The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

A Further Perspective

Herman’s Just Not Ready

By on 11.15.11 @ 6:08AM

As confirmed yet again yesterday, the knowledge and experience simply aren’t there.

(Page 2 of 2)

Overall, too much of Mr. Cain’s performance was like someone at a job interview arguing that his intelligence — which wasn’t especially well demonstrated during the interview — is more important than his experience. Were I hiring, a job applicant whose answers were like Mr. Cain’s would not be invited back for a second interview.

No doubt, Herman Cain’s performance on the Libya question was the low point of his interview and his answers to some other questions were better, but they were not all good — and certainly not good enough. Like it or not, this is a job interview where you’re judged by your biggest weaknesses, not your average over the entire range of questions — not that he even averaged a B-minus. And even on the questions where Cain does better than on foreign policy, he comes across too frequently as parroting talking points rather than answering from a true and deep understanding of the issues of the day.

While I appreciate Mr. Cain’s efforts to go to school on foreign affairs in his quest for the presidency, he is simply not qualified — and not going to be by the time of this election — to hold that office. To be sure, Herman Cain could be a more complete candidate in four years just as Governor Palin is more well-versed in areas of policy and principle than she was when the nation first met her (though that still does not make her a candidate I would favor).

But for the 2012 election, Herman Cain is simply not ready for prime time. At this point, it’s not about sexual harassment charges or cigarette-smoking staffers; it’s about the fact that experience and knowledge actually do matter and — despite favorable comparisons to Barack Obama at this time four years ago — Herman Cain does not yet have enough of either to merit being our president.

Page:   12

About the Author

Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver’s NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays. You can reach Ross by e-mail at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (398) |

Erling| 11.15.11 @ 6:29AM

The video of Mr. Cain's interview is devastating. Maybe Ann Coulter was right yesterday: Mitt will win, but if that's our fate, he had better ask Sen. Rubio to join his ticket.

DTOM| 11.15.11 @ 8:43AM

We could resurrect Ronald Reagan and make him Romney's VP and it wouldn't make a bucket of warm spit's difference. Marco Rubio seems to be a solid, well-spoken conservative, but his being the VP candidate will have virtually NO affect on Romney's unprincipled policy wanderings search for friendly camera angles. None. Bad idea. Forget about it.

Stormzeye| 11.15.11 @ 9:44AM

It would be a waste to have Marco Rubio serve as anyone's VP. His destiny is to be President in eight years or less but not yet. He's not ready. I'm not worried about Romney as much as I don't trust him. Why? Because the Tea Party will elect a more conservative House and Senate and Romney will be bent to their wishes if he wants to get things done. He will learn from them and will be a malleable as Clinton was under Gingrich's tutelage. Frankly, if Newt can't get elected, he'd make a great Chief of Staff for Romney.

DTOM| 11.15.11 @ 9:49AM

Stormy,

You can only bend a president to your will if you can override his veto. That's not going to happen only a third of the Senate is up for election this cycle and if we won every seat, we'd still lack an override capability.

Bush faked his conservatism, remember "Compassionate (so-called) Conservatism" and he was a disaster, except in Defense. Romney will absolutely be Bush III (Lite!).

Jack in Wi| 11.15.11 @ 2:50PM

Herm was stictly a media puff. He got to big for his britches and the media, righfully took him down. The neocon network of talk radio and the conservative magazines have now puffed up the unelectable, Newt Gingrich. Newt has more baggage then went down on the Titanic. The race has always ben about the old guards Mitt Romney and the insurgents of Ron Paul. They are the only ones who have a chance tobeat Obama. Paul gets by far more votes from Independents, the young and from Democrats, without which no Republian can win. Both Romney and Paul poll the best face to face against Obama. I had suggested that there be debates between the 2 of them to see if the party can be reunited. Even throw in Eingrich. I have come to the conclusion that the party will split. The neocons aren't giving us anything and we don't want what they would give us. They can't stand an honest debate. Because they would certainly lose.

Anthony| 11.15.11 @ 10:25AM

This is precisely what I mean. I like Mr. Cain, and I have given him money, but this is proof positive that we need a candidate with the intellectual firepower and quick on his/her feet thinking, that the currrent crop is lacking.
The question was stupid, open-ended, and unclear, similar to the question that smug leftist asked Sarah Palin in 08 about agreeing with the "Bush Doctrine".
Cain should have had the sense to tell the questioner that the question made no sense and to clarify exactly what point he was trying to make.
Whoever is preparing our candidates for the media, is doing a poor job.

kate| 11.16.11 @ 12:00PM

I like Cain too, but he makes me uneasy on international issues. I still think he would be better than what is going on now.
Off topic, but I think the "Bush doctrine" would have (and still might) work if the democrats had been patriots and got on board.
They were so vindictive when they sabotaged it.

Fred| 11.16.11 @ 8:23PM

I wish I could agree with you Kate. The world would be a much better place if you were right. But the problem with the Bush Doctrine was not that it was undermined by Democrats. It was undermined by its faulty (to put it charitably) premise, i.e. that all people of all cultures desire democracy and the type of ordered liberty found in America (albeit decreasingly). That is simply not the case. Americans have two very dumb ideas about democracy: 1) That it appeared on these shores 200 years ago sprung fully formed like Minerva from the head of Zeus. Actually, it took centuries, from the signing of the Magna Carta to the Declaration of Independence for it to develop in its present form. And it has roots that go back to ancient Greece and Rome. 2) That democracy is like kudzu; plant it anywhere and it will proliferate to the exclusion of local political plants. That also is simply not the case. Democracy is much more like a delicate tropical flower that can only flourish in certain historical, cultural, and economic climates, climates that do not exist in places like the Middle East, Africa, and some parts of Asia. The Bush doctrine was doomed by international reality, not American politics.

kate| 11.18.11 @ 6:08AM

Fred
Thank you for your response.
You probably won't read this, as my response is late.

My opinion on the so-called Bush doctrine is personal and not academic, so please forgive my simplistic evaluation.
I lived in the middle east for a few years and befriended a Palestinian neighbor who had children of the same age.
She was very sophisticated, educated and yet very traditional. She did not seem abused and had a handsome husband who obviously cared about her. She loved her children and enjoyed her life.

She seemed fascinated with my life and apparently gave her husband quite a hard time when she saw my husband and I packing the truck with coolers, food, kids and towels to have a fine family day on the beach.
Her culture dictated that, as the daughter-in-law, she was to stay home and cook for her husband and his sisters and mother on friday (day off), while he enjoyed swimming and family time at the beach.

Her culture dictated that she couldn't put on shorts or a suit and enjoy the ocean, even if it was with her own husband and toddlers.
She gave him a hard time and he expressed curiosity to my husband in the form of " so I hear you take your wife fishing..."
She disapproved of the liberals in our society, but envied my proper, conservative, appropriate time with my husband and children.
I have to give Bush and his doctrine the benefit of the doubt.
I lived in Africa for a few years (before I had children) , but that is a story for another day.

kate| 11.18.11 @ 6:21AM

Once again. she wasn't abused, disrespected or unhappy, but can you imagine living an entire life so unfree?
She used to walk the beach with me and watch our kids frolicking in the waves and I could see her yearning for freedom.
Not to be "wild "or "liberal", but just to walk into the surf and swim with her kids.
Bush was right.

kate| 11.18.11 @ 6:30AM

Goodness
Read the posts and I sound so sanctimonious!
As an American woman, I choose my own destiny.
Thanks to all the brave men who have given me that right and the women who fought for my right to do so.
We are blessed because of our constitution and the culture we inherited that is now in question.

TrueBlue| 11.16.11 @ 1:47PM

"Everything you need to know about international relations you can learn on the playground by fourth grade". Professor Paul Ello

You only need to know one thing, "Are they my enemy?" If the answer is yes, then the solution is to smash them into the ground until they submit. International sanctions DO NOT WORK because there will always be other countries willing to capitalize on the idea that they will be one of the few working with that country, and so gain more profit from negotiating with them (China and Russia dealing with Iran for example). Cain's answer of helping with a democratic movement overseas but otherwise staying out of the way is the right one to a point, but we need the President to have all the facts before the decision to actually get involved in made. That's what advisors are for, which is why Cain keeps saying he'd consult them. People are blasting him for being honest! No president, or presidential candidate, knows all the facts about everything.

It's funny that people point at some of his statements as being soundbites, when those are the same people that were complaining that Cain's message was too complicated and that he needed to cut it down to make it easier to understand. Make up your mind people, can't have it both ways.

I still like Cain for President simply because right now our country is in a serious financial crisis, a problem he has dealt with before, albeit on a much smaller scale, but that's still experience none of the other candidates has in the slightest. Romney was a liquidator, and the rest are career politicians. If Cain is mostly hands off with foreign politics what is the problem? You have countries all over the world, and quite a few people at home, that whine about the US getting involved with everything overseas; but now you're complaining because someone is being HONEST and saying he'd get all the facts before making a decision? MAKE UP YOUR MIND.

Alan Brooks| 11.15.11 @ 5:54PM

Why don't you all just admit is: 'small' govt ended
9-11-'01

Stop the SHIT.

kate| 11.16.11 @ 12:19PM

erling
Cain is smart nice guy. A little bit intellectually shallow, but at least his heart is in the right place.
A good manager brings in the right people.
The last thing we need is a know-it-all who thinks he can handle everything.
Remember Carter?
Dear God.
Talk about stupid.
What about Condi Rice?
She is intelligent, detailed, calm and over-all
has good judgement.
I would like to see her run as VP.
And I would love to see Newt, Condi or Rubio debate you know who.

kate| 11.16.11 @ 2:11PM

I've been perusing various respectful sites and I'm sure we are being 'trolled'. The likes of Clint and Margie reek of trolling.
I have a good friend who is part of "pink" (don't ask me why I'm friends with her, it is personal)
She did reveal that she is going to "training sessions".
???
training sessions?
You guys are being trolled.
Best to you.
Get smart and let us talk the issues.
That is the last thing they want.

amajorpain| 11.20.11 @ 1:41PM

Sorry ain't buying. Mr.Kaminsky uses Mr.Cain "wants us to think he's smart by showing us he knows about the mountains in Iran". We can't 4get about: He ain't a poli and that's why we like him. A poli could word that in such a way as to not give away the store(intentions) yet convey the power/potential of the fightin boys. You say he failed, i don't think so.

You boil it down, foreign policy is simple. You got friends and enemies. That's it. We have seen what happens when our leaders attempt to put a scalpel to the situation (Mr.Reagan, you know i love ya) and help this one and help that one and get this one to help that one. That is complicated. Friends and enemies. That's it.

Mr. Cain? got my vote ...STILL.

ps: hit me one time ...haha

Kelly Staples| 11.15.11 @ 6:41AM

Cain will fizzle faster than a wet firecracker on the 4th of July. Willard Romney has the Tea Party primary voters to contend with, and they are less than enthusiastic (Ann Coulter notwithstanding). Newt's time has come.

Alan Brooks| 11.15.11 @ 8:59PM

"But Herman Cain isn't qualified?"

We will see. Cain is weak from his bout with cancer, though- he looks old for his age; one foot in the grave.

Doctor Right| 11.15.11 @ 7:09AM

And what exactly IS Obama's Libya policy? "Ghadafi must go"?

Ok, he's gone. Now what??

The most inexperienced, incoherent President in US history now sits in the White House.

But Herman Cain isn't qualified?

Whatever, Ross. You seem to prefer the professional political class, so be happy, because that's what we're going to get.

vb| 11.15.11 @ 7:18AM

I certainly hope we are not using Obama as the standard by which we measure our own candidates.

Doctor Right| 11.15.11 @ 7:47AM

I certainly hope you're not equating Obama's lack of intellect and experience with Cain, who has both.

RND| 11.15.11 @ 9:30AM

Dr. R., I am with you on this. Is there something wrong about a top political leader or president saying, "Hey, on some of these things -- goodness, a lot of these issues -- I am not the smartest man in the room." Something wrong with that?

I've known a fair number of leaders who openly admitted this in various ways, often subtle. That allowed open, vigorous discussion.

I was impressed with these type leaders because they were often the best listener in the room.

These leaders were; however, clear on three things. 1) Do get the BEST to be the advisors/policy shapers, 2) The panel of experts do their job of advising swiftly -- there will be no dithering on the deicsions that must be made, 3) Ultimately I am the one who decides and all blame (when something goes wrong) goes to me. All credit (when things go right) goes to those who shaped this good policy.

I like leaders who don't pretend to have all the answers. Who can?

Cain can do this. I think that this might just exactly be the kind of leader that he is.

AVCurmudgeon| 11.16.11 @ 2:04AM

RND, your argument worked when Cain was unsure about the "right of return." That's a little esoteric, and I couldn't fault him there, partly because even without knowing specifics Cain's instincts landed him on good ground.

But seriously: Libya? Has there been any single more controversial foreign policy misadventure in the last six months? Obama lied about the purpose of our intervention; circumvented Congress; supported Islamist rebels; stabbed a guy in the back who had been treated as a valuable ally as little as a month before; stood silent as the mobs savaged Gaddafi and said nothing about Gaddafi's body being displayed in public for three days, and has said little or nothing about the new Sharia state there. How much does it take to have these things lined up as talking points?

I love Cain. I've been on board with him since the day before he announced his candidacy. But he simply is not fluent on foreign policy, and despite the fact that this election will probably turn on the economy, foreign policy is critical. I don't know if he's been getting tutoring or not, but it's obvious he isn't wrapping his head around it. Do you think he would fumble around like that if he were asked about 9-9-9 or vertical/horizontal cuts? No. On some things he's tack sharp; on others he is proving to be at best a very slow study and if nothing else that would be a devastating weakness in a race against Obama.

It's sad. And honestly, I don't know who will fill the void.

RND| 11.16.11 @ 8:20AM

AVCurmudgeon, watch the longer (about 6:30 min.) video on YouTube on this Cain -- very short -- interview segment just on Libya.

That's what this whole bruhaha (spelling?) is about. Supposedly Herman Cain flubbed this very short Libya portion. Oh? He did? When you watch it, you'll see, RK made an issue out of nothing. This is, simply put, "much ado about nothing."

Watch the video clip. Is it Herman Cain's brightest moment in this campaign? No. But he's given literally now well over 800 interviews (TV, radio, web, just pen and paper...)

His overall answers in this clip are just fine. It really is.

Just watch and listen (twice), and you'll know what I mean.

Also see my posts below on how silly we all are the excessive fixation to the "sexiness" (no other way to put it) of foreign policy. We think that this defines the mantle "presidential."

Don't our nearly $15 trillion debt, government controlled health care, no jobs for anyone over 52, no jobs for anyone under 27, overtaxation, new entitlements, states going bankrupt, cities going bankrupt, social security going bust, Medicare ready to sink the ship of state, boomers retiring, failure to go after valuable minerals and oil in US territory, no Keystone pipeline, government bailouts -- don't all those heavily outweigh any specifics a candidate might or might not know or have on Libya?

(Plus, were you, was I, was Herman privvy to the CIA, DIA, DOD daily briefs back when Libya was hot? What admiral for the Med or USAF general did you or Herman get to talk to to form your opinion on it? Did you or Herman get to talk with David Cameron, NATO chiefs, or Nicholas Sarkozy on the matter? You get the point. Cain's anwer is just fine.)

kate| 11.16.11 @ 12:03PM

Cain is smarter.

DTOM| 11.15.11 @ 9:24AM

I have a question about your analysis, Mr. K.

Is the Oval Office a closed-book test? Does it matter whether a candidate possesses encyclopediac knowledge of overseas political movements?

Or does the President have the luxury of collecting the best and the brightest to gather intelligence, sort it out, analyze it, then present it to the President for his decision? We are not hiring a intelligence analyst, we are hiring a decision maker.

Herman Cain's personal history, his resume, has shown a decisive ability to make decisions in the complex business environment that have been proven correct. He has shown the ability to turn corporations around, an exercise in convincing employees, customers, and investors that his firm would operate better than it had, and then making it so. This is no small thing, because employees, customers, and investors are free to abandon the firm the second they feel a lack of direction, progress, or a future. Lacking the faith and support of any one of those three groups would have doomed Mr. Cain's efforts to re-vitalize those companies. But that did not happen. Herman Cain succeeded in that difficult, dicey enterprise. That is the work of a leader who leads and makes good decisions.

The 'doesn't know the ground game in Libya' argument smacks of the MSM complaint about Mrs. Palin's inability to recite the Pakistani government's organizational chart in '08.

I hope that people will recognize the difference between decision making and fact recitation. Sure, it sounds lame, when you hear a person's mental processes and realize that you might have gotten there quicker-but it does not mean that you would necessarily make a better decision. Are we going to disqualify someone because of their inability to recite org charts, again? Is this what we are looking for, somebody who has memorized phone books? It's not what I want.

I want somebody who has shown that he can make tough decisions correctly and who has a dedication to the rule of law and conservative principles.

That's what I have seen in Herman Cain.

P.S. I also would like to see Newt Gingrich in the next administration. However, I'd say that the next MSM "eruption" will be about Newt. His shelf life will be then claimed to have expired and the MSM (THIS INCLUDES FOX NEWS, PEOPLE!) will inform us that our candidate will be the rudder-challenged Mr. Romney. And as soon as he is confirmed to be our candidate, the stories about racist, anti-Christian Mormons will flood the airwaves. Tea Party prepare for suppression, Republican-led suppression.

You read it here. Yet again.

"How did they want these deck chairs set up?

What's all this ice doing on the deck?

Is that land?"

I don't want to go through this again. Do you?

DTOM| 11.15.11 @ 9:25AM

Lord save me! I really wrote: " a intelligence analyst?" DOH! I'm going back to bed.

RND | 11.15.11 @ 9:36AM

DTOM, thank you. The presidency is not a closed book test. And it is not 90 minutes of stand-up debate (yes, standing up behind little tripod podiums) with cutsy 30 second answers defining what constitutes smart, witty, urbane, charming, and best suited for the job.

DTOM, if you want it, you can have it -- take the job that Ross Kaminsky is attempting to do. This is just one more lousy piece that Kaminsky has written. Maybe he should try plying his craftsmanship?? in South Africa?

DTOM| 11.15.11 @ 9:56AM

RND,

Even if he's plying it in South Africa, we'd be reading him here...disagreement is what makes conservatives strong. We fight for our ideas with logic, facts, insight. We understand the world better and more clearly.

On the other side? They're spitting and peeing on each other, their arguments die of obsolescence and somnambulism. (That was fun!)

So disagree, say why, fight it out like grown ups. But don't run people off if they think and argue against your view, as long as they do so without resorting to hurling body fluids.

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 1:15PM

"But don't run people off if they think and argue against your view, as long as they do so without resorting to hurling body fluids."

Freaking hypocrite.

DTOM| 11.15.11 @ 1:32PM

Got proof? Give an example.

I've got hundreds of your spitting and name calling, Margie.

Go ahead, condemn me...Hypocrite often project their problems onto others, don't you?

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 2:02PM

DTOM:

You're an insipid PUNK.

Proof?

You just did it to the above poster, loser.
Grow up.

Ross Kaminsky | 11.15.11 @ 2:28PM

Wow, Margie, aren't you the pot calling the kettle black?

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 5:28PM

How's that, Ross?
He IS an insipid lying punk, I call them as I see them.

Ross Kaminsky | 11.15.11 @ 10:44AM

Encyclopedic knowledge is obviously not necessary and probably not possible. But basic knowledge of the few biggest foreign policy issues of the day don't seem like too high a hurdle to ask a candidate to cross.

If Cain didn't know or didn't have an opinion, he should just have said so. But he only has two kinds of answers: First, hesitation and pauses and superficial stuff meaning nothing, and second, stuff along the lines of "I'll surround myself with good advisors."

Yes, he will surround himself with good advisors, but at this point it's HIM I'm concerned about.

Ricco| 11.15.11 @ 11:13AM

Don't worry.
He'll do well as Secretary of Defense when he's helping "the generals and commanders on the ground to get what they need, to do what they do best, and that is kick the you-know-what out of everyone in the world.”

Ross Kaminsky | 11.15.11 @ 2:29PM

I have said for a few months that I think Herman Cain is our next Secretary of Commerce...and I still think that's not a terrible idea.

RCV| 11.15.11 @ 6:24PM

Unless Perry is elected - it's one of the Departments he intends to abolish if he can remember it.

kate| 11.16.11 @ 12:06PM

Perry will never be elected.

loulou| 11.15.11 @ 11:48AM

I prefer Cain's "missteps" to RINO Romney's robotic answers. His motormouth is off-putting. If Romney is the nominee Obama will be reelected. Romney inspires no one. He's a robotic plastic Ken doll. At least Cain has conservative instincts.

