pushing a theme of hardwork, determination, and individual achievement is an absolute threat to liberal philosophy. Look how much shit Bill Cosby got for saying blacks need to start taking individual responsibility for high out-of-wedlock birth rate. The man was excoriated. Now multiply that by 100, and that is the threat of Herman Cain. It's not a matter of whether he wins or not, it's a matter of his message and his story getting out.; 6/6/11, 3:05 PM
hombre said...: Seven Machos squirmed: Not Christian baiting at all. There's nothing about religion here at all. Nothing.... Perhaps you just don't read well.

"Eschatological?" "Rapture?" "Tribulation?"

Or perhaps you aren't macho enough to take responsibility for a bit of bigotry uttered in a fit of pique.

As for your assertion about what I believe, electionwise, you don't know what you are talking about. It's another straw man and it is off the point of the thread.; 6/6/11, 3:05 PM
clint said...: Peter Hoh-

While it's true that she doesn't *directly* attribute the bold-faced statements to Herman Cain, she does say: "Now enter Cain, who over the last few days has been more than happy to candidly denounce the other big names in the party."

This is the last sentence of her first paragraph -- and the whole thing is written in classic student essay format, the kind we all learned to write in high school. That makes this sentence the thesis that her entire essay is meant to support.

The bold-faced lines summarize what each paragraph will show about Herman Cain's *denunciation* of each candidate.

The statement, "Sarah Palin is not a contender." can be fairly read as a denunciation, at least of Sarah Palin as a candidate. Herman Cain's actual statement, that he doesn't think she plans to run, cannot be so read.

That's what makes it a hit piece.; 6/6/11, 3:07 PM
Anonymous said...: "Eschatological?" "Rapture?" "Tribulation?"

All words I am using to describe the fervor with which a contingent of conservatives believes that electing someone with not enough or simply no political experience will somehow bring about massive political change.

I won't go into it in detail, because I think it will be wasted, but this messianic streak in American politics is common on both sides of the aisle. We saw it in 2008 with Obama. I say it will be wasted because you so superficially understand culture that you think that using religious metaphors is an attack on religion itself. Which is quite silly.; 6/6/11, 3:09 PM
Scott M said...: Don't worry, SM. I'm an active Christian (I'm on the softball team and everything) and I didn't even blink at the mention. It was obviously metaphorical.; 6/6/11, 3:12 PM
clint said...: Seven-

The thing is, sometimes the world really does change because someone is elected.

Not overnight, of course, and not without a huge amount of work. And not as much as the true believers thought it would. (Heck, you can see that in the last two and a half years.) But elections really do matter. And things really do change.

Things that we once assumed could never happen very quickly become the "new normal." And we forget that they ever seemed hard or unlikely.

Consider: Newt Gingrich led Republicans to power in the House for the first time in 40 years -- and got welfare reform, a capital gains tax cut, and the first balanced budget in a generation.

How many Democrats do you hear screaming for a return to "Welfare" as we knew it?

That change was radical, hard-fought, and permanent.

Consider the last election.

I'm sure a President McCain would have done things I'd have hated. I feel certain we'd have an amnesty bill by now, but it would have included a completion of the border fence and a national card check provision. There still would have been a stimulus, but it would have included a capital gains tax cut and a corporate tax cut -- and the jobs situation would be somewhat better. (And the media would be pummeling President McCain with the horrors of 7-8% unemployment... and having a field day with stories about sniping between McCain's people and Palin's people. :) )

But we wouldn't have Obamacare, or the rampant corruption of the crony capitalism of the Obama administration.

And that *is* a world-changing consequence of the last election that we all have to live with. It's going to be incredibly difficult to put that genie back in the bottle.; 6/6/11, 3:29 PM
hombre said...: ... you so superficially understand culture that you think that using religious metaphors is an attack on religion itself. Which is quite silly.

Theologically, end of times stuff may not provide the best of metaphors here. Moreover, your original context coupled with our previous cross posts suggests Christian bashing, not metaphor.

Nice try, though, Seven. When the goin' gets tough and the excuses are lame, bring on the insults. It's easier than manning up.; 6/6/11, 3:30 PM
Anonymous said...: end of times stuff may not provide the best of metaphors here

End of times metaphors perfectly encapsulate what's going on here. People believe that some candidate with no coalition is going to waltz into the presidency and create drastic, permanent change. It's not going to happen.

I could have just as easily used Hegelian world-historical figures as my metaphor. I chose not to.

Clint -- Coalition is the key word here. Legislatures make the law, not executives.; 6/6/11, 3:33 PM
hombre said...: Scott M wrote: Don't worry, SM. I'm an active Christian (I'm on the softball team and everything) and I didn't even blink at the mention. It was obviously metaphorical.

