63 total posts
(Page 1 of 3)
Cain was asked
'Do you agree with President Obama on Libya or not'. Personally, I think the question was a poor one and Cain obviously struggled to both make sense of it as well as find a way to answer. At least that's what is visible in the video. But I could just as well wonder just how much the current president knew and understood about Libya 4 years ago when he was seeking election and doubt he knew all that much.
At this point, I don't see Cain as presidential material but I'm not unhappy to see a person of his background trying to run for office. He's certainly providing the media with newer punching bag design. As for one being presidential material, I have to feel it's not so much what the office seeker knows but who they know when it comes to assembling a good team. I suspect Mr. Cain would show to be lacking in that regard.
I think it was a legitimate question
Several of the Republican candidates have criticized the way Obama handled the Libya situation. That made it a reasonable question IMO. Cain was struggling to even recall what "the Libya situation" was.
If you look back over the 2008 debates, Obama was asked similar types of questions in 2008 and from what I remember, handled them well.
I'm glad we can agree that Herman Cain is not up to the job he wants.
I have to agree with Steve
the question was very poorly designed and asked. When the Rep candidates on state at the debate on foreign policy was asked about Libya, if I recall correctly, Cain did pretty well went asked a well-formulated question about it. It's kind of hard to know what the CNN question really was looking for because BO actually was hard to agree with on a number of decisions he made about it when we first went in and he never gave an objective to ANY media who asked what that objective was supposed to be. What was the part of BO's decisions made that the reporter was looking for an answer regarding?
Come on, Toni
It wasn't about the wording of the question. Cain was struggling to remember what Libya was all about. If Obama had answered that question that way you'd have torn him a new one and rightfully so. Candidates have to be ready to field good questions, bad ones, "gotcha" questions and everything in between. Hemming and hawing and trying to remember "which one was that...." was a very bad moment for Cain. Second candidate to fall on his face this week too.
Gingrich's numbers are suddenly rising, not because Gingrich suddenly became a better choice, but because everyone around him is going down in flames.
Gingrich would be a good President
He was one of the architects of the Reagan-Bush years and Contract With America.
I can't wait....
....to watch him defend the sanctity of "traditional marriage."
There's also that $300,000 he had to borrow from Bob Dole after he was convicted of House Ethics violations (did he ever pay that back?).
Aside from that, he's poison. I think he's also the architect of the low level of discourse that's become so common in politics. It's too bad, really, because he really is a bright guy; he just practices very destructive tactics.
what do you mean by "when we first went in" ?
We never "went in" at all, which is only one reason this operation was so much more successful than the one in Iraq.
That's just killing them.
I googled the following
What is Obama's position on Libya?
and here's, other than some youtube, the first of the list.
Of course this is largely an opinion piece which cannot be confused with facts. But do we know the facts?
But the question posed to Mr. Cain was not going to be answerable in non thesis length and his initial remarks did appear to be looking for some clarification. I'd think that a really good interviewer who was intent on getting answers and not springing traps would have helped Mr. Cain rather than watching him squirm. Perhaps the interviewer accomplished what he really wanted.
I think you're making excuses for him, Steven
"....I've got all this stuff spinning around in my head...."
Doesn't sound to me like someone who has a comfortable grasp of current events.
Not making excuses at all...just some fairness
This is hunting season and hunters know that only by having an unfair advantage will they take home their supper.
Even this right-leaning commentator thinks he should bow out
When are GOP candidates going to take on Herman Cain?
It's hard to remember a presidential candidate who seemed more, er,
unacquainted with the national dialogue -- or presidential prerequisites
-- than Herman Cain.
At first, he seemed a likable enough fellow. With exactly one idea: a
9-9-9 tax system. Not a truly GOP-minted plan, since it includes a
national sales tax, which Republicans loathe. But never mind. He was
genial and a welcome addition to those early debates in which some of
his fellow contenders seemed so humorless, angry and, in some cases,
Of course, Cain was unfriendly in that first moment in which he said
he wouldn't allow any Muslims to serve at high levels of government (now
a Cain classic!). But he backtracked, so the matter seemed to slip
But when the gaffes continued -- and the sexual harassment
allegations surfaced -- it was no longer harmless. Cain became a parody
of the empty-suit candidate, and his campaign proudly carried his
baggage. A silly Web ad with the campaign manager taking a drag of a
cigarette said it all: grabbing for attention, blowing nothing but
As for the sexual harassment allegations, the
man-who-would-be-president alternately couldn't recall them or could
mildly recall them. The National Restaurant Association, where Cain
worked at the time, recalled one settlement just fine. But Cain never
asked for the records to be released to clear his name, so his name
remains far from cleared.
And don't expect the woman he recently dubbed "Tutti-frutti" -- U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann -- to bail him out either.
If this is the way Cain wants to behave, I suppose it's a free country. But there is a cost to Republicans.
He still deserves some respect for even wanting the job
I could sense from the beginning that he was not of suitable material but I applaud his coming forward anyway. We need more people to do that but I have a feeling there is far more reluctance to enter that arena these days. One reason may be the way candidates are held up to ridicule. It's shameful, IMO. Some will say it's to be expected and the candidates are aware of that when they sign on. I still say it's a tragedy. We need to be better than that. This isn't a sport....or maybe it is.