Newt, on the other hand, is no conservative. He's a panting puppy who wants to ride in the front of the plane. He signs onto every harebrained scheme that comes down the pike--global warming, autism, futurism. He is a statist who is not fit to be president. And not because of his multiple marriages.

I will not vote for Romney, period.

djtoland| 11.15.11 @ 1:44PM

Ross,

I subimt that Cain does NOT surround himself with good advisors, case in point, look at how his campaign handled the sex abuse scandal.

First Cain's rep wouldn't even admit or deny that the accusations existed. Then when Cain addressed the media the next day, he told 2 different stories in less than 12 hours.

To me, this shows that he can't even pick good advisors.

Stefan Stackhouse| 11.15.11 @ 4:54PM

I don't think it is unreasonable to expect a Presidential candidate to have been consistently reading at least Time or Newsweek, and maybe even the Economist, for at least the past couple of decades. I would consider that to be the absolute minimal level of qualification. If it had appeared in the pages of those newsweeklies - especially repeatedly - then anyone who wants to be president, and especially an effective president, should know about it and be able to talk somewhat intelligently about it without cues.

This is not an impossibly high standard at all. It is an extremely, almost laughably, low one. Yet, we have people like Cain running who fall woefully short of even this.

vb| 11.15.11 @ 6:56PM

Stefan, I agree, especially since Cain first ran for president in 2000 and then for the senate in 2004. We did have a few foreign policy-related events during these years, yet Cain does not seem to have shown much interest in learning more at the time or since. One would think that even a long-shot candidacy would have had him following Bush's responses to 9/11 and all the discussions about Islam, terrorism, Pakistan, and Iraq. Did he wonder how he would have responded? I don't sense that he did. I just don't think he developed a feel for the complexity of the whole area of foreign policy.

loulou| 11.15.11 @ 8:30PM

TIME or NEWSWEEK!!?

You have got to be kidding.
No one reads Time or Newsweek.
That should be a deal breaker right there.

scotchieguy| 11.15.11 @ 8:46PM

Ross, your point is spot on--Cain needs to know this stuff, but your grammar is spot off. "Basic knowledge DOESN'T-- not DON'T--seem like too high a hurdle..."

Dai Alanye | 11.15.11 @ 10:28AM

Cain is weak in certain areas - there's no denying this. But he seems to have the right instincts, and probably a sound character. We can ignore the bimbo accusations - those women are quite unbelievable.

The rising front-runner has his own weaknesses. Newt's been inconsistent on issues of concern to conservatives, and shown weakness of character on occasion. I can't forget how he surrendered to Clinton when government shutdown threw a scare into the Republicans in 1985.

Further, while he's a great debater and orator, in one-on-one interviews Newt has a dismaying tendency to brag, and often comes out with one of those phony laughs that sets a listener's teeth on edge.

We have no perfect candidates, but I'd be happy with Herman as President and Gingrich as adviser to the president. As for Romney, let him have the Treasury if he needs a federal job.

scotchieguy| 11.16.11 @ 11:15AM

Maybe you should re-watch that video. It was Perry all over again. It was Couric-Palin all over again. The republican party is starting to look like something out of SNL. This is getting really old. "Non, non, non." Is that all he can say? He sounds like a damn robot. "Lack ah sid, Non, non, non (chuckle, chuckle)." (roll my eyes)

somnolence| 11.15.11 @ 7:18AM

I didn't waste my time reading your article because at the moment selectively singling out Cain seems to be the fashion. If I had access to a vast video library I would be sure to find scores of Gingrich or Romney goofs. Your objective, like that of many GOP hierarchy, stands out like a sore thumb. But it really isn't working, and Cain finishes in the top 3 because PEOPLE vote, and they vote this time aside from the Ross Kaminskys. Please come up with something more dramatic to dissuade me, lol.

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 10:33AM

The GOP Hierarchy.
Goooood one.

I didn't read the article, either.
Meh.

Country Class Women for Herman Cain 2012!

loulou| 11.15.11 @ 11:49AM

Amen!

Ross Kaminsky | 11.15.11 @ 10:46AM

If you didn't read my article, how do you have standing to say what my objective is?

Do me a favor and tell me what other candidate I favored in this article.

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 11:34AM

The headline said it all, Ross.

baseballguy2001| 11.15.11 @ 1:54PM

The author is corrct, Mr. Cain isn't ready. Anybody who has seen the video and still thinks Cain is qualified is fooling themselves. POTUS isn't a job that has on the job training included.

Redatheart| 11.15.11 @ 7:23AM

The once-conservative Ms. Coulter was likely sipping exotic martini's somewhere in Manhattan last eve, prematurely celebrating Cain's demise with a perceived subsequent good fortune of Mitt.

As Cain unravels, his voters will not warm up to Romney. Whether Ms. Coulter cares to admit it or not, Romney has 70% of conservatives adamantly opposed to him. Hannity will give her every opportunity to chirp Romney's praises and snipe at anyone trying to claim his crown, but there is a heartland, grassroots reality Ms. Coulter can never tap.

Cain's voters will split between Gingrich and Perry. Perry has the money and has a strong ground game going right now in Iowa. Gingrich is the statesman that impresses easily with his anti-media tirades.

Next question that remains to be seen: will Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, et al, continue to carry Cain's water, make every excuse possible or will they dump him and move on? If they move on, to whom will they go? Will they run to the aide of Newt and try to cover his past errors? Will they take a second look at Perry who has a proven track record on jobs, energy, support for small business and military, tax reform, is stout-hearted for the Constitution, especially the 10th and 2nd Amenments? Will they reconsider him given the fact he's already defunded Planned Parenthood and made major enroads on tort reform?

To whom will they go?

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.15.11 @ 8:00AM

Redathert,
precisely the right questions. Well articulated.

I would be delighted with either Perry or Newt. SEE, I Know what their warts look like.

Redstateboy| 11.15.11 @ 8:58AM

Bravo Redatheart..! Perhaps my early campaign contribution to Perry coupled with my procratinating of a contribution to Cain was prophetic. I like Newt cause he would slice and dice Das Messiah in any debate and make Hussein appear the Man-child he is (so would Cain though) We're going to have to pray Rick Perry finds his tongue and gathers a tad more eloquence.

TV nonsense = lousy content| 11.15.11 @ 9:53AM

Redstateboy, sure it is very fun for all of us to envision President Obama up against a formidable debate foe this coming September.

But...get it out of your head. Get it out now (and for the MANY here to express likewise).

Why?

The majority of the electorate does not watch debates. They occur at 8 p.m. EST on a terribly busy Wednesday night for most all Americans. Is there a good time slot? No. Most people are on the go, round the clock. Life goes on and does not wait for windbag politicians who think they deserve center stage in our lives.

Thus, the thrusts and jabs and perrys of a debate go little noticed. That is just the case. Barely 4% of the voting age population watched the recent GOP South Carolina debate, right?

Plus your thinking presupposes that there will be debates (plural) with solid topics, sufficient time to answer, and no preening media hype, self-styled news gurus as the questioners (who take up most of the time with their own preening).

There is nothing that guarantees us as the PEOPLE and electorate that these candidates have to present themselves to us in this format. (If jobs are almost 10% unemployment, you think Obama and his team will want a national televised debate?)

Sure, we'd all love to see Obama have to answer to his failings by a very rigorous, focused, intense debater. And Newt could do this to him. As could Cain. But it just wouldn't play out that way.

Sad but true.

You'll see.

Reagan Loyalist| 11.15.11 @ 1:11PM

"Will they run to the aide of Newt and try to cover his past errors? "

I'm with Red and Ken here - at least with Newt you know what you're getting and he can waste that teleprompter in the WH!

Seek| 11.15.11 @ 11:51AM

The "once-conservative" Ann Coulter? How so? She seems to define conservative punditry, for better or worse.

somnolence| 11.15.11 @ 7:27AM

I'm also more than secure in opining that Cain is more electable than Gingrich, who abandoned his post when the going got tough. TAS certainly had a bad day today, with Jeffrey Lord pondering whether Gingrich was "America's Churchill", when the more appropriate comparison MIGHT be to Cincinnatus, Agricola, or Pericles(maybe even Vaclev Havel), but don't make me laugh with the Churchillian comparison.

Brittania once ruled the waves| 11.15.11 @ 9:56AM

For the comparison with Winnie, maybe Jeffrey Lord meant the size of the belly?

Clint| 11.15.11 @ 7:32AM

Herman Cain Was Against Auditing The FED, Before He Was For Auditing The FED

Herman Cain Was For TARP, Before He Was Against TARP.

Herman Cain Was Against Muslims In His Cabinet, Before He Was For Muslims In His Cabinet.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

somnolence| 11.15.11 @ 7:56AM

If Cain drops out I will support Bachmann. If she drops out, I will support Santorum. Only if Santorum drops out at that point would I support Romney(yes. over Perry), because at that point it boils down to who is more electable, and I say it is Romney, judging by any sense of the electoral map at that point. Gingrich might win some southern states in the general election and that is a big MIGHT. Sorry, I remain convinced that Cain and his followers will be a major impetus in the final outcome of the election. I see no other scenario.

wodiej| 11.15.11 @ 7:59AM

Your comparison of Cain to Palin is ridiculous. Palin has 20 years of public service experience with plenty of accomplishments to show her success. Cain had success in restaurant business. Palin was ready in 08 and remains so now.

Seek| 11.15.11 @ 11:54AM

Palin's 20 years of public experience? At what? Demonstrations?

She was unqualified in 2008; she's unqualified today. Give her credit for this much: She knew her chances of nomination, let alone election, were virtually zero. That's why she announced she wouldn't be running this time.

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.15.11 @ 8:02AM

Wodiej
well spoken, sir.

somnolence| 11.15.11 @ 8:04AM

I'm typical in the fact that I'm one of many people who flocked to Cain after Palin announced she was not running. That probably remains my foremost reason. If she changed her mind, I would have to abandon Herman.

NJ Mike| 11.15.11 @ 8:10AM

THe part about these objections that bother me is that it seems like we are accepting that Governing is all about knowing the "process"....well IMHO it is this obeisance to the process that has us on the path to Europe.
Foreign Policy? = America #1, mess w/us and feel our steel.
Foreign Aid? Simple, our friends get help, the rest can go to hell.
Etc..............

Len| 11.15.11 @ 8:11AM

So let's get it straight on Cain: Foreign policy, doesn't know why there is a Israeli-Palestinian conflict, didn't know China had already developed nuclear weapons ( 400 or so), wasn't aware that Musharraf was no longer in power in Pakistan, and here is unable to answer concerning Libya.

Domestically; supports unions, supported TARP, supports nationalizing the banks, said our economy was great right before it crashed, was a FED board member, and hasn't any areas in the federal government he would cut.

And this guy is a GOP frontrunner?

-------------------------------------------------------------

Cain acknowledges here that there is no authority under the US constitution for the federal reserve, but that it's okay because the congress enacted legislation. SeriouslyjQuery15205335546328325088_1321325200389 How can the congress enact legislation if not provided for under the US constitution? Not to mention his ignorance of what fiat money does to an economy, which is why the US constitution prohibits the states from making anything but gold and silver as payments. Which is why the power to COIN money was placed in the congress, to prevent issuing paper money as certain states were doing by issuing bills of credit.

The FED is not just not authorized, it's prohibited under the US constitution.

DTOM| 11.15.11 @ 9:31AM

So you want Congress to control the currency? Or the President? Whenever they need to pass a bill to reward some group of cash and carry voters they'll just print up a little more money and Presto! Problem solved and paid for!

Besides when oil hits $10,000 a barrel think of all the money, the Feds will take in on their oil leases...yeah, that's the ticket!

Yeah, that'll solve a lot of problems. Except we'll all need bulldozers and dump trucks to carry our cash around. Kind of like Weimar Germany. That'll be fun!

Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.

Len| 11.15.11 @ 9:53AM

Huh? You appear to suffer from a lack of reading comprehension. Under the US constitution there is no authority for printing fiat money. This is why I capitalized COIN. Now paper receipts for money would be constitutional, but it would still be hard money. The dollar in the US constitution is a fixed amount, dollar is merely a measurement, not a name for a piece of money. It can no (or at least isn't supposed to) more change, than a pound can be one day 15 oz., and the next 17.

This is one of those things that is frustrating like crazy, so many economically ignorant folks speaking out of their ignorance and sure they know what they know what they are talking about. It is also why we are doomed as a nation, far, far too many people who pay no attention to history, who are constitutionally illiterate, and have no grasp of economics.

DTOM| 11.15.11 @ 10:15AM

Len;

So if you end the Fed who is going to be the prime source of funds, George Soros, Bill Gates, and Larry Ellison?

What's your plan, man? How are you going to replace the function of the Fed? Who's going to be in charge of that function? If you think it can be left to market forces, how can you insure a fair, open market, free from gaming and chicanery? Another Sarbane-Oxley? Oh that'll help.

'Just end it' is not a plan. I'm tired of hearing infeasible, incomplete solutions to imaginary problems. "End the Fed" seems to share a lot with "Eat the rich!" No discernible benefit, no possible implementation, nothing but destruction. I prefer, "Free beer tomorrow" and its cousin, "Free beer yesterday!" At least there's a discernable benefit and it's easy to implement, but oh yeah, darn, you never get there!

PS Milton Friedman taught where I learned economics. Who taught where you learned?

Len| 11.15.11 @ 11:19AM

Great..I'm sure because Milton the monetarist taught where you studied economics you're a genius.

The fact that you talk about a source of funds says enough to show your lack of economic understanding, along with your lack of economic history, else you would know that there is a prime example of the market having already demonstrated how to protect currency. Not to mention that currency is no different than any other good, say meat.

Try looking up the Suffolk Bank sometime to see how money integrity was maintained by a private bank.

You also show a clear ignorance of how a free market (not private market) would work, and how absent an interfering government chicanery would be less than it is when government is involved, other than through tort laws.

As for the function of the FED, the only function it serves is to enable the connected banksters to gain wealth without actually producing anything.

DTOM| 11.15.11 @ 1:35PM

Read this and get back to us...

http://www.federalreserve.gov/.....rseri3.htm

Bumr50| 11.15.11 @ 8:30AM

Cain turnaround later this week.

He had one bad interview. So what?

He's absolutely pro-life, in fact knows full well that China has nuclear weapons, and gave a respectable answer.

I'm never voting for Mitt Romney, and don't trust Gingrich as far as I could throw him.

Throwing Cain under the bus seems to be the cause du jour among conservative writers that would like to "thin the herd." Let's just see how he does in Iowa.

Len| 11.15.11 @ 8:39AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gdDTsulrYU

Watch the above and tell me again how Cain knows full well that China has nuclear weapons.

Bumr50| 11.15.11 @ 9:07AM

He was speaking to reactor technology in naval vessels.

The man studied Chinese ballistic technology.

He clearly knows full well that China has nuclear weapons.

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 11:18AM

Len's a Paul-bot. What would you expect?

Len| 11.15.11 @ 12:53PM

Margie, watch this..

Margie's a Cain-bot, argument won. WHEEE!!! So easy to argue by avoiding facts, analysis and reasoning of any kind. Your response to Mr. Kaminsky above shows you will hold to your narrative irregardless of facts, well that and your continued issuing of opinions without ever bothering to support them in any manner.

I mean the man damned himself with his own words in a video concerning China and that's not enough. This kind of following people by faith only even when debate after debate and interview after interview shows a shallowness that looks to men in a cult-like manner.

Do not put your trust in princes,
in human beings, who cannot save.

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 1:13PM

I wasn't trying to win an argument with you, Len.
I was simply stating a fact.

And that verse you quoted at the end?
First of all you ought to post the address of the Scripture.
Second of all, I'd say the verse applies more to you than it does me.
After all, you worship at the feet of Ru Paul, don't you?
So, in other words: STUFF IT.

kate| 11.18.11 @ 6:48AM

So where is clint? oh, that's right. same person.

Ross Kaminsky | 11.15.11 @ 9:13AM

Bumr,

Cain's entire interview yesterday was weak. Far more bad moments than good. Came across as very much not ready for the presidency.

I did not write this feeling happy. I have liked Mr. Cain and could have imagined supporting him, but at this point I just can't.

Stormzeye| 11.15.11 @ 9:56AM

Ross, I have to agree with you. I don't think Cain has thought about many of these issues for the past thirty years as many of us policy wonks of his generation have. He has found himself on center stage without having put in the difficult preparation in politics, economics, foreign policy and law that is required of a Presidential aspirant. These matters must be wrestled with for years so that a grasp of the many opposing arguments are understood, not just learned. He lacks that understanding of many issues.

Pecos Pete| 11.15.11 @ 8:36AM

Mr. Cain's response on the collective bargaining issue of federal employees has caused me to change my opinion of his conservative credentials.

The proper answer was: Under no circumstances should public employees be allowed to join unions.

I now, mostly, agree with Ross Kaminsky that Mr. Cain is in over his head. Disappointing.

RR Job| 11.15.11 @ 10:13AM

If you had the MACHINE now bringing out bimbo #1, bimbo #2, bimbo #3, bimbo #4, and bitch Allred WITH full-scale MSM 24/7 tsunami on you....well, you think you'd be firing perfectly on all cylinders, just smiling, letting sage AND mesaured answers just glide off your lips?

Never forget that we make this stupid road to the White House a silly, daily, exhausting, mind-numbing 75 cities in 100 days! three ring CIRCUS. And as candidate you are the ringmaster.

You must be jack of all trades:

Cain has had to reassure supporters, buck up those on his staff, answer mindless media querries, and comfort his own wife, children. (You don't stop being a husband or father on the campaign trail.)

The Ross Kaminskys of this world seem to think that, given a similar 3- week full-press pandimonium, he would be able to sit back comfortably in a big Windsor Chair, fielding all and sundry in a Q & A with the ease of Charlton Heston and voice of Alistair Cooke.

Ross K. allows a man like Cain to be pilloried in the most vile way. He then jumps on when the man misses a beat or two.

Thanks, punk writer.

Ross Kaminsky | 11.15.11 @ 11:23AM

RR,

Which GOP candidate did worse than Mr. Cain in Saturday's foreign policy debate, and which has given an interview as bad as Cain's interview yesterday?

Best,
Punk Writer

loulou| 11.15.11 @ 11:51AM

Mitt Romney did worse than Herman Cain. We're tired of pre-rehearsed robotic answers.
Does RINO Romney ever reflect on anything?? No, he's programmed.

Both Perry and Newt also did better than Romney.

RR Job| 11.15.11 @ 12:21PM

The big issues of our day are many. But, on international affairs, we can go back to Ronald Reagan (Nixon, LBJ, and Carter) and find foreign policy gaffes aplenty.

Has the USA solved the terrible neighbor (Mexico) issue in the last 40 years? Cuba? The rise of Chavez in Venezuela and his accolyte in Boliva (all right in America's back yard) Has Latin America become a safe place for Americans to travel, send their kids on student exhange programs, and do business 365/year? Did we save Lebanon? Why is Russia returning to the USSR glory days? Iraq will be a basket case of a different color in just 3 years time. Egypt? Turkey? Real through and through friends in Europe? China tugging friends and allies away from Taiwan. China turning the near Pacific into their ocean.

I don't see one area outside some successes in Asia where our foreign policy governmental betters (And all those Ivy League trained hacks) have done good in the last 30 years. Except: Japan. S. Korea. Maybe India.

Oh, we saved Grenada. That's right.

One can know plenty about our world and SAY all the right things. And?

Why do we believe the hype that FOREIGN POLICY is the stud muffin zone of those who are truly PRESIDENTIAL material.

What? Does Mitt Romney claim speicial international relations skills due to his role with the IOC and charing the OOC for the Salt Lake winter games?

It is almost a set-up to ask Cain foreign policy items.

See -- we ask foreign policy issues because they are easy questions.

It is far more difficult to talk how to best synergize the worlds of banking, education, vocational prep, single parenting, finance, industry, mineral resources, labor unions, govt. regulations (130 years of it on the books)....

We just prefer those "SEXY" foreing policy questions don't we?

What do we need? A presidential candidate that is fancifully, fictionally 115 years old (yet still as full of life as a 46 year old), one who has equally spent his life with 20 years in industry, 15 in banking, 10 in health care, 10 in military or police service, and 20 living abroad at all the wonky international affairs cocktail gatherings?

Does this person exist? We all know the answer.

No, we should not oversimplify. But I know people who can talk for days on the history, travails, atrocities, and failed hopes of places like Eastern Europe, the Balkans, North Africa....

