"... but I guess since they can't legitimately attack my ideas, they will attack words and pauses. I'm kind of flattered that my pauses are so important, that somebody wants to make a story out of it."
So says Herman Cain.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
152 comments:
Herman. What's the difference?
It is true that there is a bit of a demonization of Cain going on. It is a bit like what happened to Palin, though not nearly so extraordinary and cruel.
Mickey Kaus has a theory on this: that is is some kind of patriotism instinct -- that the press vilifies or over-scrutinizes certain candidates or just does not treat them seriously out of a belief that the candidate is not fit for office.
The obvious exception that blows the theory up is John Edwards. No accounting for that cretin.
I'm more concerned that he seems to know almost nothing about foreign policy or the world outside of the United States. But the pauses don't help.
What a quaint "southern-ism". Usually I hear that term at breakfast nooks as in - "Is that pepper or flyspecks on those over easys?"
A.B.O.
It can't be said enough.
The eagle eyed critics expected to see Cain screw up, and by darn he screwed up when he hesitated.
That was how the Katie Couric film snippet worked to forever brand the best Conservative spokes person over the past 30 months as a dunce that did not understand anything about nuanced theories of Foreign Policies
Given his competition, Cain is all we have left that can beat Obama. But we seem to be easily ashamed of electing good people that are not polished perfectionists.
Cain can't beat Obama.
Cain can't beat Obama.
Look, Cain can't have a snowball's chance in hell of beating Obama. This is an insurgency campaign that's put an interesting new face into the culture-- and he should find something to do with that-- but Herman Cain has zero demonstrated ability as a statesman, a policymaker, or a technocratic expert.
This is only the most powerful job in the world. Obama's state-legislative chops, boutique stint in Congress, Harvard cred, and speechifying should not have won him the position either.
But giving people the primary tingles is not a freakin' qualification to lead the world.
Nothing says zero demonstrated ability as a statesman, a policymaker, or a technocratic expert, than the word obama.
Obama is a terrible president precisely because he has no experience (among other precise reasons). Anyone who believes that Obama's inexperience is a problem cannot, logically or sensibly, support Cain. It's madness. It's got to stop.
Even faking it-- which Obama does do, transparently, on a regular basis-- counts as something.
Three Presidents of increasingly irrevelant background credentials is enough. It's time to reverse the anti-elitist pretense.
Nobody picked up Washington, Adams, Jefferson off the schoolbus, or at the pizza joint, to put them in charge.
Cain has done the damage to himself.
As Perry has.
However, it's easy to see he has been more scrutinized than others ... recently.
Just let him eat his waffle, OK?
He doesn't answer to you, so all you deserve is this smart-ass kind of response.
Oh, I feel sorry for the guy.
But I never thought he'd appeal to enough voters to win.
And, yes. It's a flaw that conservatives are so set on having a "real" conservative win, that they threw caution to the wind.
Not that FUNNY UNDERWEAR MAN and the PIZZA GUY ... wasn't a great riff for a bumper sticker.
Even with all 11 southern states flipping to the republicans ... which is today's Drudge headline ... (spelling trouble for Obama) ... IF the GOP picks an unlikable presidential team ...
I've already predicted we will see an Independent Run! And, then? The GOP pick goes into 3rd place.
When would an Independent Run occur? Shortly after the GOP convention. Even if it's a late convention? YUP.
PLUS, as conventions go ... we haven't seen one recently with multiple ballots needed to put a contendah over the top.
I predict you can get such a convention! And, then? (Well, like Lincoln at Chicago's GOP convention. Called the Wigwam. Back in 1860. The "favorite sons" lose out to one candidate that has national appeal.)
The GOP didn't want to listen to Teddy Roosevelt! That's why the politically inexperienced Woodrow Wilson won. And, Taft came in 3rd.
Is politics an insider's game?
Well, not everybody who plays baseball ... even makes it into the "minors."
Do you win on luck, alone?
I certainly don't think Cain is stupid or an idiot.
It's just plainly clear he's not a politician.
He's weak. And he's already said he'll accept VP or secdef instead of the presidency.
Why he thinks he's qualified to be secdef I couldn't say.
It's just plainly clear he's not a politician.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Politicians. Professional career politicians are the people who have brought us to this brink of disaster.
They are the people who refuse to make decisions that would threaten their professional politician asses.
I'm willing to give the Wm F Buckley method a try. "I am obliged to confess I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University."
Let's just pick by national lottery the members of Congress, divided in four rotating groups with staggered 4 year terms. Once you've served your 4 years, that's IT. Never to be elected/chosen again. No more career political operatives swilling at the trough.
How much worse could it possibly be?
Obama is a terrible president precisely because he has no experience (among other precise reasons).
If there are other precise reasons, how can the reason be precisely because he (had) no experience?
Sorry to go all flyspecky on you :)
You think Herman Cain has critics, he is a favored man when compared to the Denver Bronco's QB who has no qualifications, no skills, and pauses quite often before accidentally wins games.
No one wants to admit that good leadership skills are more important to a team than the head man's perfect expertise in all team activities himself.
But then I do not see things the way most people see them.
Where Libya at?
Can't you have two or precise reasons?
Madison Man went to the grocery store precisely to buy Lucky Charms and soy sauce.