That's part of the problem, Scott. Many of today's Christians not only don't recognize Christian baiting when they hear it, they don't even blink when they should recognize it.

But I'm a reasonable person. Explain to me how doomsday terminology is a metaphor for a belief that "electing someone with not enough or simply no political experience will somehow bring about massive political change."; 6/6/11, 3:49 PM
Scott M said...: I didn't say it was a GOOD metaphor, only that it was a metaphor. And now you're calling me a bad Christian in a backhanded way, are you not?; 6/6/11, 3:52 PM
Anonymous said...: You are going to hell, Scott. No doubt.; 6/6/11, 3:54 PM
hombre said...: End of times metaphors perfectly encapsulate what's going on here. People believe that some candidate with no coalition is going to waltz into the presidency and create drastic, permanent change. It's not going to happen.

Beyond your horseshit about the metaphor, who, prior to Clint at 3:29, besides you and maybe Lucius, ever posited on this thread "that some candidate with no coalition is going to waltz into the presidency and create drastic, permanent change?"

Given that the answer is "nobody," who are you talking to? ("I urge you all to read this person's post carefully and consider it." 1:59); 6/6/11, 4:05 PM
Anonymous said...: who, prior to Clint at 3:29, besides you and maybe Lucius, ever posited on this thread "that some candidate with no coalition is going to waltz into the presidency and create drastic, permanent change?"

I see this concept constantly in threads here. The threads are usually about Palin. The basic idea is encapsulated in Lucius's post, to a tee. The belief is that a single politician with no coalition holding a four-year office will cause sweeping, permanent change to the political landscape.

What would you like to criticize now?; 6/6/11, 4:11 PM
hombre said...: And now you're calling me a bad Christian in a backhanded way, are you not?

What are you, 7M's apprentice with the straw men? I might be saying that you don't recognize Christian bashing or that you don't blink when you do. I'm not saying that there is some Biblical admonition in the matter defining "bad Christians."

Another possibility is that you are right. A third is that you are stooging for 7M.; 6/6/11, 4:11 PM
Anonymous said...: A third is that you are stooging for 7M.

Hilarious.

Yeah, that's Scott. My lackey. Fetch me a brandy, Scott! And a moist towelette. Make haste, lad!; 6/6/11, 4:14 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Hombre, I'm not going to try to find a similar article about another candidate, so if that crowns you the victor in your eyes, so be it.

I think you're looking too hard for slights, as with your claim that Seven's use of a metaphor is an example of Christian baiting.; 6/6/11, 4:15 PM
hombre said...: Seven Machos wrote: I see this concept constantly in threads here. ... The belief is that a single politician with no coalition holding a four-year office will cause sweeping, permanent change to the political landscape.

In fact, very few of the regular commenters, if any, are naive enough to espouse this position as you have stated it. None today.

As I have been pointing out, this is a straw man adhered to by you and used by you to patronize other posters.

If you have any other straw men or red herrings to offer up to draw attention from that point, this would be the time.; 6/6/11, 4:33 PM
hombre said...: Seven Machos wrote: What would you like to criticize now?

Well there is this. At 1:08 you wrote (quoting me): "It is not about winning, it is about shredding the Obama mystique while capturing the Senate."

Not a worthwhile goal.

Not a worthwhile goal?

So shredding the Obama mystique and/or winning the Senate are not worthwhile goals for the Republicans?

Do you even read what you write?; 6/6/11, 4:37 PM
Anonymous said...: Hombre -- Palin shouldn't run because she won't win and, if she does win, her presidency will be a massive disappointment on a par with Obama. The two candidates are, in fact, peas in a pod: young, inexperienced politicians who became famous largely because they gave a good speech at a convention.

Palin will be a failure for the same reasons Obama has been a failure. Both offer little more than attitude and energy. I have used the terminology of Christianity as a metaphor to express the idea that it is a deeply cherished myth in our society and many others that some single person can bring about massive, historical political change without need for a coalition of willing others -- in this case, lawmakers.

Cain will not win, period. His is a vanity campaign. I applaud it. I like his ideas. But that's what it is.

Peter is right. You are way to quick to be insulted. Are you in a motorcycle gang, by chance?; 6/6/11, 4:41 PM
Anonymous said...: Shredding the Obama mystique and capturing the Senate is not a worthwhile goal because it implies that Obama is still president.; 6/6/11, 4:42 PM
hombre said...: @Peter Hoh: Thank you, but it's not about winning, it's about recognizing media patterns.

Additionally,there is no relationship between our discussion and my exchange with 7M about his so-called "metaphor." I'm fairly sure you know that. I'm also fairly sure you know that a metaphor requires some similarity or correlation between concepts.; 6/6/11, 4:59 PM
Anonymous said...: Hombre -- Please elucidate for us how anything I have said is a slur against Christianity in any way.