Usually they are paralyzed when.....when they finally stop talking and are asked, "Well, given ALL OF THAT, what are 3 or 4 concrete, do-able things that the US could or should do in that region?"

Silence. Long silence. Followed by more babbling. For the next 95 minutes.

Oh, but that guy knows the region! He knows not only the sitting leaders, cabinet memebers all by first name, oppostion leaders, top four-star chefs in those lands, star opera sopranos, and star forwards on their footballing national sides....oh he does!

But he doesn't really know what could or should be done. Or if doing nothing at all is the WISE choice.

A president does not do the job alone. A president is not supposed to be able to be a details guy that knows the fine little gritty points of detail on the Penn State pervert(s), OPEC shinanigans, international mafia consortiums, coco bean prices, impact of 4-day-weekend Black Friday, new Troubles in N. Ireland, and Libyan bombing runs being done by British and French aircraft with US AWACS support.

Look to the posts below. Where others talk how it might be to have your entire character put on trial due to 15 year old stale allegations. I can throw any candidate off his game if I start monkeying with his past.

PJ| 11.15.11 @ 8:43AM

Seems to me Herman Cain doesn't have a top tier campaign team to help him w/the answers. Can probably say the same thing about Rick Perry too. I'm not looking at Perry any more; I want someone who can communicate effectively. I do not want another George.

Romney seems to have a good team guiding him. Why? I don't consider Romney to be as smart as Cain, yet, he is able to communicate his message effectively.

Newt Gringrich on the other hand is smart & not because he has a PhD. I've seen his interviews & some of the debates. He's consistent & right on topic even while having campaign team problems. (Has that been corrected?) Granted, his past personal life may not be that moral (although I recently read something contrary) & his public appearances w/THAT woman on global warming is not very "kosher." I think he realizes that he made a few mistakes.

In this day & age, where the whole world is about ready to explode, we need someone smart, can communicate, & follow his beliefs.

I'm still looking at Cain. Yet, I am also taking another look at Gringrich because to me he has a solid leadership, reasonably conservative record. Ultimately,we can not afford to have another putz or this current one in the WH.

Silas| 11.15.11 @ 10:21AM

Romney has a 'good' team behind him because he's been doing this already for 5 1/2 years. Consider them the veterans.

And those on his team are a collection of pariahs, parasites, has beens, and wannabes. They are a lot of ones who've been on the sidelines and fully believe it is there time to take center stage on the field.

Romney is their wining lottery ticket to a higher posting in life, more prestige, better offices, better money. They don't necessarily believe in Romney or his thinking or his capabilities. They just see him as the one (due to looks, voice, stature) who will win and thus their prospects for a great job starting January 2012 look superb.

They've lassoed on to their star. They've placed themselves firmly to the belly of the whale.

This is how the old school, broke politics that give you $15 trillion debt works.

PJ| 11.15.11 @ 4:03PM

"They are a lot of ones who've been on the sidelines and fully believe it is there time to take center stage on the field."

I get that same vibe from Romney's camp too.

richard ryan| 11.15.11 @ 12:30PM

I'm right with you. Was Cain all the way, now I'm having second thoughts about his electability (not his abilities as a leader). Newt is an extremely gifted orator, and he seems to have a newly found "give em hell" attitude. Here's another thing I like about Newt: he knows all the ins and outs and just plain BS that goes on in the halls of Congress. A president can have great ideas, but the legislation is what gets results- Newt knows this process well. It's a filthy, shameless game they play, but at least he understands it.

PJ| 11.15.11 @ 4:07PM

I agree 100% w/you.

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.15.11 @ 8:54AM

Ross
I must say I would be frightened of Mr. Cain as a sitting President. He has never had to order men out to die if need-be, in combat.
Governors on the other hand understand that burden.

Timothy L. Pennell| 11.15.11 @ 9:08AM

You've got to be kidding. Please scroll down to my piece, and then get back to me.

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 1:08PM

Tim:

Ken is NOT the man you thought he was, as you can see.

DTOM| 11.15.11 @ 9:34AM

Mr. Texican,

Who on the Republican list has?

If you are going to count National Guard mobilizations, you might have to talk Mrs. P into getting back up there...

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.15.11 @ 12:15PM

DTOM
Point well taken. Except Texas has sent a LOT of Guardsmen into harm’s way. Governor Perry has buried a lot…(quietly out of the spotlight).
We also have the Texas Rangers in combat daily along the Texas border.
Governor Perry also put his own ass on the line flying troops himself.
I think we can trust the man.
Best regards

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 1:07PM

Perhaps we can trust Rick Perry, but a reprobate lying filthy scumbag like you who sees fit to try and destroy a woman like me, who loves God, and loves my own husband, who stands on the Word of God here for years against liars who try and pervert the Scriptures, a man who has NO CONSCIENCE what so EVER~ YOU we cannot trust.

YOU have proven that you are a BLATANT LIAR.

FIRST you say I asked you to marry me: FALSE.
You said you "HAVER THE EMAILS TO PROVE IT."
I SAID POST THEM.
YOU DID NOT AND COULD NOT!
NOW YOU changed your freaking story.
NOW YOU SAY I did NOT ASKY YOU TO MARRY ME BUT THAT I INQUIRED ABOUT YOUR MARITAL STATUS AND ASKED YOU TO DELETE THE EMAIL!!!

What an idiot.

Everyone can see what a liar you are!

DTOM| 11.15.11 @ 1:39PM

Margie:

Look at yourself 'throwing body fluids.'

Who are you calling hypocrite?

That's a mirror you are looking in, dear thing.

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 2:04PM

Asshole:

I'm sorry, but you just prove what a PUNK you are.
Ken has falsely accused me of DISGUSTING ADULTERY, of which I am not guilty.
IT IS NOT HYPOCRITICAL TO DEFEND MY SELF HERE IN PUBLIC AS HE ACCUSES ME PUBLICLY.

SCUMBAG PUNK.

Ross Kaminsky | 11.15.11 @ 2:33PM

Margie,

What on earth are you talking about?

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 11.15.11 @ 2:49PM

LOL.. I believe the expression "too much information" is fitting..

kate| 11.18.11 @ 7:12AM

it is called "over-sharing" in my circle ... :)

Drunken Sailor| 11.15.11 @ 3:22PM

Ross,
Forget it, it's a long standing argument between Margie and Ken that Margie still has issues with. Way to much info.

Steve| 11.15.11 @ 4:37PM

Ross,
Just read some of Margie's comments about religion and you also will ignore her.

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 5:39PM

So, DS: If a prominent personality at a website you had been posting at for almost 3 years suddenly accused you of wanting to marry her, and that you sent her e mails to this effect, in order to turn everyone against you.. claiming he has the "evidence" in the emails,and then refuses to post them, though you tell her to~ then when that doesn't work, she changes her story and says oh no, you really didn't ask her to marry you.. but that you wrote to her and expressed sadness in your own marriage, and then "inquired how hers was going".. and that you asked her to "delete the email so that your wife didn't see it",
THAT wouldn't piss you off? It wouldn't outrage you?
This accusation is one of horror to a Christian, as it is an accusation of Adultery. Biblically speaking, he is saying that I wanted to commit Adultery.

He is the one who began this attempt at slander here. He has sent me warning e mails that he wants to me shut up here speaking Scriptures or saying what I think to others, and has told me "You're TOAST at AMSpec".
Well, this is how he's doing it.
I am sorry for the TMI.
I truly am, but how can I NOT speak up in the face of it?
Ken thinks he can succeed at this and he may succeed at turning others against me on this planet, but he;ll spend eternity in Hell for it.

Drunken Sailor| 11.16.11 @ 9:17AM

Yes, Margie it would make me angry for a short time, but I would get over it. A anonymous poster on the web's opinion has no bearing on me or my marriage. Like Clint, I would ignore them. It only has power over you if you let it. Keep your grudge if you must but I am simply trying to tell you that if your concerned about your image, posting your dirty laundry every chance you get doesn't help.

Margie| 11.16.11 @ 12:49PM

I have no dirty laundry to post. Nothing in the e mails I have posted is dirty.
I am defending myself here because he has accused me of wanting to cheat on my husband.
He has claimed he had the e mails to prove it.
I asked him to post the supposed DIRTY e mails, and he never did, proving he's a fraud.
Then in a new twist, yesterday he tried to claim no, I didn't ask him to marry me, which is a joke, but that now the story is that I "proclaimed my undying love" to him (barf), and that he cannot present these e mails "because I asked him to delete them!"

Well, well, well. Now why didn't he say that in the first place!

So, as I asked you, Drunken Sailor~ please be a man of integrity here, and do not say I am airing "my dirty laundry."
I have DONE NO SUCH THING.
And I will continue to post the INNOCENT e mails between us for ALL TO SEE in MY OWN DEFENSE, since so far I am unable to take this lying piece of FILTH to court.

Unless of course there is a lawyer here who will contact me: wehavetoomuchstuff@gmail.com.

Why should I not defend my innocence here in public where he is FALSELY ACCUSING?

And by you saying it's "a grudge" is disingenuous. It's not a grudge, it is an active disgusting false accusation that I choose to defend by showing what a fraud and a liar he is.

And by you insisting on saying I'm airung my dirty laundry, when there's nothing DIRTY on my part towards this disgusting man, is DISINGENUOUS.

And by saying I should "Get over it" REEKS OF BILL CLINTON.

I have lost ALL respect for you, man.
THANKS A LOT.

Drunken Sailor| 11.16.11 @ 2:08PM

Margie,
Grudge =A deep-seated feeling of resentment or rancor.
You do bear a grudge, be it right or wrong and I can't say I blame you if what you say is true. All I am saying is you will never sway Ken if that is the case and there isn't a single person on this board whose opinion should matter to you. Those that you consider friends will not judge you by those accusations.

And by "Get over it" I mean for you to move past it, stop letting him have any hold over you. That is the way to defeat him. As long as things are good between you and your husband why do you care what Ken says? Nothing disingenous about that.

Like I said I am simply trying to help and if you don't want it simply tell me. Sorry you have lost respect for me but your constantly bringing this item up everytime Ken post something you disagree with doesn't hurt him at all. It only comes across bad and I have seen the good in your post. Hate to think others only see the bad. Do as you will and I'll keep my 2 cents to myself.
Hope you find a resolution that satisfies you.

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 1:26PM

Drunken Sailor:

Tell the God of the Bible about holding grudges.
Do you know anything about HIS Wrath?

Let me tell you how ANGRY He is at liars and slanderers:

"But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death." Rv. 21:8.

"Him who slanders his neighbor secretly I will destroy. The man of haughty looks and arrogant heart I will not endure." Ps. 101:5.

"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him." Jn. 3:36.

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 5:42PM

Ross: If you really want to know e mail here: wehavetoomuchstuff@gmail.com.
But I've pretty much explained it to DS below.
Know a good lawyer for libel? Defamation?

Stan| 11.15.11 @ 6:17PM

Margie,
You do a great job of turning people against you. You don't need Ken or anyone else.

Ross Kaminsky | 11.15.11 @ 6:43PM

Frankly, Margie, given the way you interact here (and I'm not talking about whatever you say about me), it's easy to understand someone wanting to mess with you. For the record, very hard to accuse someone of libel or defamation if they're not actually trying to damage you. If anything like what you claim was said actually was said, most readers would probably have recognized it as a joke, and a fairly amusing one at that given how unappealing your personality seems to be when you scold and curse fellow commenters.

I suggest you take a deep breath and ask yourself why people are reacting to you the way they/we are.

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 6:51PM

Pretty sick.
So you find it funny.
What a creep.

Nick| 11.15.11 @ 11:44PM

Margie,

You are mistaken, once again.
You have only been posting here, at AmSpec, for a little over 2 years.
God Bless!

Margie| 11.16.11 @ 12:50PM

You're an asshole, Nick.
FU.

Seek| 11.16.11 @ 1:47PM

You're so cute when you're mad. But you're still entertaining. Stay cool.

Nick| 11.16.11 @ 3:22PM

Love ya', Margie!
God Bless!

Margie| 11.16.11 @ 7:12PM

Screw you, Pope worshipping asshole.

Nick| 11.16.11 @ 7:31PM

Please pray for patience and understanding, Margie.
And, not to be lead into temptation, as Christ told us, in the Our Father prayer.
God Bless!

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 1:27PM

You don't worship the God of the Bible, you insipid punk.

kate| 11.18.11 @ 7:17AM

I think I've been saved... by Margie.
"Asshole, creep , FU and God"....
all in the same post.
She is a pip! And a holy one at that.
Full of Christ's forgiveness.
Moving indeed.

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 10:42AM

Ken isn't "frightened" of Herman Cain being President.
He's a liar. He just wants his man to win, and doesn't "prefer" Herman Cain, so, like the typical GOP Hierarchy along with the Paul-bot slanderers, he's on board with with trying to trash him.

Hey Ken the false accuser~ you still haven't provided your "proof" against me, that I asked you to marry me! Buck up, dude.
LOL.

RCV| 11.15.11 @ 4:23PM

Margie - The rest of the world isn't interested in your personal spat with Ken and the details of your emails back and forth. Can you just comment on the merits of the topics and stop calling everyone vile names?

Steve| 11.15.11 @ 5:11PM

Margie has no comments except calling people vile names and her spat with Ken.

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 5:47PM

RCV~ Then tell your friend to repent of his SIN.
You're a lawyer, you know exactly what he's doing, don't you?
You know he's made this false accusation a public one.
What would YOU do?
If I get a lawyer it'll have to be in Texas, and Ken knows I can't do it. He knows I have not the means, which makes him even MORE despicable.
So, my only means of defense is here, in the public domain, where he has brought the charge.
Now, if you don't want to be a hypocrite, and are SUPPOSEDLY a Christian, you would deal honestly, and call him to account, as you have seen what he is doing.
First laying one charge, then changing it to cover his butt.
You understand it fully.
As a lawyer~ you COULD help me.
If you were truly a Christian.
Are you?

RCV| 11.15.11 @ 6:33PM

Margie: I understand your frustration from your perspective. My only point is that you've laid out your case on what Ken has said, and there's simply nothing to be served by bringing it up repeatedly. Can't we stay on topic and leave the personal stuff aside.

As you well know, I've had my own disputes with Ken and what he's said to me. At the request of our mutual friend Occam, we've both agreed to simply deal with each other less on a less hostile and personal basis. I know Occam -- whom you respect as well -- would be equally happy if all of us did that.

Even if I wasn't personally a witness to all this, and therefore disqualified from serving as counsel, I've never been licensed to practice in Texas and couldn't help you there. It's easy to get "small-towned" in that state, and I've always therefore retained Texas counsel when clients have litigation there.

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 7:54PM

Ken accused you of reporting him to Homeland Security once, and you denied it.

At the time, I didn't think it could be possible that he would be lying, but now, forget it.

And, he just laid out another angle on his story~ and changed it to cover his butt. Sounds like he's been consulting a lawyer himself.

What a coward.

And the topic happens to be slander here, interestingly enough. Ken's false accusations fit right in.
He sees fit to try and destroy my character, just as he does to Herman Cain's. He's right there along with the Left in this.
Creepy scumbag.
No, I'm never going to "let it go."
This filthy creep has threatened me to keep silent as to my Christianity, and since I wouldn't, he's promised to make me "TOAST" as the arrogant bastard said.
We'll see who is TOAST, won't we, Ken?

loulou| 11.15.11 @ 11:53AM

You're frightened--ooohhhhh.
Don't be such a pantywaist. Man up.

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 12:33PM

He fears no one, including God.
He sees fit to lie and slander here, yet refuses to present the evidence.
He's a scumbag.

Appleby| 11.15.11 @ 8:58AM

A lot of people are for Cain because they want to see him debate Obama and the heads of the MSM explode. This is not the kind of test we need for a future President.

I will not vote for Mitt Romney for many reasons. I would vote for Uncle Newt (as he is known in our family) if he promises to serve only one term, and if he chooses a running mate who promises to step in and run for the next term. Uncle Newt knows what is needed for the immediate term and he is in fact an American first, which Romney is not; but Uncle Newt is a wartime President and when the war is fought, if he gets re-elected he will still be fighting the war.

I personally support Uncle Newt because he actually knows American history and isnt afraid to teach it to two generations who know nothing that happened before 1968.

DTOM| 11.15.11 @ 9:37AM

Why ask a candidate to render himself a lame duck before he is even elected?

That is a senseless, counter-productive request to make of any candidate. Please, think it through, then forget it. Thanks.

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 10:45AM

Let's face it, Appleby's for "Uncle Newt" because he's a Catholic.
Ugh. So freaking shallow.
Get a clue.

Steve| 11.15.11 @ 11:45AM

Another intelligent comment by the village idiot and bigot Margie.
Are you opposed to Newt and Santorum because they are Catholic? Are you for Cain and Bachman because they are Protestant? Are you against Romney and Huntsman because they are Mormons?
Stick to the personal attacks against Clint and Ken, which is your strong suit, and avoid politics.

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 12:14PM

Stuff it, asshole.

Clint | 11.15.11 @ 12:25PM

American Spectator's Resident Religious Bigot Twin, Crank Lady Margie Is In The Building.

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 12:30PM

Clint the Pope worshipper:

How come you refuse to post the words of your cult leader here, showing he is a Supersessionist anti-semite?
Hmm?
"Put up or shut up."

Clint | 11.15.11 @ 1:38PM

Asked & Answered American Spectator's Resident Maniac Religious Bigot Crank Lady Margie.

" Various forms of supersessionism have been the mainstream Christian interpretation of the New Testament since the inception of all three main historical traditions within Christianity — Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant."

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 2:06PM

No Clint,

That's not what you posted previously and you KNOW it.

You posted the words of the current Pope, showing he believes that ISRAEL IS NULL & VOID>

Come on, coward, put up or shut up.

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.15.11 @ 12:39PM

From Margie the "Christian" "Stuff it a,,h,,,"

Well folks,
let’s put Margie at ease at last. Margie NEVER asked me to marry her.
What she DID do was express her undying love for me, (I had been defending her for months here before she went on her anti-Roman church crusade).
Then she expressed her sadness in her marriage choice….and then asked me about my own marital status. She ended the e-mail asking me to immediately delete her e-mail to keep it secret from her husband…which I did.

Draw your own conclusions.

Since that time, I went WAY out of my way to set her and her husband up in an internet business …at no investment…with one of my stockholders. She and her husband could not make it go.
Now you folks know why she screams every time she sees my name.
End of story.

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 12:56PM

You freaking lying scumbag.
POST THE E MAILS.
Or else continue to prove what a peoce of filth you are.
We've been waiting.. where are the e mails you punk.

And as to my language? I'm sorry, hypocrite liar, but you've called people assholes far more many times than my ONE SLIP here at a despicable lying Troll.

And I have posted YOUR e mails to me concerning this "business."
WOW> Now you are calling it an internet business.
Ken, you are a true reprobate, and you know it.
My husband and I have had an "internet" business for 10 years. It's called ebay. We are TOP SELLERS you freaking fraud.
An acquaintance of yours who you gave his phone number, sells car brochures, and he NOT YOU sent us some of them to sell.
They are ones of lesser value. WE PAID THE SHIPPING COST AND ARE PAYING FOR THE BROCHURES.
They are worth $200.00 you freaking liar.

NOW: POST THE EVIDENCE YOU HAVE AGAINST ME.

You will burn in HELL for what you are trying to do to me here.

OH LOL! Now you say I asked you to delete it!

But before you claimed you HAD THE E MAILS TO PROVE IT!

Did your lawyer come up with that one?
LOL!
You make the perfect Democrat. No wonder you suck up to RCV and the other lying Leftist Trolls here, and NO WONDER you see fit to trash Herman Cain.
You wouldn't recognize a true conservative if he bit you on your lying rear end.
Scumbag.

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 12:59PM

I NEVER ASKED YOU ABOUT YOUR MARRIAGE STATUS YOU FREAKING SCUMBAG.

FOLKS:

He said previously he had the e mails to PROVE I asked him to marry him.
Now he changed it to I asked him about his marriage.
SICKENING.
And now he says I asked him to delete them!!!!
NOT WHAT HE SAID BEFORE!
SO.. you all can see who the liar is!

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 1:00PM

Undying love for you?
I am puking in my mouth.
My husband is the only man that I love.
You filthy filthy liar.

Drunken Sailor| 11.15.11 @ 3:24PM

Both of you need to let it go. Nothing but dirty laundry.

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 5:49PM

It is NOT dirty laundry, DS.
I HAVE NO DIRTY LAUNDRY.
I did not do what he is claiming.
SEE MY ABOVE POST TO YOU and please do not assign to me any such unfaithful behavior.