Another politician would have said, "Let me say this about that", (Kennedy) or, "I'm glad you asked me that question", (Nixon) or even "Weeellll...." (Reagan).
Other politicians vamp, Herman pauses. Big whoop.
If what a lot of forecasts say about Red China and/or the PIIGS, especially the IGS, my dog Sherlock will be able to beat GodZero.
Andy R. said...
I'm more concerned that he seems to know almost nothing about foreign policy or the world outside of the United States.
Bet he know Hawaii isn't in Asia.
Cain's done - now it's Newt's turn as the leading "Not Romney" choice.
Are you people dropping the s off the end of words on purpose? Tacky. At the very, very best.
DBQ: For the downside to your proposal, refer to the fine documentary "Yes, Minister".
I'm afraid we'd end up with a professional administrative staff in Congress, in addition to the one we already have in the executive.
What exactly was Abraham Lincoln's foreign policy and executive experience before he was elected? It seems to me that a person's dedication to conservative principles matters most.
And Rush said Cain nailed what Rush believed was tne correct conservative response on Libya and then played a clip of Obama stuttering and stammering for over 30 seconds.
How did you know I love Lucky Charms?
Soy sauce, not so much.
I see your reasoning.
Seven Machos said...
Are you people dropping the s off the end of words on purpose? Tacky. At the very, very best.
Can't speak for everyone, but, in my case, it's fat fingers.
I'll try to watch it.
What exactly was Abraham Lincoln's foreign policy and executive experience before he was elected?
Are you really going to argue that the president who was in office at the beginning of and throughout the duration of the American Civil War was some great diplomat?
Who doesn't love Lucky Charms? Green clovers! Blue diamonds!
"No one wants to admit that good leadership skills are more important to a team than the head man's perfect expertise in all team activities himself."
That's undoubtedly true, at least a lot of the time. That's why we have a Chief Executive and not a dictator. But the head man has to know the business well enough to make rapid decisions, informed enough to lead, and consistent enough to allow his people to act on his behalf. "I'll make up my mind when that happens" doesn't work well when you're President.
I've seen no evidence of Cain's ready command of the facts or any strong and coherent policy positions. And he does not seem willing to learn and consider these things right now, when he needs to know them to answer questions like these. Not sometime after he wins the election, which is when Cain seems to think he'll need to know them.
"I call it a journey, not just a campaign, because it doesn't stop," he said. "We're in the primary. Then you run for president. You win the presidency, serve four years. (Then you) might have to serve eight at the insistence of the people. Then after that, launch a Cain library," then a post-presidential speaking tour, he mused."
http://www.jsonline.com/
Oh to be a staff writer on any late night program.
Are flies the specks or are the specks fly poop?
Because if it's fly poop I'm going to be really grossed out.
I still say And new! Blue Diamonds
But I'm old.
Lincoln was advised by very good men and they managed to keep the British Empire and the French Empire from moving in and taking the USA back...something they had always wanted to do...and probably still do.
What Lincoln had was a realist's (Trial Lawyer's) attitude towards getting the possible done. He backed down when the British threatened war over some dip[lomats captured, and sai" One war at a time." That and an attitude we could win the Civil War kept the McClellan compromise experts at bay.
Cain can do the same thing for Conservative principles. The RINOs are the McClellans of today who want to get along with the Dems so bad that they sell will out what is needed in a Boston second.
Herman Cain is Solomon compared to Obama - All you have to do is think about the "Obamacare" debacle - do you really think Cain would have been pushing to 'passit now" "rrrrrightaway" before you have time to think, or examine, or see the flaws, passitnow, a bill that no one has read, or considered...
It would not happen. Nor would he have abandoned the White House for the campaign trail halfway through his term.
They are polar opposites, really, one a serious and powerful man in his own right, and the other someone who has gotten passed up the ladder, and into office by virtue of unsealed private divorce records.
The reporters sink to new lows every day. He's right about the fly-specking.
(And, btw, Hawaii is not in Asia, someone oughtta tell Obama - won't be the media, now, though, will it?)
Well, at least nobody's Photoshopped Cain like this.
Three Presidents of increasingly irrevelant background credentials is enough. It's time to reverse the anti-elitist pretense.
What are you talking about? Bush and Clinton had multiple terms as Governor and an excellent education. As far as credentials go, those are pretty widely acceptable.
Anyone who believes that Obama's inexperience is a problem cannot, logically or sensibly, support Cain.
Yes. The ‘Obama had no experience so let’s elect Cain’ makes no sense to me at all.
Just let him eat his waffle, OK?
Bender, I had the same thought. I don't want a whiner in chief again. Man up, folks! Politics is a bloodsport.
Which ideas were those Herb?
Mickey Kaus has a theory on this: that is is some kind of patriotism instinct -- that the press vilifies or over-scrutinizes certain candidates or just does not treat them seriously out of a belief that the candidate is not fit for office.
Yet every single journalist will claim to be 100% fair & objective.
Well, for starters, Americans aren't sold on "credentials." Dukasis had enough "credentials," when he lost to the elder Bush.
Adlai Stevenson was not only considered brilliant, he was called an "egg head" ... and he LOST to IKE. TWICE.
Then, go and look at Henry Kissinger's credentials. He did everything he could to get away from Nixon's debris path. (I didn't think he was brilliant enough, though, to escape ignominy.)