I'll wait.; 6/6/11, 5:17 PM
hombre said...: @Seven Machos: It is difficult to imagine why you feel constrained to lecture me about Palin's and Cain's political prospects. I have expressed no opinion here about the prospects of either, so there is no need for correction or embellishment.

You wrote: Peter is right. You are way to quick to be insulted. Are you in a motorcycle gang, by chance?

Let's see, red herrings, straw men, and now appeal to false authority and ad hominem. My hat's off to you. You are a master of the logical fallacy. Or is that unintentional?

You wrote: Shredding the Obama mystique and capturing the Senate is not a worthwhile goal because it implies that Obama is still president.

Earth to 7M. Obama will still be POTUS during the campaign (and probably after). And capturing the Senate is a worthwhile goal for the Repubs regardless of who is POTUS.

What are you talking about?!; 6/6/11, 5:31 PM
Anonymous said...: It is difficult to imagine why you feel constrained to lecture me about Palin's and Cain's political prospects.It is difficult to imagine why you feel constrained to lecture me about Palin's and Cain's political prospects.

The thread is about Cain's presidential prospects. Also, I don't feel constrained. Do you feel constrained?; 6/6/11, 5:35 PM
hombre said...: 7M wrote: Hombre -- Please elucidate for us how anything I have said is a slur against Christianity in any way.

A metaphor is "the expression of an understanding of one concept in terms of another concept, where there is some similarity or correlation between the two."

There is no similarity or correlation between theological doomsday terminology and "the belief ... that a single politician with no coalition holding a four-year office will cause sweeping, permanent change to the political landscape." Therefore, your reference was either: a) not a metaphor, but a jibe directed toward two overtly Christian politicians and their equally overtly and ardent Christian supporters (If it had come from Bill Maher it would have been readily recognized as such.), or, it was an example of a bad metaphor.

So I'll concede it was not a jibe if you'll concede it was a bad metaphor.; 6/6/11, 6:10 PM
Anonymous said...: Hombre -- The rapture and tribulation are exactly single politicians with no coalitions will cause sweeping, permanent change to the political landscape. Or did you assume that the Antichrist and Jesus would come with voting blocs? Senators sitting next to their thrones?

Take a second (first?) look at your Bible, dude.; 6/6/11, 6:16 PM
hombre said...: The thread is about Cain's presidential prospects. Also, I don't feel constrained. Do you feel constrained?

I feel constrained only to find something else to do.

You are constrained to bloviate, regardless of how you feel.; 6/6/11, 6:21 PM
mariner said...: Marshal,
I think the criticisms of Cain on his Afghanistan response carry weight. If you're going to throw your hat in the ring you do your homework on the major issues beforehand. ...
This isn't being asked an arcane detail on energy policy. I think he hurt his chances with this reponse on this topic.

Even worse, how the hell did he not know what "Right of Return" means? That's hardly an arcane detail of foreign policy -- it's been in the news frequently, for decades.; 6/6/11, 6:28 PM
mariner said...: Pastafarian,
If that's what you're looking for, bullshit, then vote for Obama. He's a goddamned 6th-degree blackbelt bullshit ninja assassin.

Only when he's armed with a TelePrompter.; 6/6/11, 6:32 PM
hombre said...: Or did you assume that the Antichrist and Jesus would come with voting blocs? Senators sitting next to their thrones?

Take a second (first?) look at your Bible, dude.

Oh, now I see the similarity. Of course. The earthly Republican candidates of whom you speak are supernaturally supported, come without voting blocs or elections, and can be expected to wreak havoc on the earth and populace after being anointed by Satan or God.

I'm glad to get clarification on that. Btw, are you Bill Maher?; 6/6/11, 6:52 PM
mariner said...: Seven Machos,
The belief is that a single politician with no coalition holding a four-year office will cause sweeping, permanent change to the political landscape.

Why do you keep repeating this "no coalition" stuff?

Many Tea Party conservatives were elected in 2010; it's reasonable to suspect more may be elected in 2012.

It seems to me they would be well disposed to work with a President Palin on legislation -- especially legislation that reduces the deficit and the size/scope of the Federal Government.

You're right to say she couldn't do this all by herself. You're wrong to suggest she would be all by herself.; 6/6/11, 6:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Hombre -- I am sorry that metaphor is above you.; 6/6/11, 6:54 PM
Anonymous said...: Mariner -- I have said many times that I am open to argument and persuasion. What I see in Palin is a person going it totally alone.

That bodes poorly for coalitions.; 6/6/11, 6:57 PM
hombre said...: What I see in Palin is a person going it totally alone.

What he means is she does not have the support of the political class. He equates that with "totally alone" because he was actually comatose through the campaigns, fund raising efforts and elections of 2010.