Drunken Sailor| 11.16.11 @ 9:22AM

I never questioned your faith be it in Christ or your marriage. I do not judge by other people's opinions of someone but by that persons actions. I know it may be hard to see but I am trying to help you. Let your anger go and ignore the drama. One (or more) man's opinion should not mean that much to you unless they are close to you. Being a Christian you know it is only what God thinks of you that matters so ignore it and move on. Sooner or later they will tire of trying to get a response from you and the matter will drop.

Good Luck.

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 10:55PM

Ken the scumbag said this:

"let’s put Margie at ease at last. Margie NEVER asked me to marry her.
What she DID do was express her undying love for me, (I had been defending her for months here before she went on her anti-Roman church crusade).
Then she expressed her sadness in her marriage choice….and then asked me about my own marital status. She ended the e-mail asking me to immediately delete her e-mail to keep it secret from her husband…which I did."

Sick bastard.
Here's just ONE e mail between us. Yes, judge for yourselves people.
And I will continue to post the e mails, in my defense:

His reply:
I commend one single little book to you. you an get it at amazon.com or any decent bookstore.
"Man's Search For Meaning" by Victor Frankl (correct spelling there). Perhaps the most revered man in Psychiatric History. Paperback is available.

Reading it was the second watershed event in my life, the first of course being intoduced to Jesus Christ.
Woman, you are immensly important in God's scheme of things. Never doubt it again.

Gotta run. Hope you enjoy the essays on our site. More will be coming soon, but digest those and please comment to me via e-mail.
Ken

--- On Fri, 11/13/09, Margie wrote: wrote:

From: Margie
Subject: Re: Hi from Ken
To: "Ken" @*******
Date: Friday, November 13, 2009, 10:23 AM

Your kindness actually produced tears.. I don't view myself in a good way. Sometimes I witness to the youg souls because Jesus would want me to and it's easy to talk to them because they're young. But when it comes to the adults who are provoking, and especially insulting and demeaning, like Toddard, I lose it. That answer back that spirit is like answering the devil, and I always seem to lose. The devil knows my weakness and it is being called stupid, or an idiot. I need to really pray about that.

I wish I could be your wife's best friend, or at least a friend. I'm actually dead alone, besides my husband. My entire family are Liberals and have rejected me for the most part. It saddens me daily.
"But you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood." Not to be compared in any way with Christ's suffering and how could I even compare anything to His suffering. as I am the foremost of sinners, like Paul.

I HOPE too that Sarah runs for President. I love her like a sister. When ever she would speak when running with John McCain on the tral, I used to break down and cry (I'm a real weakling) She is a wonderful, beautiful person and I so admire her. I am afraid she would be the ONLY one who could cause us to win. Though I prefer the men to run things in general, :^) I know she would TAKE THE NATION BY STORM just like she did before. IMy only fear is if she ran on a third Party ticket but maybe it's a silly fear?? I am truly fearing right now for our country because of the split and turn against the Republican Party.. I understand hating RINO's is a GOOD thing and I have ALWAYS despised them too, but insted of people backing conservatives within the Party it seems like they are totally rejecting it because of Glen Beck.. I just think he is going to cause a Dem to get elected. Hasn't History been teaching us that third parties don't work? I'd like to know your thoughts.
Margie
p.s. I joined at TEAM America!

~~END~~

Yeah folks, that REALLY shows how underhanded I was, eh?

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 1:31PM

Ken, How is that 'deal" you have going with God? Ya know, the one you told me about on the phone that day?
YOU USED THE NAME OF THE LORD IN VAIN and when I started to say something to you about it it, WHAT DID YOU SAY?

You said in a very strong voice: "DON'T EVEN GO THERE!" You told me that you have a deal with God about it.
You sick filthy reprobate.
And you're going to confront ME about my slip of the tongue, when you use the word arse*** here repeatedly? Along with "screw you" and other fine things?

You will burn in HELL for what you are doing to me here.

Steve| 11.15.11 @ 1:36PM

Margie the village idiot,
What not using your other name Craig today when you use the word asshole, real lady.
Brilliant reply, about what I expected from a foul mouthed idiot bigot.

Ross Kaminsky | 11.15.11 @ 2:33PM

Margie, cut out the gutter language. Now.

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 5:53PM

Ross,

Do you see fit to say this to me, yet the false charge of wanting to commit Adultery by Ken is not FAR WORSE??

You are right, I should not use that word.
I will use it the way Ken the liar has used it.
Will you deal with it accordingly?
He has always put it this way: ARSEhole, or *** hole or some such thing.
It means the same thing, doesn't it?
But when your pals use it it's fine.

Ross, what would YOU do here if someone was libeling you????
Would you not be outraged?

Ross Kaminsky | 11.15.11 @ 6:46PM

The idea of a "false charge of wanting to commit adultery by Ken" is laugh-out-loud funny.

And no, it's not fine when others use foul language on these pages either. I just haven't noticed such a consistent trail of it as I have from you.

If someone were libeling me, I would be upset. But clearly that is not what is happening to you. You're just hypersensitive, which is exactly why people are making fun of you. The ball is in your court.

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 6:55PM

Really Ross?
I guess you can't read. Or you're blind.
Oh, and I thought you were a Libertarian. yet you want to censor me here? Speaking of funny, I've never ever EVER seen you take issue with ANYONE'S language here before.
Hypocrite.

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 12:28PM

Aren't you the same Troll that just below said this:
Steve| 11.15.11 @ 11:50AM

Ross,
I like Cain, but many of his supporters here make excuses for him that they wouldn't make for a white candidate, just like the Democrats made excuses for Obama.

Idiot.

And I was for Santorum til he threw Cain under the bus, jumping on the bandwagon and proved what a liar he was, and accusing Cain of being pro abortion.
He really IS a self righteous Catholic, much like yourself and your stupid pals.

Unlike the Pharisitical Catholics here, I don't vote based on the candidate's Religion, but on their character.
And Herman Cain's got it.
And I'd gladly vote for Newt as well, I've always said he's a brilliant thinker.
But you're a freaking Troll. Today you're Steve, but you're the same scumbag that harasses me here daily, and you care NOTHING for the truth because it's not in you.
You disregard my answers to you and continue to lie.
Heh, lotsa luck standing before your Creator you insipid fool.

And I don't throw good men under the bus and make up lies about them, just because they aren't Catholic, idiot.

If your stupid Catholic bigot pal Appleby can say we must want to vote for Cain for the sole reason of seeing MSM heads explode, and no other reason than that (and that's an underhanded insult), then I can say she wants Uncle Newt in office because she's a freaking Pope worshipper.

Don't like it, punk?

Stuff it.

Steve| 11.15.11 @ 1:39PM

Margie,
I should not have called you an idiot. You need psychiatric help.

kate| 11.16.11 @ 1:07PM

where are the moderators? 20 somethings laughing?
This is a political site and there are many very bright people posting here.
Take your personal problems to another place please.
Let us all email AS and let them know that enough is enough.

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 1:31PM

Buzz off, Troll.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 11.15.11 @ 9:02AM

Well, as anyone who reads these comment boards can attest, I support Cain as much as anyone. This has made me think twice. I can give a better answer on public sector collective bargaining than he gave.

That being said, I still contend that we just need a good manager in the white house, not necessarily someone with all the answers.

And why are you guys trying to say that Sarah Palin's experience is so much more valuable than Herman Cain's? To say that Executive experience as a governor is better than executive experience in a corporation is a bit of a stretch.

Why can't we just say that Sarah Palin proved herself to be a very good governor and Herman Cain proved himself to be a very good CEO?

Why is that so difficult for some of you? Always cutting someone else down to make your guy look better.

Rick Perry has a great record as a governor, but he's one of the worst communicators I've ever seen. He seems to have a hard time putting together complete sentences. I just don't feel that is who should be sent up against Obama. And I was backing Rick Perry for a few weeks when he first got into the race. But you can't just ignore his inabilities.

This recent interview makes me have doubts about Herman Cain. However, Herman has done well in the debates, so I'm not ruling him out yet.

Obama is a master communicator. That is not up for debate. He may be lying, but he's damn good at it. Despite some of his candid moments, he's been a smooth operator when it comes to communication. And to think that he won't be prepared for the debates to be off teleprompter is suicidal.

I still like Newt and Herman the most. I'm going to watch the debate tonight. There's nothing wrong with being uninformed on an issue, getting informed, then developing your position. In fact, its natural.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 11.15.11 @ 9:05AM

Let me also add, as a Cain supporter, that I won't be blind to his shortcomings like Obama supporters were in 2008. But unlike Obama, I see a man with good intentions for the country and he's enough of an outsider that he may actually do things in the interest of the people, instead of government. For once.

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 10:49AM

Ya know, phil, the pontificators said the same thing about Rick Perry that they're saying now about Herman Cain~ that you can't judge him by his "debating skills."
Freaking hypocrites.

I don't FEAR Herman Cain being President like our resident Perry suck-up~ what I FEAR is the stupidity of the voters who claim to be conservative that are out there, and only see what they want to see for whom they want to see it.
And truth be damned.

Drunken Sailor| 11.15.11 @ 1:59PM

Looks like we are in the same boat Phil. I like Perry but was dissapointed. Cain has me scratching my head, wincing at some of his answers and hoping he has the time to turn things around. At least Newt seems to be steady so far.

hardcard| 11.15.11 @ 9:05AM

I think most of you are nuts>

DTOM| 11.15.11 @ 9:39AM

That's okay. Most of us think you are nuts. Thanks for the thought.

Stormzeye| 11.15.11 @ 10:03AM

After taking the time to read the preceding comments, registering your screen name then thinking long and hard for a pithy yet scathing comment, you come up with "I think most of you are nuts>"!
I suspect that with your critical thinking skills and knowledge of punctuation, you have been educated by members of the teachers' unions.

DTOM| 11.15.11 @ 10:18AM

Stormy,

Q. Does that mean it's not his fault?

A. Nope! In this country, he's is still responsible for his own emanations, no matter who taught him.

Timothy L. Pennell| 11.15.11 @ 9:07AM

I'm trying to remember Ronald Reagan's "Foreign Policy Experience". Or, Abraham Lincoln's. Did Kennedy have any Foreign Policy Experience? What about The RAPIST - Bill Clinton? I know that he PROTESTED this Country, in the Capitol of our ENEMY - Moscow. Does that count?

How many Presidents have had Foreign Policy Experience, Ross? How many have even had Economic Experience? At least Herman Cain knows how to Run a Business. He knows how to CUT COSTS, Balance the Books, Delegate Authority, and Run a BIG ENTERPRISE. And he did it, ALL BY HIMSELF!

Tell us, Ross, if you wouldn't mind, who among the others, has a better resume' than that? Let's cut with the whole Foreign Policy Experience Straw Man. NOBODY has any. That's why Presidents surround themselves with people who DO. And it's not that hard to do Foreign Policy. All you need to know, is Right from Wrong, and do what is in OUR INTERESTS.

See? Simple.

Ross Kaminsky | 11.15.11 @ 9:11AM

It's true that most presidents don't come into office with great foreign policy experience. (George H.W. Bush was a notable exception, no matter what else you may think of him.) But Cain has clearly been studying very hard, knowing that answering the questions is important, and still can't give good answers to them.

As for who has a better resume, that depends on what job you're interviewing them for. Romney and Gingrich probably both have better resumes for this job. In fact, you could argue that most of the other candidates have resumes at least as good as Cain's, if you're only judging on resume and depending on what you think is most important.

Bumr50| 11.15.11 @ 9:17AM

Cain supporter here, putting my obvious bias on hold to ask the writer a question:

Do you think that Cain is simply overreaching by giving the media way too much rope? It doesn't seem like he turns down interviews. He was clearly exhausted in this video. I personally think that he'd have been wise to have dialed it back bit over the past couple of weeks in particular.

Also, he either hasn't learned or refuses to use the art of deflection. He argues that it's a plus, but in this case it was clearly a minus. I think that this is something that he could've very easily dodged. Go pee or something. Thoughts?

Bill| 11.15.11 @ 9:36AM

Herman Cain needs to tell us the truth, or may be he needs to end his campaign.

DTOM| 11.15.11 @ 9:40AM

You imply quite clearly that Herman Cain is lying.

About what?

Drunken Sailor| 11.15.11 @ 2:02PM

Doesn't matter to Bill. His disdain for Cain has been made pretty apparent. Truth has nothing to do with his distaste.

Ross Kaminsky | 11.15.11 @ 2:39PM

Bumr,

I appreciate that question.

I don't think Cain is overreaching. As one of the least well-known of the candidates (at least until recently) and probably the least known overall platform, he has to make his views and his personality known, and thus needs to be in front of the camera perhaps more than some others.

You may be right that his performance was impacted by fatigue, but that's not a very good piece of mitigation since it's not as if the presidency is an easy job. (Although the amount Obama plays golf might make one think otherwise.)

He definitely should have deflected more. That's better than doing what he did. But at some point deflection -- which he does every time he answers a question by saying he won't know the answer until he surrounds himself with good advisors -- also gets very old.

Really, I just think he hasn't had enough time to consider the many intensely important issues of the day. You can't just bone up on this stuff and be an expert in a few weeks. And of course the other candidates can't either for issues they haven't thought about before, but most of them have been thinking about most of today's big issues -- including foreign policy -- for years.

Cain is thus at a huge disadvantage. Even Michele Bachmann is on the Intelligence Committee. In fact, I think every Republican candidate other than Romney has at least a modicum of foreign policy-related stuff on his or her resume. And Romney has had more than 5 years to be studying.

Grzmlyk| 11.15.11 @ 3:35PM

Ross, I love Cain in every way except one: His blithe ignorance on many important topics. The list of things he doesn't know continues to grow; it's not his "pause" that disturbs me.

It's his pattern of taking a rather insouciant, non-chalant attitude toward his utter lack of knowledge about the world he wants to lead. It does take time to bone up on these things, but he's muffed some pretty basic stuff, too. And, incidentally, why hasn't he boned up on this stuff better? He didn't see these questions coming?

You have to have some appetite for understanding the argot of politics if you want to be the policy-maker in chief; it'd be like somebody who wants to be an auto mechanic, but can't stand being in a garage all day.

It simply isn't good enough to say you're a problem solver and assure us that you will assemble really good problem solvers around you to, well, solve the problem. If it were that easy, we'd have cured cancer by now.

He's beginning to look like Charlie Brown missing the football every single time. This wasn't a matter of a pause, as Rush Limbaugh is rather dishonestly characterizing it.

And what's up with Cain's support of government unions' right to collective bargaining? You people who support Cain 100% have one of two options on this: Either he misspoke, which is a pretty pathetic excuse, or you agree with him that unions should have the right to go to the negotiating table without their employer - the taxpayer - being represented there. That is NOT a principled, conservative position.

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 5:56PM

No one's 100% right about everything, except God.
And I didn't hear Herman Cain say he's for collective bargaining, I don't watch t.v. so I must have missed it.
Got a link or something?
Never mind, I'll find it and if it's true, he's wrong.

G-man| 11.15.11 @ 6:23PM

I don't have a problem with collective bargaining for private employee unions but public employee unions should be restricted in the areas subject to bargaining. The reason is that a public employee unions, at the local and state level, are very involved politically and contribute to the Democratic party. In many cases the local government officials are Democrats and they are negotiating with the people who helped elect them.

W| 11.15.11 @ 6:25PM

G-man, I wrote the comment titled Gman and madae a mistake where I put the name.

DTOM| 11.15.11 @ 1:47PM

And Ronald Reagan could have written books about his understanding of foreign affairs. He fortunately lived in an era in which we had one major foe in the Soviet Union, and a secondary foe in Communist China. The Middle East was hot, for sure, but most of the action traced back to the Soviets. Today we have far more diffuse threats and opponents. Assymetric warfare also gives bit players a much better chance to threaten us on our own shores, witness 9/11...

Apparently the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel review board interview has gone viral. Herman Cain has always shown a speech pattern of waiting a few seconds to collect his thoughts before he begins an answer. Look at the O'Donnell interview. He took three or more seconds before each answer.

Taking a moment or two to frame an answer does not disprove a thirty year career of successful decision making, does it?

Apparently to some.

RND| 11.16.11 @ 8:48AM

Exactly! Thank you, DTOM.

Can anyone here tell me their position on Abu Sayyaf? Can any of the GOP candidates? How about the president himself? (If it is true that he stopped his daily national security briefs, well, the CINC may not be able to talk details on this part of the world)

What is this? Some of you know. Yes, we've had US troops involved in this area since 2002 (maybe earlier?).

How about the recently deployed 100 US troops to Africa? Which of the candidates can tell us specifically why these soldiers was sent, what the mission is, and which countries they've been assigned to aid? (Which candidates can do this without missing a beat?) Can you?

Isn't this all a bit like starting to ask candidate George W. Bush in the campaign year of 2000 a multitude of names of international leaders or former leaders, hoping to trip him up?

You can get any candidate to "freeze" and stumble around.

Our world and all its tribulations (and our US involvements) is a very big place.

Ah, except for the silver-tongued pros like a Romney who will utter syllables and phrases that sound fine but amount to nothing.

Don't we have that now whenever the Prez steps to the microphone? You want more of the same?

Interviews are words. And in politics it seems perfectly fine if the words are completely empty. Why do we place so much emphasis on words & slick answerw when deeds and actions are what counts?

Ross Kaminsky | 11.15.11 @ 9:33AM

Also, Tim, putting aside what I assume is a dislike of Romney on your part (a dislike I understand), do you have a reason to believe that Mr. Cain is better than any of the other candidates as far as "protecting our interests"?

Bill| 11.15.11 @ 9:35AM

Herman Cain is the worst candidate running for the POTUS in the history of American politics. He is disgrace and is hurting the conservative movement and the Republican Party. Who wants Cain?

DTOM| 11.15.11 @ 9:43AM

You make a judgement about candidate Cain's quality yet offer no facts or reasons. Nobody knows who you are, why should anyone accept your judgement? Because you know how to spell and type?

WHY do you say what you say?

Bill| 11.15.11 @ 10:27AM

Herman Cain is a loser, so are you, DTOM.

DTOM| 11.15.11 @ 1:54PM

Bill;

Your logic is positively bone-crushing, bonecrushing, I say! Ha ha!

You might want to look up "logic." You will find it between "loco" and "loser."

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 11.15.11 @ 11:21AM

That's a bit ridiculous. You lose credibility by saying Herman Cain is worse than a man who only had experience in Academia and community organizing.

Let's be rational.

Timothy L. Pennell| 11.15.11 @ 10:14AM

Do YOU have a reason to believe that he would be WORSE than the other people.

Lets take the Bull by the Horns, ROSS. We need someone with MORE than Political Skills. MORE than a Silver Tongue and Charm. We've got that, now.

As I stated earlier, Everything this country needs, RIGHT NOW, is on his Resume. We need JOBS. We need people BACK TO WORK. We need someone who knows how to get Businesses back on their feet, and what it takes to attract New Ones to our Shores.

NONE of the others can say the same.
NONE OF THEM!

And. let me add one more thing. It is my belief, that ONLY Herman Cain can go after Barack Obama without FEAR. All of the others will be too afraid of being called RACIST.

Now, let's do the MATH. Herman Cain will get All of the Conservatives + All of the Republicans + some of the Democrats + a lot of Blacks looking for a way out, without looking like a TOM. The way I see it, that all adds up to a LANDSLIDE. What's a little "Foreign Policy Experience" compared to THAT?

I've given you MY REASONS for Mr. Cain. What is it that you can't understand? I have given you a Mathematical Equation (ala Einstein) proving my conclusion. You're a smart boy. This is really quite simple. As the guy in the 70's Gang Movie; The Warriors, said to the assemblage in the Park: "We can do this, if you can COUNT."

You don't even have to do that. I've already done it for you.

And, NO, I don't like Romney. I think we've nominated enough people, lately, because it was "THEIR TURN", don't you?

Ross Kaminsky | 11.15.11 @ 10:49AM

Timothy,

If you want to talk math, here's my math: Cain's support among women has probably dropped to where he is not electable.

I'm with you on the whole "my turn" thing being a huge problem for the GOP, and I am not a Romney fan, though -- as crazy as this might sound -- I like him better than I like John McCain.

DRed| 11.15.11 @ 11:17AM

You guys are running a terribly weak group of candidates. That's your problem. It's not the media and it's not conservative infighting, it's just that you're not running anyone good. How can you run for president and not even know what happened in Libya recently? It's mind boggling.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 11.15.11 @ 11:23AM

Every one of them would be better at governing than Obama, who hasn't done a lick of governing. All he does is campaign and push for new entitlements.