Yes, brains can get you far.
But if you're playing poker, it won't help you learn "tells." And, how not to make yourself obvious when you're out in public.
If anything poker players survive on facial features alone. They can lie through their teeth about their hands. Because nobody bets against someone who glows like a Christmas Tree when they've been dealt aces.
Seven Machos "The obvious exception that blows the theory up is XXXJohn EdwardsXXX Barack Obama. No accounting for that cretin."
FIFY
Changing the habits of conservatives isn't, yet, on the agenda of conservatives. Who want their litmus paper tests "respected."
While the media has turned ALL of the ten (so far) "debates" ... into comedy gold. And, viral snippets on the Internet.
Does it matter?
The media will keep Herman Cain in the spotlight ... (which hurts Ron Paul, probably, the most.) As the media "makes PUBLICITY."
While everyone pretty much knows American journalists are TOOLS of the left. And, not particularly bright, either.
While Bob Costas just made a good name for himself.
Some interviewers nail it.
Herman Cain, for this reason, alone, will remain a tasty target.
Even when the conservatives run away ... because he spells "LOSS" ...
While BILL CLINTON's name still doesn't spell loss.
How is that?
Steven Machos:
"Are you really going to argue that the president who was in office at the beginning of and throughout the duration of the American Civil War was some great diplomat?"
No, I'm arguing that Lincoln had less foreign policy and executive experience prior to his Presidency than either Cain or Obama yet he is considered one of our greatest Presidents.
I think the important difference between Lincoln, Cain, and Obama is that Obama lacks conservative principles and that is why his presidency has been a failure.
Critics: Cain is too inexperienced. Therefore, he should be president.
Critics of critics: But Obama is also inexperienced! Therefore...uh...
There's a missing NOT in that recent post.
Herman Cain's poll numbers are dropping because he pauses when he speaks? Ha! No way. That's what Cain wants you to believe. It's his latest political strategy.
John Edwards was the veep, I think, to John Kerry's race in 2004.
HOW DID THAT WORK OUT?
Seems there are enough democrats who wouldn't vote for the democratic ticket.
When conservatives stay home, they're showing their anger at the republican party for "dis-respecting" their litmus paper tests.
And, the current 8 contendahs?
The media can influence more people in this country that none of the 8 contendahs have a blasted chance to win over Obama. NONE OF THEM!
What would change this?
Well, it would be a beginning IF conservatives did more than spit at John Edwards.
And, the conservatives got serious about their own "litmus paper" tests.
"Pre-brith" isn't going to bring any of your candidates into the White House!
You want to call Obama dumb? Go ahead.
But he's still winning.
Ain't that a shame?
It's his latest political strategy.
What's Obama's latest political strategy? Kicking ass? How is that going?
Ask him how many states there are. If he says "50", he's one up on Obama.
Seven Machos said...
What's Obama's latest political strategy?
Sitting back and watching all but one of the GOP candidates implode. Of course Romney is the one staying above the fray. It will be Romney vs Obama in the general. Expect a tight election.
What concrete ideas I *have* heard from Cain haven't made a great deal of sense. I'm not sure the 9-9-9 plan has a basis in anything but numerology, for example.
I like him, but I don't think he's qualified for the job.
It will be Romney vs Obama in the general. Expect a tight election.
I agree, except for the tight election part.
Seven Machos said...
I agree, except for the tight election part.
Realistically there are only about 5 or 6 states in play. So unless all 6 go to either candidate [which is unlikely] it will be close. From the perspective of the electoral college it will be a closer election than the last one.
If the economy stays steady or gets better Obama will win. If the economy gets worse then Romney will win.
But there are plenty of other factors that have yet to unfold. Who will Romney pick as VP? Will there be some war that comes along? Scandals? Who knows. Still, I see a close election.
Matt -- People (people like you) saw close elections in 1980.
I also add that the theory that you think is fabulous about Obama waiting to see who the nominee will be isn't actually fabulous and isn't actually a theory. What else is there to do?
Obama won in arguably the weirdest election in the history of the republic. It was a strange, almost fictional confluence of circumstances. The election in 2012 is going to be much different and much more ordinary.
I look for phrases that show that the guy understands this and that.
Nothing from Cain.
I went to a very strategic meeting today with key opinion leaders in the financial district of Boston.
I saw Occupy People. It was disgusting.
CNN is all over Cain. The network that talked about "teabaggers" for months on end is upset about him saying "tutti frutti".
"Cain is too inexperienced..."
False premise. Cain is oozing with qualifying experience (if comparisons to Obama are de rigueur, then yeah, more Cain has more qualifying experience right now than Obama will ever have). It's just that Cain's qualifying experience is not of the sort the media tells us it should be.
Spread -- Do you hire electricians to do your plumbing?
Because if it's fly poop I'm going to be really grossed out.
Get ready to be grossed out.
Hawaii is not in Asia, someone oughtta tell Obama - won't be the media, now, though, will it?)
But..but...what about all those Japanese people in Hawaii...it MUST be in Asia.
Well shit, guy, if you don't want the job you can always quit running for it.
"... Anyone who believes that Obama's inexperience is a problem cannot, logically or sensibly, support Cain. It's madness. It's got to stop..."