And of course the fact that Palin, undeclared as a candidate, finishes in the top three for the Republican nomination also means nothing.

This guy is a first rate political analyst in addition to being an unparalleled theologian. lol; 6/6/11, 7:34 PM
Anonymous said...: Hombre -- Concerning theology, I explained to you that my metaphor had nothing to do with actual religion.

Concerning Palin, if she continues to go it alone, and not work with the Republican party, what lawmakers will be there for her to vote on the legislation she wishes to sign?; 6/6/11, 7:42 PM
hombre said...: Concerning Palin, if she continues to go it alone, and not work with the Republican party, what lawmakers will be there for her to vote on the legislation she wishes to sign?

If there is a repeat of 2010 and the Repubs hold the House and capture the Senate with the Tea Party's help, and If Palin seeks and receives the Repub nomination, and If she wins - by some miracle - what are the Repubs in Congress going to do, vote with the Dems?

On the other hand, if the Tea Partiers and the conservatives who are not part of the political class stay home or oppose the RINOs in the general election, the Repubs are done as a matter of mathematics, not speculation.; 6/6/11, 8:15 PM
mccullough said...: Hombre,

If 70% of Tea Partiers don't want any cuts to Medicare, it shows that the last election was a referendum on Obamacare (and unemployment). Where was the Tea Party in NY-26?

People read into the Tea Party what they want, just like they read into Obama and Palin what they want.; 6/6/11, 8:31 PM
Anonymous said...: Hombre -- You need to learn parliamentary procedure. You do understand that Palin can't introduce a bill in Congress, right? And you understand that bills and parts of bills must get through committees that would have, in a Republican-stacked House and Senate, perhaps two or three more Republicans than Democrats, right? And you understand that several members on both sides are going to be moderates, right?

You do understand those things. Right?; 6/6/11, 8:32 PM
hombre said...: McCullough wrote: People read into the Tea Party what they want ....

You're clear about the meaning of the word "if" repeatedly used in my post, yes?; 6/6/11, 11:49 PM
hombre said...: Seven Machos wrote: Hombre -- You need to learn parliamentary procedure. You do understand .. blah, blah, blah .... 8:32

Being condescending just isn't the same as being smart, pal.

Are you really ignorant of the fact that presidents have legislative agendas? Are you really dull enough to suppose that it will go unnoticed and unpunished if congressional members of the president's own party join forces with the other party to torpedo that agenda?

But then you are the same Seven Machos who insisted repeatedly that capturing the Senate was "not a worthwhile goal" for Republicans.

That observation alone speaks volumes about your political acumen. You really are clueless.; 6/7/11, 12:25 AM
Anonymous said...: insisted repeatedly that capturing the Senate was "not a worthwhile goal" for Republicans

I said it is not worthwhile to pursue a strategy which might sacrifice the presidency for the Senate. I was responding to a poster above who suggested that it would be okay to lose the presidency if Republicans gain the Senate:

YOU: Even if Cain can't beat Obama, he can shred the mystique without being called racist, while the Republicans go on to capture the Senate.; 6/7/11, 12:29 AM
hombre said...: Btw, don't be surprised to find this in response to one of your bloviations:

Regarding the 2012 campaign, 7M wrote: "Shredding the Obama mystique and capturing the Senate is not a worthwhile goal because it implies that Obama is still president."

Priceless!! Worthy of a Jeremy or an Alpha. Night, night.; 6/7/11, 12:34 AM
hombre said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/7/11, 12:41 AM
hombre said...: Seven Machos wrote: I said it is not worthwhile to pursue a strategy which might sacrifice the presidency for the Senate.

Not that it matters, but that is pure bullshit. You didn't say anything about "sacrificing the presidency" then. You are just saying it now.

In any case, the Republicans are unlikely to be in a position to sacrifice the presidency. More nonsense.

And who said "It would be okay to lose the presidency?" You really are incorrigible.; 6/7/11, 12:44 AM
Peter Hoh said...: Hombre, you want a hit piece on Cain?

Try this one.

And then try to fit it into your "MSM must smear anyone emerging as a serious candidate" frame.; 6/7/11, 10:51 AM
hombre said...: @Peter Hoh: Thanks for the link. I don't consider articles that respectfully explore candidates' strengths and weaknesses on issues to be of the same ilk as those that discuss comments made about other candidates and include misleading, inflammatory paraphrasing and unwarranted assumptions. (E.g., Santorum and Pawlenty in the National Journal piece.)

The former are legitimate, the latter are hit pieces.

For clarification, it is not my position that the media feels the need to disparage any Republican emerging as a strong contender at this stage of the campaign. At 10:36 I wrote: "First smear the woman, then smear the black man. We can't have a serious Republican contender who counters the stereotype or the media template. Only white males need apply."; 6/7/11, 12:28 PM