Mal_Content| 11.15.11 @ 11:35AM

That's a mighty low bar you are setting.

DRed| 11.15.11 @ 11:52AM

Well, that's your opinion, Phil. But you're not going to win an election running a bozo who can't handle basic questions.

The Knife| 11.15.11 @ 1:09PM

Fortunately we will running against Mr. Summer of Recovery, Mr. Wind Farm, Mr. Solyndra, Mr. Death Panel, Mr. Reset Button, Mr. Lead from Behind, Mr. Chevy Volt, Mr. Really Smart Ivy Leaguer. The party is over DRed. Your gay times are over.

DRed| 11.15.11 @ 3:14PM

Say what you will about Obama, but he's obviously a very formidable campaigner. He's got a huge warchest, people still have a favorable opinion of him personally, he's a gifted public speaker and he's a sitting president. Of your frontrunners, Ron Paul is a crank, Mitt Romney is an unprincipled opportunist, Newt Gingrich is Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain doesn't know what he's talking about and Rick Perry can't remember a list with more than two things on it. Obama can certainly lose the upcoming election, but I wouldn't be so sure about it.

Drunken Sailor| 11.15.11 @ 3:27PM

Don't worry DRed, once they are in office they can do like your guy and take a teleprompter everywhere, even to talk to schoolchildren.

Not sure what you're seeing| 11.15.11 @ 11:35AM

Mr. K., I don't know what women you refer to. Conservative GOP women are paying attention but have great skepticism on the veracities of Gloria Allred and Company.

So far the blonde, boobs job Bialek is not trending as believable to most women who understand that there will be some interactions of some kinds in the professional work world and in restaurant visits before and after official engagements.

Most are wondering where these women were when Herman Cain first announced much, much earlier this year.

Were these allegations women told to hold off by the lawyers in hopes that the book deals $$ would be much larger come October/November 2011?

Factor in Mrs. Cain. Women like her. Women see her and Herman as a good couple and good team.

DTOM| 11.15.11 @ 1:58PM

I think the bimbo eruption impact is going to fade - but we won't really know for a week or two. Reporting on the so-called fade is okay - but the polls haven't had enough time to fully reflect where this is going.

Miss Bialek's old boyfriend's Gloria Allred news conference yesterday would probably help Cain except with the most feral anti-Cain voters...

I don't think Herman's going to run away any time soon.

Ross Kaminsky | 11.15.11 @ 2:42PM

From a CBS poll a few days ago: "In October, Cain led the field with 28 percent of female voters. That declined to just 15 percent in the latest poll."

To be fair, he still led the others in that poll. More here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/72395704/Poll-GOP-111111

And from the AP: "A Washington Post-ABC News poll released Tuesday shows nearly three-fourths of Republican women -- 74 percent -- now call the harassment charges against Cain serious, up from 39 percent earlier this month."

http://www.boston.com/news/loc.....s_gop_bid/

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 11.15.11 @ 2:52PM

Maybe that is precisely why the smear machine chose to accuse him of what they accused him of.. Who knows? I find it very peculiar that the allegations seem to be coming from Chicago..

RND| 11.16.11 @ 9:26AM

Please. Mr. Kaminsky, you are using a CBS poll? Or an ABC one? Do you (do any of us) ever ask "Who is stopped on the street and asked these poll questions or just who is phoned at home for these poll questions?" Who?

Smear Cain. Attack his fidelity. 24/7. Then run a poll.

Show me the questions in a poll and I'll show you 15 - 25% manipulation of the "results."

How much does this kind of poll work pay? $7.55/hour? Maybe?

I doubt you get top drawer, quality folk out there polling for that kind of cash.

loulou| 11.15.11 @ 11:57AM

Nope, you're wrong.
I and my sisters and female friends still support Cain.
Don't you comprehend? Cain has the cojones to stand up to the Borking from the left as well as the mainstream GOP? That is the most important quality we need in our leader--courage,

Seek| 11.15.11 @ 12:00PM

Cain will not get "all the conservatives" -- not even close. At any rate, the idea that the Republicans should nominate Cain so as to insulate itself from charges of "racism" is evasive and counterproductive.

Remember, this: Back in 2004, the national GOP pressured the Illinois chapter to boot Jack Ryan off the U.S. Senate race ticket. His replacement was the proverbial "best black": Alan Keyes, a true crank. Keyes lost the general election by a margin of 70%-27%. His Democratic opponent was black. His name was Barack Obama.

DTOM| 11.15.11 @ 2:03PM

Boy, you are like an NFL ref! You didn't see the first punch thrown in that deal - David Axlerod and the Chicago Tribune finding a friendly CALIFORNIA judge to unseal, sealed divorce records.

And Illinois is not exactly a hotbed of conservative voters. Get a gander of their new Senator RINO Mark Kirk. HE's working on getting tax increases, right now...

And Alan ran a very poor, carpetbagging campaign. He didn't even have an Illinois address when he ran.

I love the guy, but his campaign was a disaster.

Cain has shown far more savvy in the face of far more difficult campaign conditions than Alan ever did.

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 10:56AM

Heh, Tim, what do you expect? Ross tends to support the Libertarian candidates. He's for dope legalization. He has blamed people like me who want to keep dope illegal for the deaths of the dope takers.

And please, don't make me pull your comment to me, again Ross.

RCV is right~ we conservatives are our own worst enemy.

The Democrats just LOVE this.

Ross Kaminsky | 11.15.11 @ 11:24AM

Margie,

I am absolutely for drug legalization. And I have tended to support Libertarian candidates because the Republicans have given us such terrible nominees.

And I don't apologize for any of that.

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 11:37AM

I know you don't (apologize).
Nor do I for anything I say to you.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 11.15.11 @ 12:39PM

Tell conservatives that they can reduce the tax bill from freeing non-violent drug offenders from jail/prison by legalization and they'll be for it.. lol

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 12:45PM

Nope. They won't.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 11.15.11 @ 2:06PM

Alcohol Prohibition really worked. Are you for big government and control? I'm not.

It doesn't matter if heroine is legal, I won't be doing it. People should have the liberty to determine what is good for them and what isn't.

Same goes for food.

Drunken Sailor| 11.15.11 @ 4:24PM

As long as we aren't forced to pay for their medical expenses I could go for them legalizing drugs. Let them kill themselves off. But it's all the collateral damage they do to innocent bystanders that will cost us the most as a society.

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 5:58PM

Bingo to your last sentence.

Stefan Stackhouse| 11.15.11 @ 5:01PM

I remember listening to Reagan on the radio every afternoon, very frequently presenting a very well-informed and thoughtful commentary about a broad range of very difficult foreign affairs issues. The plain fact was that Ronnie knew his stuff, and that was obvious to anyone who listened.

Indy| 11.15.11 @ 9:20AM

Why doesn't anyone ever raise the point that even FDR was against public sector unions? Why should any group have the right to bargain against the taxpayer? Unions served their purpose a long time ago, I support private sector unions but bargaining against the taxpayer is wrong, they have seats on both sides of the table. The fiscal mess of the states is largely due to the rise of public sector unions and the defined benefit pension plans they have, the math does not work, the retirement and healthcare obligations are not something we can sustain.

Can anyone recommend a good book on the history of unions? I am always trying to self-educate and this is one topic I need to research further, thanks in advance.

ole meanie| 11.15.11 @ 9:20AM

Ross, thanks for this. We need more articles like this.

As to Cain's default position re relying on experts: How does a man who knows nothing know who is an expert? If one gives a man who knows nothing the advice of two experts, and the experts disagree, how can he be expected to know whether to accept the advice of one expert or neither expert? What do we need a middleman for anyway--why don't we just appoint an "expert" to the White House? Isn't an election a search for an "expert", or is it just a popularity contest, like Queen for a Day, where the contestant who presents the most"compelling" personal story wins the washing machine? Perhaps Cain gets irritated when he is challenged because he feels that his personal history entitles him to be Queen for a Day, with the prize being not a washing machine but the Presidency.

People forget that JFK relied heavily upon "experts". During his short tenure, we got the Bay of Pigs invasion, the Berlin Crisis, the nuclear confrontation with the Soviets, and the Vietnam War. It was the same world--and the same players-- four years before when Eisenhower was President, but we didn't have such crises, because Eisenhower had a lot of experience and knew what decisions to make.

George W Bush relied heavily on "experts"--the neocons--, and got us into nearly a decade of futile wars, while runnning up a 4 trillion dollar debt.

Obama has relied heavily on "experts" for his economic policies: Summers (Harvard professor), Goolsbee (Univ of Chicago professor), Roemer (professor at Berkeley) and Krugman (Nobel Prize winner in economics), Geithner and Bernanke. Look at the mess we are in economically.

Ross Kaminsky | 11.15.11 @ 10:50AM

Again, I know that politicians should and must rely on experts to some degree. My point is more than he's been studying for a test on which most of the questions can be anticipated and he still can't adequately answer them.

And again, I don't feel any happiness writing this stuff. I like Mr. Cain and wish he had turned out to be someone I could support.

Stefan Stackhouse| 11.15.11 @ 5:04PM

If you really know your stuff then you can talk about it intelligently and extemporaneously without having to first be briefed. The expert briefings should be for up-to-the-moment updates, not foreign policy (or geography) 101.

Bill| 11.15.11 @ 9:33AM

Herman Cain is a RINO, it does not matter whether he is ready or not to be. He was never elected and that makes him disqualified for running for the POTUS. He has no knowledge in foreign policy, and is completely illiterate on fiscal issues; his 9-9-9 plan is flawed. Cain is done and needs to end his campaign.

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 10:57AM

Bill is an utter and complete idiot, and a blatant liar who continually posts pure lies concerning Herman Cain here daily.

What an utter fool.

Ross Kaminsky | 11.15.11 @ 6:48PM

Cain is NOT a RINO, but is just not well-enough versed on policy and hasn't spent enough time thinking about political principles to have his gut instinct lead him to the right answer consistently.

Oldefarte| 11.15.11 @ 9:36AM

This country will come to its end because of internal/domestic/national issues, not foreign ones. I partially agree with Paul's position regarding same, since we have historically spent far too much time/energy/money regarding same. Cain's obvious knowledge concerning foreign issues is a fact, but that pretel is why presidents have ADVISORS. A president's main responsibility/duty is to make decisions that are in the best national interests of the nation, and therin lies the reason why most of the recent ones [especially Democrats] have been failures. They all have made basically DUMBARS decisions, and this nation's citizens and taxpayers are forever paying the price for same. We simply need someone sitting behind the oval office desk [as opposed to campaigning with a tag-along teleprompter] that knows how to analyse facts, opinions, data, situations etc and come to a reasonable/logical conclusion/decision. Cain to my way of thinking has that ability, as does Perry, Romney, and Newt. Paul and Bachmann are knowledgable idea people and could/should be useful within cabinet posts etc but maybe not as president. The job of president is one of CEO of a private corporation, in that a president decides the fate of the nation. we've had a belly-full of this worthless super-intelligent types that DON'T KNOW THEIR ARS FROM A HOLE IN THE GROUND historically!!!!!!!!!

DTOM| 11.15.11 @ 9:45AM

Ol' smelly one,

Ya got my vote!

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 10:59AM

Oldfarte is correct as usual.
It's one thing to view the candidates honestly as he has.. it's another to blatantly TRASH anyone who isn't your man.
That isn't conservatism.

Simon Templar| 11.15.11 @ 11:11AM

I second that motion.

loulou| 11.15.11 @ 12:00PM

As brilliant as Newt is, it would be a mistake to include him in Cain's cabinet. Newt is too narcissistic. He's sabotaged himself in the past and would sabotage Cain. He can't help himself.

RND | 11.15.11 @ 12:41PM

I'll chime in and say "Ya!" Oldef., you are correct.

The destruction for America is from within.

Our best foreign policy is a STRONG AMERICA of strong families, solid faith-based ethics, energized, hopeful young people (contrast our utes with what you see slogging through the streets of W. Europe)

Foreign policy does not and frankly should not be a president's strong suit.

We need a morally upright president.

One who knows to dig in and untangle all the messes we've made right here within these 50 states and our US territories.

China is bad. North Korea is a basket case. Iran spells big trouble. Russia's Putin, too.

But Americans can and will face up to these challenges when our rotting cities and rotting family situations (divorces, kids with no parents, abortions because I just wanna screw with no consquences) are over.

Kill the liberal mindset that has doomed our cities....and we just might see a rising sun on America's horizon (like Ben Franklin did).

What better man to put the lie in the mouths of the liberals than someone like Herman Cain?

This is what a president must have as JOB 1.

Fix America.

When we're flying higher than the moon (as the number 1 country in the world), this, too, is foreign policy. Others then -- on their own -- will seek in their own way to emulate.

Clint| 11.15.11 @ 9:47AM

Cain's 9-9-9 Is A Non-Starter.

Real Conservatives Will Never Allow Big Government To Have A National Sales Tax & An Income Tax.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Bill| 11.15.11 @ 10:28AM

I fully agree with Clint, Herman Cain is a RINO.

DTOM| 11.15.11 @ 10:20AM

Clint,

Do you own a keyboard? Or do you do all of your stuff with a mouse? I'm just curious.

Clint | 11.15.11 @ 11:28AM

DTOM,

Are You A Man Or A Mouse ?

Clint | 11.15.11 @ 11:30AM

Sooooo, If Ya Ain't In Cain's Opportunity Zones Then,

" The business portion of Cain’s plan apparently does not allow employers to deduct wages and salaries, which means — for all intents and purposes — that they would levy a 9 percent withholding tax on employee compensation. And that would be in addition to the 9 percent they presumably would withhold for the flat tax portion of Cain’s plan.

Employers use withholding in the current system, of course, but at least taxpayers are given credit for all that withheld tax when filling out their 1040 tax forms. Under Cain’s 9-9-9 plan, however, employees would only get credit for monies withheld for the flat tax.

In other words, there are two income taxes in Cain’s plan — the 9 percent flat tax and the hidden 9 percent income tax that is part of the VAT (this hidden income tax on wages and salaries, by the way, is a defining feature of a VAT)."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

loulou| 11.15.11 @ 12:01PM

Clint posts computer generated filler.
No one takes him seriously.

Clint | 11.15.11 @ 12:30PM

I Know That You RINO-CINO Propagandists Are Attempting To Sell Us An Economic Crap Sandwich.
9-9-9, Turned 9-0-9 Is A Crap Sandwich With Mustard On It.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 11.15.11 @ 12:42PM

Do you think that our current tax system isn't a VAT system?

Tell me how a gallon of orange juice gets to the grocery without being taxed.

Clint, your spreading of lies is not helpful to our side. All you do is help liberals (I wonder at times if you are one) build their arguments against our people.

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 12:43PM

You are a living, walking crap sandwich.

JimH| 11.15.11 @ 9:53AM

First Perry, now Cain. I initially had hopes for both and I’ve had my own ‘senior’ moments so I am not unsympathetic, but I am starting to think that the Chicoms or the DNC are experimenting with a brain freeze ray or something. Maybe on the next debate all the candidates can wear tinfoil hats and we can see if there is any improvement.

George S| 11.15.11 @ 10:02AM

I would argue that Obama has been very successful despite his inexperience. We have socialist health care in the works, government run education loans, and government control of General Motors. Energy production is outlawed. Government spending is over a trillion more than the treasury takes in. The national debt is at an all-time high. Public sector employment is at an all-time high. The Middle East is at a rapid boil; China and Russia are a direct threat. The TSA has outdone the SS in their search for hidden Jews contraband. But most important, Obama has installed judges that will preserve statism for at least another generation.

Was all that borne of inexperience? No, it was a commitment to ideology and the unashamed application of power to attain it. This is what is needed on our part to overturn the Obama years. Experience candidates who comfortably and deftly surf the system will only institutionalize the last three years. What is needed is someone with the same focus and determination to remake this nation back into a constitutional republic.

So which is it: an experienced policy wonk who'll make the trains run on time or a leader committed to changing the direction of the train.

Simon Templar| 11.15.11 @ 10:55AM

George, you are wasting your time trying to explain this to these idiots. I am convinced that there is something inherently flawed and wrong in many conservatives.

They really do not want to win. As liberals hold white guilt and are obsessed with feeling good about themselves, conservatives secretly believe they are unworthy and believe the crap the liberals say about them.

Just look at the true morons out here spewing and echoing the same slander and crap the liberals are saying not just about Cain but on all of them.

They can not even come up with their OWN original and accurate criticism of their OWN candidates. Disgustingly pathetic.

Do not even get me started on their acceptance and actual worship of the political double standards that the Liberals get them to comply with...

loulou| 11.15.11 @ 12:04PM

You are confusing Republicans with conservatives. Republicans like to be in the minority so they can get points for reaching across the aisle. They love to address their enemies as "my good friend."

Conservatives want to win which is why a true conservative will not vote for Romney, the Democrat and GOP elite approved candidate.

Simon Templar| 11.15.11 @ 12:27PM

I stand corrected. There must be a hell of a lot of republicans posting here and writing articles here.

W| 11.15.11 @ 7:25PM

George,
Who is the leader you believe is committed to changing the direction of the train, and why.

George S| 11.15.11 @ 8:36PM

Any of the candidates except Romney and Santorum. They don't owe the Republican establishment their success and have indicated that they will fight to repeal ObamaCare. Romney is Romney; Santorum is too steeped in the ways of the Senate Gentlemen's Club to rock the boat. Plus he lost his home state Senate re-election. The candidate most likely to be effective in implementing the process of reducing the federal monster is Bachmann, IMO. Can't state why, just a gut feeling. But at the end of the day, whoever comes out ahead is the one I am supporting.

W| 11.15.11 @ 9:12PM

The main change in direction is to cut federal spending, reduce regulations, and eliminate some agencies or departments. Realistically, the best we can get is reduction in spending and regulation, opening of the drilling, and appointment of conservative judges. If Reagan could not eliminate any departments I don't believe these candidates will.
Gingrich resembles GWB, a "compassionate" conservative who will spend like a liberal. Newt is a big government guy. He was for individual mandates and global warming. Cain has no track record, except running a business. We don't know what he would do. Perry went along with in-state tuition for aliens, that is big government spending, and he still defends it. I agree Santorum can't win.
Paul will cut spending and try to eliminate departments,but can he win? Romney has a business background than Cain and a similar government background as Perry, Santorum, and Newt.
All these polls are interesting, but the winners of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina will be the frontrunners. Remember Rudy Guiliani led all polls and lost the primaries.

Derek Leaberry| 11.15.11 @ 10:03AM

If you want to win 37 % against the vulnerable incumbent Barack Obama, lose a seat or two in the Senate and lose forty seats in the House, Herman Cain is your man.

Bill| 11.15.11 @ 10:11AM

I fully agree with Derek, Herman Cain will be the "kiss of death" if the GOP voters choose him to beat Obama. Cain is a disaster for the general election like 2012, he will cause harm to the other races, congressional and senatorial, and even in state and local races. Conservatives are fed up with Cain because of his lack of knowledge in fiscal issues and foreign policy,and the sexual allegations charges surrounding him.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 11.15.11 @ 12:44PM

You don't speak for me as a Conservative.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 11.15.11 @ 12:46PM

Lets put a McCain up there. A good ole moderate huh? That's what you want?

Not me. There is no compromise on COnservative principles. I would rather lose to them and let them destroy the country. At least then we can start anew. That might be what its going to take is to let them get their way and watch the country collapse.

Fredx| 11.15.11 @ 10:13AM

"Herman Cain is theoretically a great candidate for president. He's a smart, black, successful, conservative 'outsider.'"

It boggles the mind that you should list "black" among Mr. Cain's qualifications to be a candidate for president. If you had said "white" about Newt or Rick, or "woman" about Michele, you'd be shunned at the water cooler, or worse.

Let's get real. Herman floated to the top after Rick turned out to be an embarrassing gaffe machine. Plus, there were likely those who thought pitting Herman against Barack would be a "Take THAT!" moment, seeking to neutralize the whole race thing by demonstrating that Republicans could offer up a black man to run against another black man. "See? We can do it too. Nyah nyah nyah." However, Herman soon gave himself away when he started repeating very s-l-o-w-l-y every question that he was asked, buying time as he searched his brain for an answer. He did, however, manage to add "Nine-Nine-Nine" to the vernacular as a term of derision.

Herman became the Little Candidate That Could as he struggled to play with the big boys. He was given the ol' Affirmative Action treatment because of his color; to deny that is folly. But then Dr. Kevorkian came back to life disguised as Gloria Allred, and performed euthanasia on his presidential ambitions. A body blow from which he could not recover, given the inadequacies we had already seen.