Can we stipulate that experience for the Presidency requires governing a state or city with a minimum population of at least 3 million people?
I mean Cain actually held a job. Unlike the current President.
"... If the economy stays steady or gets better Obama will win..."
If you think Obama will win if the economy stays as is now I must say you are quite the optimist.
4 years of 9% unemployment is not a great campaign slogan.
Seven Machos said...
Obama won in arguably the weirdest election in the history of the republic.
You'll have to explain that one. Do you mean because Obama won? The last election was the Democrats to lose. Everyone thought it would be Hillary but instead Obama took the nomination from her. But it didn't change what was already happening. There was a Democratic wave from 2006 to 2008. Obama's victory was inevitable. Few wanted more Bush policies at the time.
In fact, the last election was rather routine according to the Gallup polls which have been accurate in predicting every single general election since they started polling back in Eisenhower's time.
Truman beating Dewey may have been the last anomaly.
Matt -- I saw a clip of Jon Stewart's show on Comedy Central just after Obama's election. He told jokes about Obama. People were afraid to laugh, and he called them out on it. There was also a clip around that time of very young children singing a song about Obama's greatness. You can look both of these things up, and here at Althouse there is extensive discussion of the ridiculous song. A woman said shortly after the election, sincerely, that she believed that Obama would pay her mortgage. Evan Thomas, a media big wig, proclaimed that Obama is "sort of God."
I am not going to waste a treatise on a tremendously shallow thinker such as you. Those anecdotes, properly analyzed, perfectly explain the abject weirdness and even aspects of cultism of the 2008 election.
Fly poop, ewwww, gross!
You say that like it's a bad thing.
No, not really.
What I mean is that the media (and by extension their audiences) expect a politician to act and speak in a certain manner. To hedge, equivocate, and redirect.
Cain does less of this, than say, Romney. Perhaps Romney is smart enough not to. He doesn't get caught in gotcha traps or bad soundbites. (Other than corporations are people, which really wasn't bad)
Some of us think that being able to do the job is more important than running for the job, and that doing the former better than the latter is what's important.
I'm not a Cain guy, and I agree he needs some brushing up, but I'm not convinced — given his resume and background — that he's some kind of moron who would make a disaster President.
Can we stipulate that experience for the Presidency requires governing a state or city with a minimum population of at least 3 million people?
Why 3 mil? I think governing a state is governing a state.
4 years of 9% unemployment is not a great campaign slogan.
4 more years! 4 more years! We have created or saved a whole bunch of jobs. Honest.
Well, Cain is half right.
What had been a campaign about his ideas has become mainly about his fly.
I'm still supporting Herman Cain. He never claimed to be as smooth as Obama or Romney. He's a solid conservative and a problem solver. Yeah, he has had some problems, slip-ups, but it's like he says, "How's it working for ya, having politicians in the White House?". He'll be a welcome change, and if he pauses now and then to collect his thoughts, it's ok.
Herman Cain is a true son of the South.
There's some truth there.
But on the other hand, eg. "999" is an idea I can legitimately attack - and I'm broadly in sympathy with the general idea of both a radically simpler tax code, and lower taxation.
Seven Machos
First, cut the crap regarding 'shallow thinking'. It really is insulting.
Next your theory.
Come on, that is a wild one. I will really need to see this evidence. You cite a song about Obama. Here’s kid’s praising a cardboard cutout of Bush. Should we conclude this made Bush win in 2004?
You are using extremely odd anecdotal evidence to support your view. But you are not understanding demographics or the numbers that make up those demographics.
A very, very small number of people in any election think a candidate is a 'savior'. That is standard. But it is not the norm – or even close to the norm. For the rest of us we vote based on where we think the country needs to go. Obama won the election handily for many reasons – the very least of which was because a couple dozen people thought he was going to pay their mortgage! A claim btw Obama never made!
Note that in the 2004 election 59 million voted for Kerry. Kerry was a rather dull candidate who did not ignite the base. Obama got 69 million votes, which is 10 million more votes because he ignited the base and many indie and some GOP voters as well.
Elections are won by independent swing voters - not by partisan voters. Obama won because he won the independent vote, which in the previous election voted for Bush. If what you say is true then it was the swing voters who fell for your theory.
The rest of the voters who voted for Obama were Republicans who defected or Democrats who were going to vote for whomever the Democratic nominee was. So, even if they thought it was politically correct to vote for Obama they were going to vote for the Democrat anyway.
The other claim is that they voted for him because he was black. But note that there were just as many who would not vote for him for the exact same reason. So that is a wash. Also note that had Hillary been the nominee she may have won by more votes!
Anyway, I can't believe that you were so appalled by the 2008 election that you still can't come to grips with an Obama victory. You must really hate him or be envious that he drew crowds. I can't imagine hating any candidate that much.
"Anyone who believes that Obama's inexperience is a problem cannot, logically or sensibly, support Cain. It's madness. It's got to stop."
Certainly there are other concerns.
Here's the thing; Obama is willfully ignorant. Just recount what has exited his mouth about 'certain' Americans. Thats the 'picking winners and losers' part that hurts Obama. He's the ultimate leader of 'the' clique. If you're not in, then you're out.
Cain's mistakes are just standard issue ignorance in terms of 'foreign policy' or any other metric you only attribute to politicians, I guess. They are subjects that can be researched and, of course, there are those 'advisers'.