In today's climate....
.....I'm inclined to think that anyone who wants to be president (or run for the office) is plain nuts. I'd never subject myself or my family to that.
It's very possible that Cain never really expected to win the nomination and was running to make a name for himself, maybe parlay that into something financially lucrative, and suddenly he became a front-runner, got hit with substantive questions for the first time, and his limitations went from being funny to being not so funny.
As for it not being a sport, did you see that debate where CNN's introductions of the candidates sounded like something out of the WWF? What on earth was up with that?
Josh has a point
Anyone of presidential timber should recognize and properly deal with bad questions.
1) is the question too open ended?
2) does the question assume facts not in evidence?
3) Is the question relevant?
4) Is the question a Lie in form of a question?
If it's open ended, then ask for specification or clarification before trying to answer it. If it assumes "facts" not in evidence, then challenge the assumptions first. If the question isn't relevant to the campaign, just say it's not relevant and ask if they have one that is. If the question itself is a Lie hiding behind a question mark, expose it. If those type questions continue from the interviewer, ask them openly why they can't ask honest questions instead of leading and lying ones.
Thank you, James
Look at Cain's body language. He's fidgeting, playing with his tie, moving his water bottle around, fluttering his eyes, repeating the question, all stalling tactics and all displaying his nervousness and discomfort with the question.
Politicians get asked bad and even inappropriate questions all the time. Personally I don't think "have you ever smoked pot" is anyone's business unless the politician in question is still doing it (since it's illegal). Clinton would have been better off just saying "Yes" instead of trying to dodge the question. Same for W when he was asked about cocaine. Both questions were inappropriate but how you field a question like that can make a big difference in how people perceive you. At least Obama had the sense to come clean right away about his past drug use, diffusing any potential "gotcha" by the press or his opponents.
It's obvious he had little answer to any question on Libya
If he'd know the truth he could have just said, "I didn't realize Obama himself had any policy regarding Libya beyond doing whatever the United Nations ordered him to do". He could continue, "...we were so supportive of Britain releasing the Lockerbie bomber, and so appreciative of France blocking a flyover in 1986 when we went to bomb Libya, that in gratitude we decided once both of those countries finally decided to engage Libya so the French could get oil again, we'd jump into it too".
have no problem with having a president who smoked dope or tried coke or was a former boozer compared to having one who hung out with known terrorists like Bill Ayers and USA haters like his minister and made and got by with lame explanations for them and the subjects never came up again with the media that adored him and still do to the point of nausea.
I always wondered, Josh...
I always wondered how somebody getting through school with student loans managed to work purchase of cocaine into his budget. Back then, it wasn't cheap.
More accusations of "gotcha" journalism ?
As Jon Stewart said (to Sarah Palin)....
...."It isn't a gotcha question just because it got ya."
Come on Steven, Libya has been in the current debate arena..
... for months now. It has been a raison d'etre for many speaking out against Obama. Many on the conservative side have called it the United States' third war. We are talking current events here and a major part of the current questions over how to handle US foreign policy. On top of all that, it was a 'yes or no' question.
Cain's mistake was
in not asking the questioner to be more specific from the beginning. The original question was too open ended. My reply would have been, "For all I know Obama thinks Libya is the 58th state he's found, but if you are more specific in your question I can be more specific in my answer".
Re: The original question was too open ended.
When they're not "open ended" he passes?
NO!!!!Cain is easily stumped
He reminds me of the kids you see on The Spelling Bee Challenge, He repeats the question/word...then asks them for a definition/use it in a sentence.
Glanced at the top comment in your link
Didn't bother to watch the video. knew exactly where it was headed. You are soo predictable.
Here we go
sounds like the same tactics you used on Bush, You have decided Herman Cain is stupid. You gave an excuse for Obama's 57 States how about the same for Cain?
a useless comparison?
We already know Obama's not qualified to be President. Is it unfair to keep us from making another mistake? My complaint against MSM has always been their lack of doing unto Democrats as they do unto Republicans. However, exposing Republican weaklings as the primary season is upon us is of some benefit, so we can pick the strongest smartest candidate to face the Democrat weakling the MSM handled with kid gloves.
what I am against
is all the political bashing. I am so tired of the arguments, lies and half lies that go on. I won't even discuss politics here in my own home anymore. I have decided none of them know the truth!
I don't know how smart or stupid Herman Cain is. I do think it's apparent that he knows very little about foreign policy and is in way over his head there. He even asked the interviewer, "Obama supported the uprising, right?" Seriously, who would not know that, especially someone hoping to run against him for the presidency?
It's not a "tactic" of mine or anyone else's if Herman Cain can't answer a very simple question about current events that have been all over the news for months. It's also not a verbal gaffe, which was what "57 states" was.
But, you know, what bothers me more about Herman Cain than his lack of knowledge about Libya is his complete lack of understanding of the First Amendment:
That, IMO, is very scary stuff and he doesn't belong anywhere near the White House if that's what he thinks our Constitution means.
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 3)