Herman is a nice man and a successful entrepreneur, but not ready for primetime politics. Most importantly, "black" should never have been one of his qualifications (or his disqualifications), and I'm surprised that you included that word in your description of Herman Cain.

RND| 11.15.11 @ 10:41AM

Fredx, what happend to the mantra: "We've tried the professional politicians and lawyers and where has that gotten the nation?"

40 cents out of every dollar borrowed to pay for things we 1. don't need, 2. pork, 3. foreign aid to the thankless & evil like Pakistan, Egypt, and Afghanistan, 4. $14.6 trillion in debt.

Isn't it time for something else?

Isn't a tremendous asset that Cain brings just this: He is living proof that one does not need to wallow in self pity as a "minority" (whatever that is in America. Are short people in America minorities, too? Freckled people? Those with busy eyebrows?) We have 20% of our adult population fully subject to the liberal/democratic party machine because they have been poisioned over the last 40 years of Great Society rhetoric. Obama has not changed this. Cain would.

Cain would say, "Hey, you! Young man, get up off your butt, pull up your pants, put a belt on, get a haircut, and get to work! Only when you are working and taking on life's responsibilities, then will I give you an ear."

Isn't the possibility of this alone worth embracing?

Cain brings a lot of good stuff to the table. Is he a little fatigued right now? Probably. What human wouldn't be. Can't we allow for a few missteps? After all, he's not the career politician that Newt, Rick and Mitt are.

Oh? That's what you want? The career politician? (Y'all are so fickle. Aren't some of you the ones who pang for term limits?)

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 11.15.11 @ 11:26AM

A-Freakin'-Men..

loulou| 11.15.11 @ 12:05PM

Ditto.

Ross Kaminsky | 11.15.11 @ 10:51AM

Fred,

Like it or not, Barack Obama would not have gotten near the nomination much less the presidency if he had not been black.

The reason I mention Mr. Cain's color as an asset is that I love the idea of showing liberal generally and blacks specifically that the GOP is not the party of racism.

Fredx| 11.15.11 @ 2:10PM

And that the Democratic party is. Smooth move! How could I have doubted you?

JmsA| 11.17.11 @ 8:44PM

True and True, Mr. Kaminsky.

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 11:05AM

FredX:

What an inane, sickening, and ridiculous commentary, not to mention full of lies.

But hey, you fit in well here with the other despicable Cain trashing liars.

RND:

GREAT RESPONSE.

Seek| 11.15.11 @ 12:04PM

Fred: I couldn't agree with you more. Everything you wrote is spot on. Cain isn't ready for prime time. He was coaxed into politics during the 90s by Jack Kemp, a self-hating white who never met a black who wasn't a "natural Republican." Cain is admirable in many ways, but presidential material he isn't.

Naturalborn Texicanette| 11.15.11 @ 10:20AM

Redatheart and Ken....

Yea, yes, and yes!!!!!!!!!!

I hope there's room in yall's boat for me, cause I'm climbing in........................!!!

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 11:06AM

Y'all's boat can't float.

hardcard| 11.15.11 @ 10:22AM

Now I'm sure you are all nuts and A-holes . I think it's the reason commander O is in the WH who jerks don't know sh!t from Shine-oloa. Let the demo/progs control the agenda while you bicker about the small stuff.

Simon Templar| 11.15.11 @ 10:26AM

Funny, Ross, I was just thinking the same about you....

Simon Templar| 11.15.11 @ 10:31AM

Ross is just not ready to be a conservative opinion journalist and just maybe not even a conservative. I mean just look at that article... a pile of lame criticism, cheap shots, sound bite slandering, and poor analysis.

So, Ross, who is next on the list, Gingrich?

Ross Kaminsky | 11.15.11 @ 10:53AM

Oh, please show me a "cheap shot" or "poor analysis" in the article. You might not like the message, but it's not the messenger's fault.

Steve| 11.15.11 @ 11:50AM

Ross,
I like Cain, but many of his supporters here make excuses for him that they wouldn't make for a white candidate, just like the Democrats made excuses for Obama.

DRed| 11.15.11 @ 11:55AM

Steve, have you ever spoken to a Ron Paul supporter? He's white. So is Sarah Palin. I don't think race has much to do with people making excuses for politicians that they like.

Steve| 11.15.11 @ 1:26PM

Dred, Ron Paul doesn't have four sexual harassmetn claims against him. I don't agree with his foreign policy views, especially on Israel and terrorism. Palin was unique, the first woman to run for VP, very conservative, unfairly attacked by the MSN, but she was not ready, similar to Cain, on some foreign policy qustions. But Obama was less prepared than Cain and Palin, and he got a pass.

DRed| 11.15.11 @ 4:09PM

One of the reasons Obama wasn't treated like Cain or Palin is that he didn't generally sound like an ignoramus when he was asked policy questions. Herman Cain is running for President and doesn't seem to know anything about a military action that just ended. Yes, it's ridiculous to expect a candidate to have a good answer to every question. But given that Herman Cain took part in a foreign policy debate on Saturday he should have been able to give a better answer to a simple question and his inability to do so raises legitimate questions about his candidacy. Hillary would have murdered Obama if he'd answered a question that incompetently during the Democratic primaries.

Steve| 11.15.11 @ 4:44PM

Dred,
Did the MSM question Obama when he said 57 states? Maybe Cain doesn't know Libya but Obama doesn't know the USA.
Didn't Obama use his middle finger to "scratch" the side of his face when Hillary was debating him?

DRed| 11.15.11 @ 5:11PM

Steve, my point is that Obama got generally positive press coverage because he's a good campaigner. That's part of the game. (you can contrast the coverage that Kerry got if you want to see what kind of coverage a terrible campaigner gets if he's a democrat) Obama's a good public speaker. The press corps seems to like him personally. When he gets asked questions, he doesn't sound like a 6th grader trying to bullshit his way out of an assignment he's not prepared for. Obama is good at running for office. If you expect to beat him, you need someone who can run a better campaign then Herman Cain does.

Nick| 11.16.11 @ 12:21AM

DRed,

President Downgrade gets positive press coverage because he is a democrat socialist, just like his cheerleaders in the LSM (Lame-Stream Media.)

And, since you seem to have forgotten, the LSM helped destroy Howie Dean (YEEAAAHHHRR!!!,) in order to get JFKerry nominated (he served in Viet Nam, ya' know?). The LSM also declared war on the Swift-Boat Veterans for Truth, because they were...telling the truth, about Mr. Theresa Heinz. The LSM hates it when the truth is told about democrats.

p.s. Ever notice how Howie Dean looks like a computer-aged photo of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Margie| 11.16.11 @ 12:52PM

Ever notice how Nick the Pope worshipper looks like an asshole?

Nick| 11.16.11 @ 3:32PM

Still love ya', Margie.
Because you are my sister in Christ.

Although, I don't think you would use such language in Christ's presence. But, as all Christians know, God is all around us.

I don't worship the Holy Father, by the way. You already know this, so, there can be only one reason to keep repeating this falsehood. Pray for help with this problem. I will continue to pray for you and your family.
God Bless!

RCV| 11.16.11 @ 6:53PM

I'm thinking, and hoping, that really wasn't your post, Margie.

Nick| 11.16.11 @ 7:27PM

RCV,

Margie's other comments, in this thread, would seem to prove otherwise. Doesn't bother me, though, water off a duck's back.

I just continue to turn my cyberspace cheek! Ha-ha!
God Bless!

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 12:12PM

Steve= Racist lowlife.

Steve| 11.15.11 @ 1:21PM

Margie=Bigot idiot.

RND | 11.15.11 @ 10:56AM

Simon T., it just may be that Herman Cain has discovered what some of us have suspected: That the bimbo hatchet jobs of the last three weeks is not the Dems/David Alexrod/Chicago machine's doing alone.

Don't you think that might shake a man a little?

If Tim Pawlenty could openly speak (no matter what you think of him), might he not say that he encountered too many two-faced foes in what should have been an overall above-board, fair fight for the GOP nomination?

It has to hurt when one always hears from the Romneys and Newts: "All of us up here on this stage would make for far better presidents than the pretender now in the White House." (as they earn their applause and bow for these well-rehearsed lines)

Then the hugs, double-pumps, embraces (all for the cameras, you see) afterwards up on stage.

Or even picking Herman Cain as their VP choice when asked that question during debate #2 (or was it debate #3?)

Is the truth for the Pawlentys, Cains, Palins....that the long knives are always out? The long knives are coming right from the "GOP colleague" who says, "Yeah! I'd pick my buddy Herman as my VP. No question about it!"

Maybe this stark reality has rattled Herman a little. With the sleaze accusations. Maybe just the fatigue. Maybe just a weaker overall campaign team (rookies just like him -- how refershing! Rookies!). Maybe all the above.

The man has been at this already for 6 months. And it is intense and straining. And often stupid. Like needing to pander incessantly for more donations. Like having wannabe writers like RK nipping away with peanut gallery commentaries (see base article).

Simon Templar| 11.15.11 @ 11:04AM

RND, excellent points. Maybe we can both submit an article as Ross suggest. I am confident that you could do a better job and offer greater insight and astute observations.

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 11:10AM

Between the 2 of you, it's a very close call. Simon, I have always favored you. No matter what Quin the Eskimo says.
LOL.
Seriously, if Ross suggested writing an article, I nominate you.

RND| 11.15.11 @ 11:20AM

Thank you, Simon. Maybe we'd make a good duo? I think that Mr. Kaminsky is unaware of the terribly slippery slope that one faces when just a contributing commentary writer. With blogs as the present-day canvass (for all) and the internet as a research tool (for all), personal research of the facts, article preparation, proof reading from colleagues -- all of it has gotten much easier. One can do it from office, hotel room, library, or park bench. Column writing is no longer the realm of the elites.

So....it had better be good quality --- every time.

(Even George Will's and Charles Krauthammer's stools -- pedestals -- are wobbly every now and again these days)

In my reading and observations over these past months: What I would wish from all the American Spectator writers/commenters is fewer articles. More time given in prep for each piece. More examination. Either the individual writers or their bosses place too great a premium on 2, 3 or 4 articles per week.

NONE of us is that good as a writer. None of us has so much of great thought & import to pass along.

Simon Templar| 11.15.11 @ 10:42AM

Eureka!

I have just found the solution to saving this Republic! If we can convince Bill, Ross, the Paulbots, and all the rest of you self destructive, whining, name calling, loud mouthed, firing squad volunteers to join the DNC and liberals, we would win every election from now untill Ronald Reagan is resurrected on the last day!

Gingrich, Cain, Bachmann, Paul, Perry, Huntsman, Santorum, Trump, Cristie...they all seem to not be ready for you assholes. Funny, who is that guy standing in the corner combing his hair?

Simon Templar| 11.15.11 @ 10:44AM

Barry seems to be ready, right Ross?

Ross Kaminsky | 11.15.11 @ 10:52AM

Tell you what, Simon. Write a better article and submit it for publication. Then we can see what (or if) you think.

Simon Templar| 11.15.11 @ 10:59AM

Yes, I would like that. Just how do you do this and to whom do you submit an article?

I am comfident that I could do a better job so let us put it to the test.

Ross Kaminsky | 11.15.11 @ 11:29AM

e-mail your submission to editor@spectator.org

good luck (really)!

i think that good writing is harder than it looks. when I read the best writers, i'm always impressed how they make it look easy. and perhaps I'm more impressed than most because i know how hard it is...and how I don't always succeed.

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 5:59PM

NEAT.

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 7:58PM

I rescind my comment. There's nothing neat about you, Kaminsky.
Simon shouldn't post an article here for you, unless you pay him big time.
He's too good for you.

RND| 11.15.11 @ 11:04AM

RK, now that was a mature two sentence reply to ST.

C'mon. Do you really think that you personally have cornered the market on what's what? On what the salient issues are, who best presents, who is best qualified?

We finally have an older man from a different walk of American life who has thrown his hat into the ring and now is doing quite admirably well, all things considered, in this constant Ring of Fire.

You've never flubbed an interview? You've never been a bit distracted, overly weary, stretched a bit too thin?

None of these candidates (particularly one doing it for the very first time) has any tiny inclination of the toll this ludicrous road to Election 2012 takes.

Please. None of these guys has "S" on their chest.

Simon Templar| 11.15.11 @ 11:05AM

Exactly.

Ross Kaminsky | 11.15.11 @ 11:27AM

RND, of course I don't have the market cornered. But I do have my personal opinion and my own analysis cornered and found "Simon"'s negative assertions regarding my piece to be ridiculous.

As for flubbing an interview, this wasn't just a short interview or one question. It was half an hour of mostly poor performance by a man who knows he needs to be extremely prepared right now.

One doesn't need an S on one's chest to do much better than Cain did.

RND| 11.15.11 @ 1:07PM

All I ask, Mr. Kaminsky, is that we (you, the other readers here, concerned Americans, AND me) factor:

1. This is Day __ (number) what of the campaign already?
2. How many states and cities have these final candidates been traversing in just the last 9 weeks?
3. Maybe a good campaign chief would be politely declining some of these interviews that Mr. Cain does.
4. The man has just had all aspects of his integrity questioned. His faith. His fidelity.
5. Has he ever had to go through this grist mill before? (No! And for that, well, one can be grateful)
6. You've never personally prepared a candidate in a tight race for elected office? No? You've never overprepared yourself into a fatigue before a head-on-head public forum debate?

Yet Mr. Cain is still in it. Why? He could easily cite health reasons or a personal family issue and bid goodbye to this. 16 Fortune 500 companies would be sending out feelers and representatives to him within 5 days of his campaign withdrawal.

I personally think that your usual hobgoblin (you have no personal faith, you are a ship without a
harbor) is what clouds your thinking on this, many issues, and sets your blinders.

There are just too many issues. And as we move further into this next millenium of human existenc on the planet, we see that no administration in Washington, D.C. solves any issues -- they just pass mega-mastadon procrastination and dithering problems right along.

If given the chance, we could swamp and make stuipid any candidate anywhere.

We should be glad that any even think to run. We should be glad that some wish to enter the fray, wish to shoulder responsibility.

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 11:12AM

I for one will be looking forward to Simon's article, Ross.
Go for it, Simon!

Melvin| 11.15.11 @ 10:46AM

We must keep in perspective that a President doesn't get involved directly in foreign affairs until the diplomats inform him to.
A President has way too much daily things go on than to dabble in foreign affairs on a daily basis. This is why he President has a State Department and it is extremely important that a President has a good and qualified Sec. of State. Hillary Clinton is neither. Whether that is by Obama design or Hillary's ineptitude, or a combination of both.
Lover her hate her, Condi Rice fit the bill perfectly. She was a strong school trained diplomat.
United States ambassadors should be by requirement school trained diplomats because they are just as important tool in foreign policy as any other part of the State Dept.
For varied reasons this Country has lessened the requirements of diplomatic skills, dumbing down the State Dept. if you will.
So how does this effect Herman Cain. Herman Cain has made missteps with his foreign politics. Why? because in his job description didn't require it, plus he as well as you and me are not privy to 99.9% of the intel that flows through the State Dept. and the Executive Branch.
Figuratively Herman cannot give a exact answer to foreign policy because much of it changes daily.
Especially nowadays foreign policy is a 24/7 job.
A top notch diplomatic group and or team can stop a small brushfire from becoming a full blown international crisis.
If foreign policy were a strict requirement for the President, then Mitt Romney need also excuse himself because he is equally unqualified as a diplomat.
That leaves Newt Gingrich who by his previous service is more knowledgeable in foreign affairs than the rest of the Republican candidates.

Dai Alanye | 11.15.11 @ 10:53AM

Kaminski's snide comment about Sarah Palin's unreadiness cannot go unchallenged.

To put it simply, while light in foreign policy, the 2008 Vice President candidate had more practical political executive experience than all the other candidates combined. McCain could claim low-level executive experience in the military, while neither of the Dems had any at all, nor any useful legislative experience either. And Palin's political instincts have always been sound.

I appreciate some of Kaminski's columns, but he has a disconcerting tendency to remind one of the Davids - David Frum and David Brooks - being just a bit too certain of his own intellectual infallibility, and too dismissive of the abilities of ordinary mortals.

Ross Kaminsky | 11.15.11 @ 10:58AM

Dai,

Many Americans saw Palin as not ready for the job she was seeking. This is not just my view. Furthermore, even at the time I wrote that she was MORE qualified than Barack Obama was, but that's not the standard I hope we are aiming for.

Furthermore, I did say at the end of the article that even though I don't favor Gov. Palin as a candidate, she's clearly much more ready for a big stage now than she was four years ago, as she'd had time to learn and think.

This is also what Cain needs, though I doubt we'll see him run again.

Simon Templar| 11.15.11 @ 11:08AM

But YOU KEEP REPEATING IT and keep it alive.

The standard. Just what is the standard?

Ross Kaminsky | 11.15.11 @ 11:30AM

So what? It's a relevant touchstone for many readers, since many have thought a fair bit about Palin, whether they like her or not. I think my characterizations where utterly fair, and you're free to offer your own opinion in these comments (or, as we've discussed, by trying to get your own article run.)

Simon Templar| 11.15.11 @ 1:27PM

They may seem fair to you but characterizations are very subjective and rather useless by the end of day. They can be spun in any direction anyone would like and do not have much to do with observation, analysis, fairness, or accuracy. They largely rely on the perspective and personal biases of the observor.

I watched the segment of the answer to the question about whether he agreed with Obama on Lybia.

What I saw was confusion about the question and an uncomfortability with the interviewers. After stumbling in silence, he realized that he could not answer the question as the question was so badly worded and vague. Perhaps, he should have been sharper and have asked for clarification earlier and avoided the awkward silence.

If you look at Obama's handling and position on Lybia you will remember it was all over the map and a mess of contradiction. Agree with what? So, he narrowed in on the essentially known and most important aspect of the Lybia policy.

That was the lack of intelligence, focus, and knowledge about the arab spring opposition and the direction of these revolutions.... a critical piece of this puzzle. He went on to say such and acknowledge that this should have been center piece in our strategy and policy. A very good point.

As a person who claims, Ross, to work in the private sector, you do not seem to undersatnd that most CEO's do not like to speculate about fantasy scenarios or make wild pronoucements about what they would do in indeterminate vague hypotheticals. He is not a politician.

He is not good at slinging the usual sound bite, evading the questions, and giving wonky high sounding foreign policy answers that in retrospect are meaningless.

Yes, this guy is new to all this and is learning as he goes. That is pretty obvious. What scares me more is those that have been at it for more than thirty years and are saying that the US was responsible for 9-11 and Osama had some legitimate grievances. I would say that is a major foreign policy blunder and a huge, 'I am not ready' statement.

As far as touchstones, I do not have much use for them. Elvis sightings are a major touchstone for many readers but I do not think it wise to inflate them anymore than we have to do.

RND | 11.15.11 @ 2:09PM

Superb commentary, Simon. Whooooweee! I like it. You are on top of your game today. If you are a tennis player, well, you're so "on your A game" that you'd be giving Swissman Roger Federer a run for his money on the court.

Mr. Herman Cain's answers in the Libya 5:15 minute segment were JUST FINE.

Ross Kaminsky ought to be more ashamed of his fellow guild journalists. (Please tell me that the ones doing the Libyan questions are NOT journalists....How can they be with those meandering words that barely make audible sense in the form of a question?)

As I point out below, it is very difficult for anyone who receives a poorly constructed, wordy, mishmash of wording masquerading as a "serious?" question -- it is very difficult for anyone to reply with a good response because what you'd really like to say is:

"Go do your homework. Go prepare like an adult for this interview. Go construct real sentences. Yes, write them down. Because you surely don't seeem to be able to ask clear questions extemporaneously. And when you are ready with clearly worded, specific questions, let me know. Then maybe I'll consider sitting down with you."

Today's Kaminsky article should have been: "How We Shortchange the American Voter on the Road to the Highest Elected Office in the Land -- The Decline and Fall of Professional Journalism"

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 6:01PM

Simon and RND: You guys are so cool.

Simon Templar| 11.15.11 @ 1:31PM

Context, Ross, that what we are all searching for....

Ross Kaminsky | 11.15.11 @ 2:48PM

Seriously, "Simon", I don't know what more context you want. I wrote about Cain's interview in the context of his South Carolina debate performance (which was similarly weak). And it's obvious that I'm adding my analysis and opinion.

Other than the fact that you disagree with my conclusion about Cain, I'm not sure why you have any basis to say that my article lacks context, facts, or anything else.

Someone might argue that his recent performances are not as bad for his campaign, or should not impact a voter's view of Cain's readiness for the presidency, as I think they are and do. But that's just a different opinion and does not mean that my article lacked any of those things mentioned above.