So once again you create a false choice with your if-then statement. This is not outside the box thinking, its the way they want you to think.
wv - comityp
I told the truth then went to the men's room.
Gov Scott Walker is going to be on the Fox Hannity show.
I don't mind GOP candidates getting flyspecked, but I would prefer it if all candidates, including the Dem candidate, would get equal treatment. At least we aren't paying to fly Cain all over the country as we are with candidate Obama.
"You must really hate him or be envious that he drew crowds."
I really loved how he treated the plumber and the greek columns were awesome. Yeah.
I can't imagine hating any candidate that much."
Um, were you alive from say 1999-on?
Your reading skills are atrocious Matt. Where do I suggest that I am not to grips with the Obama presidency?
Poor reading skills go hand in hand with shallow thinking and your post is something America's Politico would write minus the sarcasm and hilarity.
Gov Scott Walker is going to be on the Fox Hannity show.
I'm sure that will be a hard hitting interview!!
Seven Machos said...
“Obama won in arguably the weirdest election in the history of the republic.”
How do you define “weirdest”? Which other elections in the history of the republic are you comparing the 2008 election to?
"I'm sure that will be a hard hitting interview!!"
Much like the journalistic dynamism a Rachel Maddow-David Axelrod interview would provide.
36 -- all of them as the last syllable in weirdest should suggest to you.
Seven Machos
I'm trying to explain that the 'cultism' you speak of is not well founded or supported by anything other than anecdotal evidence that you happen to think supports your claim.
Obama was popular = cultism = Obama landslide? Sorry, not true.
But if it is then it must be true every single election and it must have been because the very same voters who voted for Bush suddenly got stupid for one election cycle.
Explain your theory in more intelligent, coherent terms. With citations. Please.
Matt -- tell us the part that got your shallow brain to infer that I am not to grips with Obama's presidency. Then and only then you may move onto your next shallow argument.
Seven Machos said...
"36 -- all of them as the last syllable in weirdest should suggest to you."
What parameters are you using to define weird with respect to presidential elections?
I am using the common definition of the word weird. I am sorry for you that you are so perplexed.
Obama won in 2008, because McCain was a DREADFUL pick! True, McCain feared the conservatives would stay home "again" ... so he gave the veep slot to Sarah Palin.
If it wasn't for Palin, folks, McCain's loss would have been worse than the 53% to 47% outcome.
At least the media folk know this! Can't we serve TEA on the upper deck?
And, the conservatives aren't helping themselves by provide 8 clowns to run for the republican nomination. And, it's as if by "winning" a cow contest in Iowa. And, another one in New Hampshire ... Americans of all persuasions will vote for the GOP nominee in 2012.
Go ahead. Believe what you want.
But Barnum would tell ya that the media is just lining up a bunch of suckers.
Conservatives who fall for the "litmus paper" test ... when there was an EPIC fail in South Carolina ... on one of their favorite topics: "Pre-birth."
"Born Again" doesn't work, either.
And, what's the competition look like? Don't fool yourselves ... Occupy Wall Streeters are not your competition!
You should get a bit more serious about fielding candidates who can actually achieve a sense of national pride. Along with their ability to win a national election.
Oh, yeah. Herman Cain wasn't one of those people!
You want to have a contest where you win by calling wmen liars?
Wow. That's rich.
Alas, the likelihood of the FUNNY UNDERWEAR MAN being the challenger to Obama looks great. Because intelligent people aren't appalled enough at the clowns that appeared at the gate ... hoping to race against Obama.
Look at it this way. All your disgust at Obama in the world, doesn't solve the problem that he could still win. Easily!
"Born Again" and "pre-birth" conservatives are just lunatic enough to play into the media's hands.
(I know Ann knows how to use "strategy" in the way she sets up her blog posts. Up ahead, I only hope we can include a "strategy" for winning. Not just the fun you get live-blogging debates. Which only proves live-bloggers digest the information very fast.)
And, yes. I think we should all just line up the questions that get tossed out. And, treat it like a game of Jeopardy. Where we can answer the questions among ourselves.
Maybe, too, someone will come up with a board game. "Moving DC to a Cruise Ship." And, like in Monopoly ... we can have "get out of jail" free cards. And, the tossing of dice. Personally, I wouldn't have the cruise ship land in New York's ports. But if it did? I wouldn't buy "the" property.
Hey, I haven't even named "Name That Captain," yet. But we could call the Cruise Ship, "The Mark Twain."
Why should the media be the ones who set the whole agenda?
Much like the journalistic dynamism a Rachel Maddow-David Axelrod interview would provide.
The standard issue conservative debate tactic of "Oh yea? Just like ____________ ??????"
Awesome.
Seven Machos said...
“I am using the common definition of the word weird. I am sorry for you that you are so perplexed.”
I’m not perplexed about the definition of weird, I was just interested in knowing if there were other presidential elections in the history of the republic that had unusual aspects that you may be using in a comparison with the 2008 election.
Seven Machos
Wait, so you jump to a conclusion about "cultism" based on a John Stewart clip, a few kids singing and an anecdote about someone who thought their mortgage was going to be paid by Obama and you think my claim that you must hate Obama based on all of that is more outrageous? Really?