Grzmlyk| 11.15.11 @ 10:55AM

I'm sorry, Cain has shown staggering ignorance on too many issues; he knows far less about policy and current events than I do, and I have two jobs and no spare time.

I'm sorry. I like Herman Cain. But he either cannot or will not become acquainted with the realm he purports to want to command.

He's done, and he should be.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 11.15.11 @ 11:28AM

No Spare time but you find time to read articles and comment on the AS boards? Ok..

Grzmlyk| 11.15.11 @ 11:59AM

Nice comeback, Phil! Boy, you showed me.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 11.15.11 @ 12:48PM

Proved my point..

Delilah| 11.15.11 @ 11:34AM

No one comes to this job 100% prepared. No one. All come to it with varying degrees of knowledge about different aspects of the job. I'm more concerned with a person's ability to surround themselves with good, knowledgeable people who ARE experts in the area they're lacking and how quickly they're able to learn. IMO Cain has both. If not he certainly wouldn't be able to turn companies around as fast as he did.

The founders required of the presidential candidate to be over 35 years old and to be a citizen of the US. No qualifiers. Why do you think that is? Could it possibly be because the founders thought it would be important to have a person who was successful in the non political world and who was willing to serve that someone with the "right" credentials who had made politics a career? Surely they were aware that someone coming from the private sector who wanted to serve wouldn't be aware of every single issue a president has to face and yet, that didn't seem to be a big concern of theirs. At what point did conservatives decide we should only follow the original intent of the founders' original document of the parts we believe in but not the rest?

I've heard people say the world is more complicated now and we need someone with experience or who knows about XYZ (what the heck did Lincoln know about civil war). If that's the case we might as well admit we no longer believe the founders knew what they were doing. Either we follow the founders original intent or we stop pretending we want to return to the Constitution as our defining document. Perhaps it's time for another amendment: a person must be 35 years old, be an American citizen and has whatever amount of government experience we deem necessary. Heck, if we get it wrong or it no longer applies because the world has gotten more complicated we can always change it again. After all, the founders were just a bunch of old white guys.

Ed| 11.15.11 @ 11:59AM

I like Mr. Cain, but I agree that he is not ready to handle military and foreign policy issues. He would, however, be a good Secretary of the Treasury.

loulou| 11.15.11 @ 12:08PM

"The reason I mention Mr. Cain's color as an asset is that I love the idea of showing liberal generally and blacks specifically that the GOP is not the party of racism."

With all due respect, that is just plain stupid.
Conservatives are not racist and do not feel we have to something special to prove it. We are color blind. I guess libertarians are not.

Ross Kaminsky | 11.15.11 @ 2:50PM

You miss the point. The media routinely states or implies that the GOP is racist and they use it like a club against Republican candidates everywhere as well as against opposition to Obama's policies.

You may not think you have anything to prove, but if you want to win it is important to defang the media, one fang at a time. And Mr. Cain could have been a big step in that direction.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 11.15.11 @ 2:59PM

Agreed. It would be nice, but as Hugh Hewitt proposed a couple months back, Let's choose our candidates on principle, and if they happen to be a minority or a female, then that's a bonus.

The thing is, I know that I back herman on principle.. so... BONUS!!!

Mistral| 11.15.11 @ 12:08PM

The last 11 years have been a disaster for USA. All it needs now is someone at the helm who has got a lot of stuff swirling around in his head and who forgets which department requires reform. The only clear thinking candidate who makes any sense at all is Ron Paul.

loulou| 11.15.11 @ 12:10PM

Furthermore, what exactly does "prepared" mean? Does Romneycare make Mitt prepared? Does getting outmanuvered by Clinton make Newt prepared?

I'll take a man of character and courage like Herman Cain over a "prepared" statist any day.

Bill| 11.15.11 @ 12:18PM

Come on, Loulou, Herman Cain has no courage, that's why he refused to take the lie detector test, about those sexual harassment charges, he stumbles on a simple question by a reporter about Libya, that tells how unprepared and what kind of idiot that Herman Cain is. Cain is disqualified to work in a McDonald, let alone to be the POTUS.

Wayne| 11.15.11 @ 12:36PM

I will take a guy where can differentiate equations any day over a POTUS who thinks the state he was born in is in ASIA.

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 12:42PM

Troll Bill is such a freaking coward, he has to hide behind his phony screen names to make false accusations.

Simon Templar| 11.15.11 @ 12:50PM

Lying really does come very natural for you, Billyboy.

Cain, in fact suggested taking a lie detector test and stated his willingness to do so.

In fact, an Atlanta televison station recently did a story about the new lie detection software that is now being used in police station detective departments that analyzes speech patterns. Cains public speech regarding the issue was analyzed by an expert and he passed with flying colors. His accuser, on the other hand, failed her anlaysis.

I say we analyze your speech patterns.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 11.15.11 @ 2:19PM

CBS Atlanta just ran a story where a private investigator put his press conference through a voice lie detector which is more accurate than a traditional lie detector. Investigator said Herman is absolutely telling the truth. also said Bialek wasn't lying about the meeting, but she is lying about what transpired. Google it or go to the Drudge Report. its linked up there.

In the meantime, stop making yourself look like a fool by repeating the lies and participating in the feeding frenzy of an innocent man.

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 6:03PM

False accusations and lies and distortion in order to destroy a person is something Paul-bots and reprobate Christians have NO problem doing.

It's just a FACT.

They believe in their darkened minds that the ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS.
Both are LEFTIST tactics as well.

Bill| 11.15.11 @ 12:23PM

Considering those sexual harassment charges, Herman Cain wants to be Bill Clinton, and his wife, Gloria Cain wants to be Mrs. Clinton. But the sad thing is that Cain will never become the President and his wife will never get the job of the SOS. How ironic?

Wayne| 11.15.11 @ 12:34PM

Have any proof? And what an insult to Cain's wife. What mean-spirited crap.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 11.15.11 @ 2:20PM

http://www.cbsatlanta.com/stor.....l-advances

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 11.15.11 @ 2:20PM

Cain is innocent. Stop spreading lies.

Ross Kaminsky | 11.15.11 @ 2:52PM

I don't think we'll ever know, but my guess is that Cain might have been a little naughty a time or two but that mainly what we're looking at is just more of the 1990's tsunami of hypersensitivity and harassment lawsuits. Furthermore, even if Cain did what he is accused of, I don't think it's harassment (with the possible exception of the stuff said by the first non-anonymous accuser).

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 11.15.11 @ 3:01PM

Even if it was sexual harassment, with all that is going on in the world, does it really matter?

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 11.15.11 @ 3:03PM

Hell, Bill Clinton was accused of Rape and Sexual ASSAULT. The left considers him to be the best president of all time.

By their standards, they should be champing at the bit to vote for Cain.

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 12:40PM

Bill=Steve.
Same Troll.

Steve| 11.15.11 @ 1:29PM

Margie the village idiot, not Bill.

Bill| 11.15.11 @ 12:40PM

Obama does not care about American people, he cares about SEIU, his loyal constituents who spent almost $400 million of taxpayers money to elect Obama. That's why Obama always talks about creating jobs in the public sector, he tries to strengthen unions and receives millions of dollars political contributions in return. Obama has an uncle, Mr. Herman Cain.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 11.15.11 @ 12:50PM

What is your basis for this? How is Herman Cain a Marxist Liberal hell-bent on Socializing this nation?

Please, use better judgment. I was with you until the last sentence. You're not using logical reasoning.

Bill| 11.15.11 @ 12:44PM

Cain will never get even 1% of the minority votes, he will remain a spoiler in the general election. If he loses the GOP Primary, he may run as an independent, becoming Ross Perot, the great spoiler in the history of American politics. Then when he loses the election. he will be selling pizza, just $9.99. Good news for Cain-lovers.

Seek| 11.15.11 @ 1:29PM

Blacks always will vote Democrat, especially for a black incumbent Democrat. A "Potemkin Village" black Republican, nominated mainy to Show Those Liberals We're Really Not Racist, couldn't be more misguided. No more than a tiny portion of blacks will cross over the line to vote GOP. And in the process, we'll lose far more white votes than we'll gain black ones.

Here's a thought: Why doesn't Republican candidate openly seek support from the voting bloc that dares not speak its name in polite company? It's called the white vote.

Ross Kaminsky | 11.15.11 @ 2:53PM

Cain would obviously get more than 1% of the minority vote. The question is how much could he have taken. In places where elections are close, getting blacks to vote Republican -- or just to stay home -- could make an enormous difference.

Bill| 11.15.11 @ 12:48PM

Herman Cain is pro-choice, pro-union, for big government( he supported the TARP) and for gun control. He is the biggest "Taxman" (the 9-9-9 plan) and the "weakest link"( because he was never elected) among the GOP contenders.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 11.15.11 @ 12:51PM

If I'm not mistaken, Abe Lincoln had never been elected either. I could be wrong.

Buck Ofama| 11.15.11 @ 12:49PM

I'm not a committed Cain fan, but he's certainly FAR more ready than was that fool, Ovomit.

Kingofthenet| 11.15.11 @ 1:30PM

You Republicans are playing checkers all the while President Obama is playing 3D Chess. ALL your Candidates are fatally flawed. You got two empty suits in Perry and Cain, Gingrich is smart but NO women will vote for ugly man, with the bad name. Bachmann, Santorium and Huntsman are going nowhere.Mitt is most likely your best shot, but the base hates him and he is going to have a hard time distancing himself from the President.

Simon Templar| 11.15.11 @ 2:13PM

You did not mention Ron Paul. Why?
Please tell us. I am sure it will be enlightening for the rest of us conservatives.

By the way, you and Ross should write an article together..you have a lot in common with regards to the conservative candidates.

Weird thing is you are absolutley correct about "You Republicans are playing checkers all the while President Obama is playing 3D Chess."
The rest of it as you might guess I disagree with but you got that part right as painful as it is for me to admit.

Kingofthenet| 11.15.11 @ 4:24PM

How is Ron Paul even a Republican? I never met ANY Libertarian, to the right of Ron Paul in that philosophy. He is hard to Gage, while he is a Apocalyptic Conspiracy loving nutter, How many Americans were Birthers, Truthers or feel the President is a Muslim? I can see him appealing to alot of Joe 6 packs, as a 'get out of my business' type Candidate.

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 6:07PM

Hey, Newt's not ugly. And as I said before, better a forgiven serial Adulterer (as someone else said here yesterday that he is) than an UNREPENTANT SOCIALIST.
(That would be Obama in case you didn't know).
LOL.

ole meanie| 11.16.11 @ 7:28AM

Sad but true.

RND| 11.15.11 @ 1:57PM

Mister Kaminsky wrote, "...crystallized this view which has been forming in the minds of many GOP voters in recent weeks."

Many?

Mr. Kaminsky is trying to say that MANY conservatives and GOP partisans are now "crystalizing" their views on Cain....

Oh?

How would Mr. Kaminsky know?

Mr. Kaminsky -- you can only really know one thing. That one thing? What is ruminating in your own head. You really can't fully know what's rumaging around in your wife's head. Your son's. Your neighbor's. Your boss' head.

I just watched the Libya questions video on YouTube 2x (5:17 version) I'd bludgeon those "journalists?" for poorly prepared, inaudible, unclear, wordy, vague, rambling questions.

When you prepare for an interview, you PREPARE. Write out your question. Make it very clear. (practice speaking the question audibly BEFORE doing the interview) Construct a full SENTENCE.

Hard to judge how a candidate handles questioning when the questions and those doing the questioning are so pitifully poor.

This was amateur hour with 11th graders doing the questions, right? (The questioners are not on camera, so I'm guessing they are zit faced, greasy haired, skateboarders. That's certainly how they sound.)

Adendum: Cain did fine with his Libya answers. Perfectly fine! A pause before answering in this kind of setting is hardly abnormal. On the contrary, a good pause is quite professional.

somnolence| 11.15.11 @ 1:59PM

If I lived through Obama, I sure as hell can live through Cain. That is the best standard WE CAN hope for from anyone in either party at the moment. How can we really trust the GOP either when they just committed to a tax increase in the House the other day. The coming election goes beyond what we have learned in all the years up to now, and ultimately it will be up to US, and whether we may even be willing to fight for the death for freedom in the next 10-15 years. I, for one, am. Therefore, I see there is nothing to lose by voting for Cain. Gingrich is an able historian, but anyone with determination and time on their hands for research is his potential equal in that academic discipline. People are crying out for and executive MANAGER at the moment, and as far as trying to scare us with foreign policy foibles on an individual basis don't make me laugh. They all trip over their shoelaces in interviews one time or the other, and Rush Limbaugh just played a 38 second deficit by Obama in an interview about foreign relations. Again, it is quite obvious that Kaminsky is part of the sinister undermining of Cain for the chain of influence in the D.C. expediency chain. You guys really aren't even kidding yourselves.

somnolence| 11.15.11 @ 2:04PM

I should have said "fight TO the death for freedom". See, I misspoke, and it is very easy for any human being to do. Let's face it Obama is mediocre, and actually, so are most in the GOP at this time. There is an ominous sign if Romney is the nominee, what happened in Ohio in the vote over collective bargaining may have an impact next year in the general election. He isn't exactly seen as a working class hero.

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 2:09PM

Herman Cain is AWESOME.

Country Class Women for Herman Cain 2012!!

Bill| 11.15.11 @ 2:36PM

Barack Obama's uncle, Mr. Herman Cain has no place in the GOP.

Simon Templar| 11.15.11 @ 5:36PM

You are Clint's love child with Jackboot's twin sister. You have no place on this blog or any other for that matter. Go away troll, you are getting predictable and boring.

JimP| 11.15.11 @ 2:20PM

My general impression of Mr. Cain is that he's not quite "up to speed"- as of yet anyway- for the job of President. That being said though, I am tired of rightwing columnists beating up on him about it, becasue Herman has the correct instincts and who's better overall? Romney? NO THANKS! All the others have 'baggage' too. So Herman isn't Ronald Reagan, none of the others are either.

Romney=McCain=Bush=Dole=Bush=Ford=
Nixon. All of these candidates either lost, were ineffective at solving the countries economic problems or left the nation worse off economically than when they took office.

There's no need for rightwingers to do hit pieces and/or conduct anal exams on Herman. He's laying it all out there for everyone to see and judge for themselves (unlike Romney the weathevane).

Oldefarte| 11.15.11 @ 2:39PM

Let me just add a personal opinion as to this situation. I just read a reporting of an interview with Cain's wife, Gloria; and it literally ripped my guts out. This woman recanted the human toll that this crap has taken upon her and her children mentally/emotionally, and those reposnsible for promoting this political attack are just as immorally guilty as the perpetrator-molestor in the Penn State issue IMHO. It has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Cain is guilty of what these worthless morons have to date accused him of, and if he is futuristically proven to be guilty of same without a doubt, then these accusers will burn in hades for using same as a political weapon to attack him [and his obviously innocent family of this]. This is nothing but THE CHICAGO WAY OF POLITICS, and if the American citizens/voters don't understand this now and do the necessary on 11/4/12 to remove this garbage, then this country deserves the ultimate fate that it will receive from suffering four more years of this community orgainzing bullexcrement!!!!!!!!!!!

Ross Kaminsky | 11.15.11 @ 3:00PM

Hallelujah to that, Oldefarte

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 6:14PM

Thanks, Oldefarte for that.
There is NOTHING so despicable as false charges of Adultery (if these charges against him took place while he has been married) which I think they have if I'm not mistaken.
Because THAT IS WHAT THEY would be charging him with, that is what it is to a Christian, to attempt to even look at or touch another woman or man other than your wife.
Jesus says that if you look at a woman lustfully if you are Married, it is Adultery.

NOW: How weird is it that Ken is doing the same thing to me here, publicly accusing me of wanting to commit Adultery with him?

He has stated he had the emails to prove it, Today he changed his story and says he doesn't have any emails because I asked him to destroy them.

Obviously he is lying.

And he will ALSO BURN IN HELL for this.

ole meanie| 11.16.11 @ 7:26AM

I think we are way past the sexual harrassment charge at this point. I for one don't give a hoot.

What I think most people are more concerned about is Cain's fitness to be the Chief Executive, Commander in Chief and Chief of State.

" I do not agree with the way he handled it for the following reason. No, that's a different one. I gotta go back and see -- got all this stuff twirling around in my head."

Not impressive, not reassuring. Not about race and not about sex. Just about knowledge and mental processes.

Bill| 11.15.11 @ 2:41PM

Obama has an uncle, Mr. Herman Cain.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 11.15.11 @ 3:07PM

Bill has turrets.

loulou| 11.15.11 @ 8:45PM

Bill has Tourette's Syndrome.

RND| 11.15.11 @ 3:03PM

An assignment for all serious-minded readers here:

Be a stenographer. Yes, you know what this is. Listen to the (I use this word loosely) 'questions' posed of candidate Herman Cain in the 5 min. 17 second Libya segment of what Mr. Kaminsky uses as a foundational argument for this article.

A stenographer gets down every word. So, with pen and paper ready, start writing each time you hear one of the questioners begin. (Might have to turn up the volume a good bit; the questioners must have never attended an oral communications course.) Probably will have to "rewind" and play again - often.

Carefully write down/capture every word (each time someone else other than Herman Cain is talking).

Not easy. Keep rewinding. Get the word sequence (as spoken) verbatim.

So? You've written down all their words? Have you?

You now have before you the transcript of the questions used in this short segment interview.

Now ask yourself if:
1. This was a truly professionally executed interview on the part of the media representatives.
2. Did the 'journalists' come across as a) highly prepared, b) mostly prepared, c) prepared, d) poorly prepared, e) unprepared, f) out of their league.
3. If you are their English teacher or journalism professor, what grade would you give them?
4. Do you think your college-bound 12th grader could have done a better job on constructing the questions?
5. Would you wish to be their next interviewee if you were facing a very, very significant job offer and chance to prove your merits? (and you know all the decison-makers for your job will listen in)

Ross Kaminsky | 11.15.11 @ 6:53PM

I listened to the entire interview, not just the Libya part, and I wrote about the entire argument. I made it clear that while the Libya section was the low point, there were several other low points and precious few high points. It was a bad interview, period. In fact, even if you heard the interview without the Libya section, it would have been less than impressive and less than sufficient.

white n' proud| 11.15.11 @ 3:10PM

Herman Cain is of the Negro race. He is intellectually inferior to the Anglo-Saxon Race. The two books named "The Bell Curve" and "The Global Bell Curve" proved this.

This is why Obama was a failure; he is unable to lead, because he is intellectually inferior, like ALL blacks.

WNP

Kingofthenet| 11.15.11 @ 4:44PM

You must not be too high on that curve, because ALL a Bell Curve demoninstrtes is trends for classes of people, not individuals. In fact there would be NOTHING inconsistant for the smartest peorson in the world to be black.

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 6:22PM

KOTN:
That was good, kiddo.

RCV| 11.15.11 @ 7:32PM

Thanks KON for explaining it to someone who's obviously on the lower end of that Bell curve!

JimP| 11.15.11 @ 4:59PM

Go back to your cave or crawl back under your rock. This kind of racist drivel does not represent conservative thinking.

Ross Kaminsky | 11.15.11 @ 6:54PM

"Proud", you should be anything but proud. Clearly you are an idiot. I hope you realize that Herman Cain is better and smarter than you in every way.

ole meanie| 11.16.11 @ 7:18AM

"White n' Proud", what are you proud of? You are not just ignorant, you are stupid.

JmsA| 11.16.11 @ 9:42PM

I don't know about that, dude. I mean, I've had the pleasure to work with a Jamaican neurologist of African descent, who graduated at the top of his Yale undergrad class, and then John Hopkins Medical School. His scores were second among all board exam test scores in the U.S. at the time he took them. I believe it wise for you to rethink your views. One cannot generalize just because a certain prominent figure happens to be a first class dolt in fine clothing, if you get my meaning.

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.15.11 @ 4:09PM

Ross,
For whatever it is worth, I thought your article needed to be written. Thank you.
Mr. Cain simply has not done his home-work.

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 6:16PM

Ken the false accuser proves what an utter lowlife he is.
Ken hasn't done his own homework, has he?
Apparently he does not know the Scriptures concerning how much GOD HATES slanderers and liars.

Bill| 11.15.11 @ 3:12PM

Herman Cain is another Ross Perot, sabotaging GOP momentum in 2012, and electing Obama for another four years. Nice try, Mr. Cain.

Joe R| 11.15.11 @ 4:23PM

I think the only reason Herman Cain entered the race to begin with was to try and get a TV show on Fox News or some kind of national radio syndication deal. He wasn't expecting his campaign to take off like it did. Now his political inexperience and lack of knowledge on numerous issues has come to the forefront.