Okay, so you actually sort of like or respect Obama and the Democrats but you are pointing out this pretty wild theory because...?
Show me one coherent thinker among all the right wing who makes this same claim and backs it up with certifiable proof [not opinions] and we can go on debating. Or we won't need to debate because the proof would be too solid to refute.
Yes, Obama was mighty popular. So what? Palin was pretty popular too. Was it because the right wing is full of drooling Christian consesrvatives with no brains in their head? No. It's because some politicians just ignite the base. That is standard.
And note I am honestly trying to have an actual conversation with you. I have debates all the time with my right wing friends but we at least respect each other. But you only want to throw down insults. Let's move past that, please.
I don't like Obama. I don't respect Obama. Perhaps you do not understand what the phrase come to grips with means. It does not mean don't like and don't respect.
I like having conversations with people here. I particularly like conversing several left-liberals, though I am not a left-liberal. I treat you the way I do because it has long been clear to me that you are a shallow thinker. Which is why I call you a shallow thinker. As we speak, I feel like O am Joan Didion talking to an intern at Weekly Reader.
It's interesting that you mention Palin, though, naturally, you fail to connect the dots of interest. There is certainly a Cult of Palin on the right even now that is much like the Cult of Obama that existed in 2008 (and has since evaporated into nothing). I do not belong to the Cult of Palin, as several conservatives here can heartily attest.
Just to be clear, not that I expect anyone cares, the reason I don't like to see the dispute is exactly because Seven Machos is not acquitting himself well in this instance.
phx -- Your evaluation is noted.
I think all of us who value honesty, particularly intellectual honesty, out to be as clear and exact and accountable for what standards we are using.
Not that anyone should preface each comment with vision statement, of course.
Accountable to each other. Your already accountable to yourself.
All the while testing out certain experiments with language as well.
Next, on Althouse.
phx -- I am being nothing if not intellectually honest. I'm talking about themes here -- narratives. Matt is throwing out mere statistics and demanding certifiable proof of things that, of course, are not anywhere near provable in any sort of comment thread environment. And so it is like a great poet speaking to a first-year political science student.
Seven Machos - about my clear and open standards. I believe it is valueless to compare oneself with great poets.
Peace.
I believe it is valueless to say that it is valueless to compare yourself to a great poet. But, yeah, peace.
Realistically there are only about 5 or 6 states in play. So unless all 6 go to either candidate [which is unlikely] it will be close.
Why's that unlikely? In 2008 Obama picked up nine states that Kerry had lost in 2004.
Obama has gotten less popular in all nine of those states, and two more formerly-blue states have turned purple: Wisconsin and Minnesota. Pennsylvania's in play this year too.
A 124-vote loss isn't unthinkable.
I believe it is valueless to say that it is valueless to compare yourself to a great poet.
I don't disagree.
Boxty said...
What exactly was Abraham Lincoln's foreign policy and executive experience before he was elected? It seems to me that a person's dedication to conservative principles matters most.
===============
Too many brain-dead conservatives believe Obama is so hated everywhere, well beyond their own white lower middle class neighborhoods - that ANY true believer conservative of total litmus test purity will beat Obama.
Not so.
The polls show no "true conservative" is within single digits of Obama.
(Lot of people outside those white lower middle class neighborhoods!)
***********
As for Lincoln, superficial readers of history think of him as simply a smart cornpone country lawyer. He wasn't. He was a top negotiator for banks, rail and shipping interests in hammering out deals with state legislature. He had his own private train for two years. A seasoned executive leader. He also was one of the main organizers and founders of the Republican Party.
As for foreign policy experience - different times! The US was not an international player. The only country that could give us any trouble was Britain and it's Royal Navy - and they were not interested.
Seven Machos
Matt is throwing out mere statistics and demanding certifiable proof of things that, of course, are not anywhere near provable in any sort of comment thread environment.
You can't make big [poetic] claims about Obama's popularity and about the electorate and then say statistics and proof don't matter. If you do then you are no better than any blow hard out there with an opinion.
Or no better than Michelle Bachmann who claims the HPV vaccine ravages girls not because she has any actual scientific proof but because someone told her it does. Who are you going to believe?
Come on. If you mean to say Obama was very popular in the last election and this time he will not be as popular because he has a bad record and he is not fresh, new and unique then just say that.
I'll grant you Obama appealed to voters, in part, last election because he was an unknown who people projected their ideal onto. But that is hardly the first time that has happened or the last.
Revenant said...
Why's that unlikely? In 2008 Obama picked up nine states that Kerry had lost in 2004.
It is possible but [at this point] not probable. Therefore it is unlikely. I didn't say it would not happen.
Matt - "Yes, Obama was mighty popular. So what? Palin was pretty popular too. Was it because the right wing is full of drooling Christian consesrvatives with no brains in their head?"
Well, yes, one of the reasons why the Cult of the Goddess Palin took off WAS because the right wing is full of drooling Christian conservatives with no brains in their heads. She "resonated" with them.
Same with the Cult of Obama consisting of drooling blacks with no brains in their heads that loved him for skin color, progressive Jews in the media that pushed him as the black messiah, and young people with no brains in their heads who were convinced Obama was the pinnacle of cool.
You can't make big [poetic] claims about Obama's popularity and about the electorate and then say statistics and proof don't matter.
I did not say that. I said I was not going to write a treatise and later said said that blog comments are not the place to make the arguments you are requesting. If you can't see the difference, you are even more of an idiot than I thought. Again, your disturbing inability to read carefully and parse what you read is a detriment to you.
If you mean to say Obama was very popular in the last election and this time he will not be as popular because he has a bad record and he is not fresh, new and unique then just say that.
You have managed to repeat something approaching what I have said in a soulless, remedial, primitively useless way. I can't quite decide if pointing this out is an insult or a compliment.
Personally, I haven't seen anything to convince me that Obama is responsible for anyone's hero worship or unrealistic expectations during the election.
I didn't see as much of that hero worship then that so many conservatives appear to believe in. I saw a lot of people who are terribly proud and emotional. I don't think they were any less critical thinkers than your average Republican rally though.
Matt -- Cedarford is an unconscionable racist and anti-Semite.
Also, your semantic games with Rev again show an inability to read.
Well, wasn't it unusual that Obama was hailed, by so many people, as a uniquely qualified leader who was going to achieve things in record speed that had eluded every President since, let's say at least LBJ in '63-65?
Wasn't it a different sort of election, to have a giant economic catastrophe drop as a kind of "October Surprise" to wipe out a GOP ticket that had looked (however surprisingly) competitive after 8 years of their party's (increasingly unpopular) incumbency?
Even Palinistas or Cainiacs aren't expecting their guy to level the oceans. Even if, arguably, Perry supporters want him to zap a few Federal office buildings with his laser eyes. Oops!
phx --
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/06/this-was-moment-when-rise-of-oceans.html
@phx: I was in PoliSci grad seminars in 2008 with students breathlessly opining, during discussions of the Teddy Roosevelt and Wilson Presidencies, that once Obama got elected we'd "truly have an intellectual as President!"
Does that not strike you as an odd sentiment?
Althouse gets excoriated over her own Obama vote, but I think it's clear she was under no delusion that Obama was some Schopenhauer-level genius whose theory of everything was going to break millennarian dawn over the human family.
I am quite sure a good many people I talked to in 2008, however, really believed such a thing.
TOO LONG DON'T READ
Here's the part of the speech that Seven Machos' link went to. You have to admit Dems that it probably lends itself to his Republican opponents referring to him as "monomaniacal".
Really pretty much boilerplate politics from where I stand, however. It seems like petty support for trying to portray a man as responsible for the unrealistic expectations around him. That line isn't really why people were swooning over Obama, IMO. I think rather there was a lot of pride that a black man finally got to be President. I gathered most of my impressions from work - I was working in a career center located in the DHS building of a fairly large northeastern city. Some of clients, blacks, couldn't have cared less one way or the other and would never vote.
I don't remember anyone seriously believing the jubilee was at hand though.
Here's Obama:
The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. This was the moment—this was the time—when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.
And Seven Machos is a smug prick and former "Israel 1st!" State Dept employees - who has lately taken to screaming racist!! at people who dispute some of his inane arguments.
You can take out YOUR sentence as evidence that he's so monomaniacal. And someone who disagrees can take out this and accuse you of being unfair:
"The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people."
this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. This was the moment—this was the time...
And thus is my point of weirdness and aspects of cultism demonstrated amply and irrefutably. Thank you. Good night.
Two competing images of Obama. But I think you Republicans generally have to get your game up on all that retread anti-Obama rhetoric. You will lose if you don't think faster or deeper than Obama's team.
phx -- Your evaluation is noted.
It is possible but [at this point] not probable.
What's the basis for claiming it isn't probable at this point?
I like your posts, too, phx. I enjoy debating you and your riddles.
I think what you are obviously missing is the fact that it doesn't really matter how fast or deep Obama's team thinks. It's the economy. Further, it's Obama who has failed to reposition. Bill Clinton repositioned drastically in 1994. George W. Bush was forced by events to reposition in September, 2001. Obama remains the same, keeping the same advisers and even accepting the resignation or demotion of the two most erudite ones, Daley and Mayor Rahm.
Finally, the very freakishness of 2008 will make Obama very vulnerable in 2012. I am predicting Romney in a route that mainstream media types will call surprising.
What's the basis for claiming it isn't probable at this point?
A quaint belief that election results that happened before will happen again because they happened before. It's wonderfully circular.
Seven Machos
You can't have it both ways, man. You claim I don't read carefully and parse what you write yet when I make a very precise point to Revenant you say I am playing a semantic game. My goodness. If you were a teacher you would flunk everyone but yourself.
So it is okay to be poetic but not scientific yet it is wrong to be poetic rather than scientific?
Let's parse the point Revenant mentions. I wrote: So unless all 6 go to either candidate [which is unlikely] it will be close.
Revenant asked why it was unlikely. I clarified that it is possible just not probable. I conceded the point! I didn’t offend him. He made a good point. I simply clarified my position.
Do you know the difference between possible and probable? Maybe you don't? So, yes all 6 states could go to Romney but [in my opinion based on the polling date as of today] I do not think it is probable. But it is possible. I will grant that.
I just fiddled with an interactive 2012 electoral map. Republicans will win rather easily. The question is will Ohio and Pennsylvania and other states go Republican to make it be a blowout.
Revenant said...
What's the basis for claiming it isn't probable at this point?
Polling data and opinion. But sure it is possible Romney could win all 6 swing states [which you'll note I have not named]. If I go by today's numbers it is probable that they will not all go to one candidate. But a year from now they may.
I'm not going to say Obama will win easily if at all. But I didn't think he would win easily against McCain - even though the polling told me it would. Again, polling is often quite accurate. We'll see where it is next year.
Seven Machos said...
I just fiddled with an interactive 2012 electoral map.
Colorado, Virginia, Nevada and Florida? Even Rubio admits Florida is 50/50. Unless he is saying that to ignite the base?
Well, yes, one of the reasons why the Cult of the Goddess Palin took off WAS because the right wing is full of drooling Christian conservatives with no brains in their heads. She "resonated" with them.
I think it was more because
1. She was new and a fairly good speaker running with dull hated McCain and
2. People went absolutely ape shit on Palin and it brought out protective instincts. When you have people in the media coming out saying things like 'she should just stay home and take care of her kids' in response to a Governor of a state and a candidate for VP, well, that's just crazy talk and tends to bring on strong counter responses.
Even Rubio admits Florida is 50/50.
Does this pass as one of your vaunted facts?
Seven...
He said it on Tuesday Nov 15, 2011 in the morning to Politico.
Asked by POLITICO moderator Mike Allen the odds of the eventual GOP presidential nominee winning the Sunshine State, Rubio replied: “Good — at least 50-50, given the circumstances. But that vote is going to have to be earned.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68390.html#ixzz1dvN0WgsI
But maybe the media is just making it up and Rubio didn't really say it? I wasn't there. Although there is a video of him saying it. But why watch that? There's no poetry in it.
Matt -- Again you utterly, insipidly miss the point. Because Marco Rubio says something doesn't make something a fact. You are, in fact, recasting Marco Rubio's opinion as fact instead of his opinion, which is what the statement obviously is. And yet you disparaged opinions as somehow lesser than facts up thread.
You really should consider the junior high school blog comments. We all have to start somewhere.
Seven Machos said...
I didn't say it was a fact at all. You are not reading what I wrote. You said you fiddled with the electoral map. How did you come up with; "Republicans will win rather easily" if not by an opinion of what states you think will go to Romney [or the GOP nominee]?
I noted Rubio said Florida is 50/50 because he is in one hell of a better position to make the claim on where the state is right now than just about anyone.
I didn't mention facts at all. It is his opinion, yes, absolutely. But his opinion has some weight would you not agree?
Matt said...
Show me one coherent thinker among all the right wing who makes this same claim and backs it up with certifiable proof [not opinions] and we can go on debating...
11/16/11 6:05 PM
Then...
Matt said...
I didn't mention facts at all. It is his opinion, yes, absolutely...
11/16/11 8:28 PM
Seven Machos
Also I realize we were talking past each other there. When you said: Does this pass as one of your vaunted facts? I thought you were challenging my assertion that Rubio said this statement. I didn't think you meant that I thought Rubio's opinion was a fact. Why the heck would I think that?
It would be senseless to consider it a 'fact'. Instead, [in my opinion] it is a talking point based on polling numbers used to jolt the GOP base.
Seven Machos said...
You've stopped making sense.
I realize we are the only two talking now.
Later, dude. Say hi to your woman for me. She must be bored by now.
Flyspecks ... are spectacles, but not spectacular ...
They could be tiny small glasses for flies but they would ... need .... TOO MANY LENSES! Like all of the lenses focussed on the GOP candidates ...... is it getting hot in here?
I won't take off my clohtes ... I will not want Gloria All -Red to make a fuss!!!
There was a man, a doctor man, not a PIZZA GUY, who was named Phyllis Regbin! NOT PHALLUS, but Phyllis who said "Is that your final answer?"
He said it to people on TV who were trying to win, just like poor me ... the "real" conservative
Is this my final answer? .... GOP wants the final answer to by FUNNY UNDERWEAR GUY, but he's not the "real" conservative ... he's mormon.
More man!
But remember, mormon is very close to moron!
Utah is the beehive hairdo state ... and Mister Mitt has a lot of hair ... like your old Aunt Carol ...
They also can have many "wives" ... imagine all that hair. Talk about BIG LOVE!!! YUP.
What did FUNNY UNDERWEAR MAN say about Libya?
Was he asked? Gregory David is certainly NO PHYLLIS!
He is really less .... man.
"Man up, folks! Politics is a bloodsport."
No, it is a dirty business.
Herman Cain's wife is a lovely woman. Her eyes are those of a great soul. Such women do not marry beneath their station. The couple are Americans. That's all that is important. They are Americans. That's why anti-nationalists/"technocrats" fear/hate them.
"Carol Herman" is a national treasure. I love every word "she" writes. I suspect "she" is nom de plume for a high-ranking person in some field. Regardless of whatever field it is, she ranks very high in the field of humanity and human endeavor. "Carol:" carry on!
"Carol Herman" always brings a smile to my heart and face. No greater gift has any creature to give any other.
Well, the pauses are the intelligent part of what he says so naturally we're going to examine them in detail...
¡Camerero! ¡Camerero! ¡Hay mierda de las moscas en mi sopa!
Post a Comment