Dan| 11.15.11 @ 4:40PM

We are currently suffering the pains of a president who was and is, still not ready. Do we really need to trod that path again? I think not. With his business experience Mr. Cain can be a big help to the next president, but would be a disaster as president.

Simon Templar| 11.15.11 @ 5:21PM

Here is an article by a guy that bothers to actually think and find out about the WHOLE story here.

RUSH: Herman Cain, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. This is all over their website. This video has gone viral. It's an editorial board meeting where they're interviewing Cain about things, and one of the members of the editorial board says, "So you agree with President Obama on Libya, or not?"

CAIN: Okay, Libya. (11 second pause) President Obama supported the uprising, correct? President Obama called for the removal of Khadafy. To make sure we're talking about the same thing before I say yes, I agree, or no, I didn't agree. I do not agree with the way he handled it for the following reason. No, that's a different one. I gotta go back and see -- got all this stuff twirling around in my head.

RUSH: Okay, now, there were three pauses in there. We edited them all out. I made sure the first pause you heard, that's why we stopped for 11 seconds, there was an 11 second pause. The pauses in his answer are the story. The pauses indicate he doesn't know what he's talking about. He's having to fake it. He's having to try to think on the fly 'cause he doesn't really know. It's foreign policy, the narrative is he's an idiot, he doesn't know a thing about foreign policy and doesn't care about it and so they thought they had him nailed with this. And then they asked him later on about collective bargaining. "Would you favor collective bargaining for federal employees?"

CAIN: They already have it, don't they? Yeah. They -- they already have collect --

REPORTER: No, they don't.

CAIN: They have unions.

REPORTER: They have unions.

CAIN: They have unions, okay.

REPORTER: But they don't have the same bargaining --

CAIN: They don't have the same bargaining powers. Here again, collective bargaining I support as long as it doesn't create an undue burden on the state, the government, the taxpayer, and this sort of thing. That's the issue.

RUSH: Now, he said that twice. He said, "Well, I'm for collective bargaining as long as it's not collective hijacking, and as long as it doesn't create an undue burden on the state." Again, the attempt here is to make it sound as though he doesn't know what he's talking about. But on Libya, when you listen to the whole interview, the whole question and answer, he ended up getting Libya right. His biggest mistake was admitting he was having a hard time focusing. He shouldn't have said that in front of the enemy, the enemy being the editorial board, but he said I'm having a hard time focusing here.

Federal workers do have collective bargaining. Some of them do. Some federal workers do have collective bargaining. It's not the same as in some of the states. For example, the air traffic controllers do have collective bargaining over their wages, and some federal workers only have collective bargaining rights over work conditions. Some of them have collective bargaining rights over other aspects, but not wages. It's all over the ballpark. It is a mistake to say that federal workers, as the editorial board member here said, don't have collective bargaining rights; some of them do.

In any event, substantively Cain was right. Substantively Cain got it right on collective bargaining for federal unionized workers, and the editors got it wrong. And even the Journal Sentinel article that accompanies the video eventually admitted that Cain got it right in his answer and their editors had it wrong. But no matter, they are attempting to portray via the video here a slow, ignorant, uninformed, unsure of himself candidate who really is just out classed and is just totally out of his league. And the video, under that impression, under those auspices, has gone viral, and that's the thought accompanying it with everybody who sends it out.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Herman Cain's laughing all this off. They ran into him, some media camera crew, this morning. "Mr. Cain, Mr. Cain, what about the fact that you looked like such an idiot answering your question on Libya?" He looked into the camera, he smiled real big, and he said, "9-9-9," and continued to sip his coffee in his cowboy hat and walked off. Here's Herman Cain. This is last night in Green Bay, Lambeau Field, Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain speaking to reporters about this pause that he took during a question in an interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial board.

CAIN: I mean, they asked me a question about Libya, and I paused so I could gather my thoughts. You know, it's really complimentary when people start documenting my pauses. You know, it's one thing to document every word. It was a pause! That's all it was. Good grief.

RUSH: Yeah, and you have to see it. There's a bottle of water there; they ask him a question; and he pushes the bottle of water away, shifts in his chair for a while, and they're saying, "See, he looks uncomfortable, totally out of his league," and, look, folks, this video is being sent around even by conservative websites as, "Okay, that's it. All right, we've had it, Cain's finished, it's over with. This has nothing to do with sexual harassment, let's just finally admit it, he doesn't have the slightest clue what he's saying or what he's doing when it comes to foreign policy. Could we please move on?" And everybody that's sending this video out, be they left or right, is prefacing it with that same message: "Hey, wait 'til you see this idiot." So that's gone viral in the context of Herman Cain's a fool, an absolute idiot. It's just the latest hit piece started by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editors that I guess they'd have to chalk up as a success. That's the context under which it has gone out.

We'll get to your phone calls here in just a second. One more audio sound bite. I just want to go back. June 5th, 2008, Bristol, Virginia, campaign event, Senator Barack Obama talking about Iraq.

OBAMA: What they'll say is, well, it costs too much money, but, you know what? It would cost about -- it -- it -- it would cost about the same as what we would spend -- over the course of ten years, it would cost what it cost us -- it -- huh -- all right, okay. We're going to. The -- it would cost us about the same as it would cost for about -- hold on one second. I can't hear myself. But I'm glad you're fired up, though. I'm glad.

RUSH: Thirty-eight seconds. Thirty-eight seconds of sheer, total idiocy, confusion, ignorance, whatever you want to say. Thirty-eight seconds of it. I'll stack that up against anything Rick Perry stumbled on or Herman Cain. That's June 5th of 2008. And, by the way, that's right in the midst of Operation Chaos. The Democrat nomination process, primary process is not yet concluded at that point. They're asking about Iraq. He hasn't the slightest idea, he hasn't a clue.

DRed| 11.15.11 @ 6:08PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5d_oS6p6KY

It starts off at about the 36:30 mark. He's interrupted by people in the audience yelling and he's talking about expanding the GI Bill, not Iraq. I'm shocked, shocked that Rush Limbaugh would play a misleading, out of context clip. Good try, though, by Rush. The man is good at what he does.

Kingofthenet| 11.15.11 @ 6:47PM

It won't do any good, they don't care about context.

DRed| 11.15.11 @ 7:06PM

Well, Simon is very concerned with finding out the 'WHOLE' story. I try to be helpful.

Simon Templar| 11.15.11 @ 8:09PM

Yeah, like it makes any difference what the audience was questioning him about. That is your refutation? Just another typical liberal misdirection technique. Ok, it was about the GI bill. The point is it is even worse than Cain's pause and apparently you will fight to your miserable death that he was ready for the presidency.

See, the point here is YOUR hypocricy, your manipulation, your lies, your smears and the willing participation of people like our Ross here to go along with you. At least your group knows how to protect each other, that I will give you.

You know nothing about what I think. In fact, I have no use for these mishaps and tend to not extrapolate unreasonable conclusions from them.
My take on your leaders mishap here is that he was most likely exhausted from the grueling campaign trail, endless days and nights, and little sleep were most likely the cause. I never said the guy was an idiot but he certainly is not the genius you make him out to be.

You two knuckle heads really think much about yourselves. The reality is I could argue your points and positions better than you could. You keep forgetting that I was one of you.

DRed| 11.15.11 @ 11:35PM

Worse than Cain? Did you watch that clip, Simon? Obama knew what he was talking about and gave a cogent answer to the question. Cain rambled incoherently. Saying Cain's answers to questions about Libya made no sense isn't spin. They made no sense. He clearly didn't know what he was talking about. I know you don't care, which is your right, but he's not winning any votes by sounding like an idiot.

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 6:20PM

Thanks Simon, my friend, for posting that!
Herman Cain is AWESOME.
And God bless el Rushbo for existing!

Country Class Women for Herman Cain 2012!

W| 11.15.11 @ 5:24PM

Cain and Perry are similar in that both did not prepare well for the debates.

Cain has no other job. He is a full time candidate who should have known the questions about foreign policy, abortion, cutting taxes, terrorrism, and others. On abortion he gave a contradictory response that he is against abortion but it isn't up to the government to tell a woman not to have an abortion. On taxes and the economy, his area of expertise, he had to rework the tax cut to avoid raising taxes on low income earners. He should have been better prepared.

Perry looked clueless in the debates as if he never heard of the questions. He is actually better now that he jokes about forgetting to cut the Energy dept.

Seriously, the same questions are asked over and over and they should be prepared.

Newt, Santorum, Bachman, and Romney at least are well prepared to answer all questions, regardless of wheter you agree with them. They have put time and effort to learn the issues and explain their position.

Even Ron Paul is prepared and has thought about the issues. But his views on foreign policy, terrorrism, and Israel have doomed his chances.

The candidates do not have to be brilliant speakers,though it helps, but they must be prepared and have thought seriously about the issues so they can explain their positions. On this Cain and Perry are not ready. But they are still preferable to Obama who simply reads from a telepromter.

Cain needs to hire some foreign policy experts for advice, such as John Bolton.

Simon Templar| 11.15.11 @ 5:29PM

Yeah, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, this is the group we want to stake our candidates, our republic, and our lives on....

Tell me if the liberals told you that one of our candidates was from Mars and a martian which means he is not eligible for the office, you would be wondering if they had any hot babes up there and if they were all green like they told you.

Ross, are you looking for a job there? I mean at the Sentinel, not on Mars. The mars thing was a joke.

Ross Kaminsky | 11.15.11 @ 6:57PM

This is not about which newspaper was asking the questions. If you listen to the questions, they were pretty basic, easily anticipated, etc.

You're much less interesting than usual today, Simon, and that's saying something.

Simon Templar| 11.15.11 @ 7:51PM

Yes, it is about the newspaper and it is about the MSM. In a normal world where journalism is objective, that would make perfect sense. We do not live in that world.

If you can control the narrative and you control the questions and how they are asked, you control the whole story and you also control the outcome. You know exactly what I am talking about, so don't pretend otherwise.

It is the ridiculous conclusions that you draw from this and your willing participation in destroying our candidates that I take issue with.

You have no idea what was going on in that room or in the mind of Cain. But you are quick to end a man's candidacy on the basis of one interview and feign objectivity. Obama had numerous, real, not imagined or extrapulated brain failues, pauses, and misteps. Where were you when Cain was being attacked by the Chicago smear machine? Siding with his accusers and from your comments in this thread you think he is guilty and HAS to be guilty of something.

As far as Palin, listen to yourself. You say she was more qualified than Obama but she was not ready.
By your standards, no one is ready. That is the rub. Yeah, I bet you jumped on the bandwagon on 'what magazines and books do you read.'

See, it is not your role to judge who is and who is not and certainly not by your standards and the MSM. That is my point. What makes you think you are more qualified than us or the electorate?

Many of us find your questions nothing but manipulations and certainly not basic, understandable, or helpful for obtaining any kind of useful information. These debates are a case example.

BTW, I must be a little interesting as you responded to my comments.

Ross Kaminsky | 11.15.11 @ 9:20PM

In fact, it is my role to judge...just as it is your role and the role of every concerned citizen. I don't know enough about you to know whether I am more qualified than you to judge. I do know that I write and comment under my own name, which tends to add credibility in comparison to you writing under a nom de plume.

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 8:03PM

Ross, how despicable you are. First you compliment simon, then you throw him under the bus.

Simon: They do NOT deserve you here!
You are a good and decent man.

I wouldn't post an article here if they paid me a million bucks.
But hey, to each his own.
They use you and then abuse you.
Fools.

Ross Kaminsky | 11.15.11 @ 9:21PM

Despicable me!

Steve| 11.15.11 @ 10:22PM

Since you disagreed with Margie, you are a hypocrite and despicable. Tell her you are Catholic, and she will call you a papist, punk, liar, cult member, and you will burn in hell.

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 10:37PM

Fool, you just got done saying it's everyone's role to judge.
Oh, I get it, only CERTAIN people are permitted to judge, eh. hypocrite?

I judge you a fake, phony fraud, along with your Libertarian lefty punk pals here. including the scumbag Ken.

Birds of a feather.

Ross Kaminsky | 11.15.11 @ 7:23PM

Thank you all for the conversation today. I'm done for the night...off to feed the kids and take my eyes off the screens.

POST American| 11.15.11 @ 10:06PM

---------------------FINAL WORD-----------------------

---SUB Mitt ROME-knee and TTT-Rick Pair-he
ARE Globalists and sellouts.

------------------HER-MAN CAIN-----------------------
--------------------------is the------------------------------
---------------Rockefeller/ROT-child------------------
--------------------------'FED'------------------------------

ALLLLLLLLLLLLL we need to know.

Margie| 11.15.11 @ 10:39PM

Note to any lawyers that may be reading this who would be willing to take a case of Libel and or slander and or defamation of character here on a contingency basis, please e mail me at: wehavetoomuchstuff@gmail.com.

BackToBasics| 11.16.11 @ 1:46AM

Another couple strength's of Cain's; he will put a dent in the near monopoly Democrats have on black voters.

He would also make a GREAT role model for young blacks, especially the biys who need good role models so much.

But these days so many Republicans only want to focus on his weaknesses.

Obam is less intelligent and even after almost 3 years as president is still less knowledgeable about foreign policy and domestic issues than Cain is currently, yet the Democrats were so ecstatic about Obam that he was considered almost a god by many on the left, still is. But unlike Democrats who have better instincts for their kind, Republicans have become so convoluted in their thinking that they cannot see the many strengths Cain has.

Cain can beat Obam in 2012 and in my opinion he is a greater communicator than Reagan was.

Don't forget that Reagan was considered a lightweight by many on the left and right but his conservative instincts were correct as Cain's are.

I liked Reagan but remember the "trees cause pollution" (release CO2 at night) gAaffe before the election? Remember his terrible first debate performance in 1984 against Mondale? I remmeber a lot of ramblings and diconnected syllables in that one and I was a supporter of Reagan. It was so bad that the phrase before the second debate which was coined, "Let Reagan be Reagan."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka38mzSuOtI

I remember Gingrich getting outmaneuvered by Clinton in the 1995 budget showdown. I also remember that his Congress went more to the middle than many conservatives thought it would after the election in November 1994. It was a disappointment to many, myself included.

With a Republican House and Senate, Cain would do quite well as a conservative and a great communicator. He's not an expert on FP, I've known that all along, but his instincts are solid and America-first. It will motr than see him through. Given time, he has the potemntial to be a great president.

And to repeat, also beneficial in reducing the Democrat 's black-voting block enough to make it a lot more difficult for blacks to ge elected after 2012. He would also make a GREAT role model for young blacks, especially the boys who need good role models so much!!

BackToBasics| 11.16.11 @ 1:47AM

sp - especially the boys

BackToBasics| 11.16.11 @ 10:06PM

Correction - a lot more difficult for Democrats to get elected after 2012.

ole meanie| 11.16.11 @ 7:55AM

Ross, by writing this article, you have nothing to regret and nothing to apologize for. Whether one agrees with you or not (I do), you --perhaps unwittingly--have brought to light a very interesting phenomenon, and it is this:

Even Cain's ardent supporters--and there appear to be many on this page--don't have much affirmative to offer in Cain's behalf. In essence, they mostly say the following:
1. He isn't Obama
2. At least he is not as bad as (insert name of any other candidate)
3. He got blindsided by reporters; OMG, I mean like, who could possibly understand their incompetent questions?
4. He isn't guilty of sexual harrassment. His accusers are liars and Jezebels, abetted by the horrid Gloria Allred.
5. He doen't have to know anything, he can hire experts.
6. He is a wonderful human being. None of the other candidates are wonderful human beings. All the others--according to the Caniacs-- are flip-floppers (Romney), dumb (Perry), crazy as a loon (Paul), RINOs (Gingrich), etc.
7. He is black, an "example" to blacks, and will peel black support away from the Democrats.
8. He was a success in running a pizza chain.

These are qualifications? This is all there is?

RND| 11.16.11 @ 9:12AM

Ole Meanie, um, not so correct. Most here are not defending Herman Cain so much as imploring people like Mr. Kaminsky to do fair assessments of the candidates before us.

Can we really base so much on a 5-6 minute interview that we are seeing through the very small lens? (Were you or was I in the room at the time?)

Let's try you on your foreign policy chops. Okay? Are you ready? Are you sure? Because you'll only have 12 seconds to make a very astute, bright reply.

And the nation WILL judge you based on your performance over these next 5 minutes.

No blinking or pausing, otherwise we'll think you a salamander when it comes to vital international affairs.

Ready?

Can anyone here tell me their position on Abu Sayyaf? What is this? Some of you know. Yes, we've had US troops involved in this area since 2002 (maybe earlier?). New action just this week.

How about the recently deployed 100 US troops to Africa? Which of the candidates can tell us specifically why these soldiers was sent, what the mission is, and which countries they've been assigned to aid? (Which candidates can do this without missing a beat?) Can you?

Name the countries. (you have 3 seconds to do so) And this is a very current issue.

What country in South America just reelected its leader? (a rarity there, so this should be a very easy question for you)

Name the next two in line European nations who were poised to accept the Euro as currency but are now having severe second thoughts (like getting cold feet)? Name them. You have 3 seconds.

What? You don't follow what transpires in Brussels?

What EU functions do the EU government facilities in Luxembourg City fulfill?

Our Secretary of State was just greeted in this land with jeers and protests. Where and over what issues? (I'll be kind -- a hint: The event marks a 60 year agreement)

Name the "stan" country (country ending in the letters "stan" bordering the current hot military region for us, the Middle East), name this country that is actually quite friendly to our US military, State Department, and our overall efforts in the region? Which country is this? We've had US troops there in smaller numbers for over 8 years. You have 4 seconds.

(Frankly, I don't think you know or have a clue. Outside of Pakistan and Afghanistan, you probably cannot name two other "stan" countries let alone spell them correctly or name their capitals. Can you? Hm -- what kind of Commander in Chief would you make?)


So....Isn't this all a bit like starting to ask candidate George W. Bush in the campaign year of 2000 a laudry list of names of international leaders or former leaders, hoping to trip him up?

You can get ANY and ALL candidates to "freeze" and stumble around.

Particularly when it is already the 4th interview of the day? 13th in the week?

Particularly if you just might come across the rare one who wants to give a thoughtful, sincere reply. (Oh, I know. The word 'sincere' is so quaint and out of touch.)

Our world and all its tribulations (and our US involvements throughout the globe) is a very big place.

Ah, but then we have the professional, lifetime pols. Men like the silver-tongued pros, yes just like a Mitt Romney who will utter syllables and phrases that sound fine but amount to nothing.

Don't we have that now whenever the president steps to the microphone? You want more of the same?

Interviews are words. And in politics it seems perfectly fine if the words are completely empty. Words spoken today....have no bearing on anything in just two weeks or two months. So why do we place so much emphasis on words & slick answers in interviews when deeds and actions are what counts?

ole meanie| 11.17.11 @ 8:58AM

You quite fairly ask these questions, and will fairly answer them, en masse, by saying "I don't know". However, I am not running for President.

If you DO know them, I would encourage you to throw your hat in the ring. You are the kind of candidate the GOP sorely needs.

BackToBasics| 11.16.11 @ 9:20AM

Some are qualifications, yes, and strong ones at that. And as for number 1, those who support Cain will go to another candidate if Cain does not get the nomination.

Above, you mentioend about JFK using "advisors" and look where it got us. He made mistakes, as do all presidents but ut side of s few thousand advisors he did NOT get us heavily militarily involved in Viet Nam the way Johnson did. He was considering pulling out of Viet Nam by the time he was assassinated. His gut instincts were right about this without 20/20 hindsight.

He also lowered taxes which fueled an economic boom.

He challenged America to go to the moon only AFTER consulting with scientists and computer experts who told him that newly discovered transitors solved the weight and spatial problems posed by the needed computer. this was a large problem among many but it gave scientists a green light and persuaded Kennedy that it could be done. Just a few things JFK did right with advisors helping.

Again, it's easy to focus on a candidates weaknesses without looking at his strengths and weighing them in the balance.

shipley130| 11.16.11 @ 10:12AM

Ross,
I figured you would be attacked by the Caininites. I recently discovered that "conservatives" are just as bad as "liberals" when it comes to their candidate. None of them can think critically about their peeps.

ole meanie| 11.17.11 @ 9:13AM

My point is simply that a candidate's default position should not be "I don't know that, I will get experts". Otherwise, I would have replied to RFD that I don't know the answers to his questions, but I would hire experts who did.

In case you are thinking I am attacking Mr. Cain, I am not. I am attacking the line of thinking many of his supporters seem to engage in. Frankly, I find the current GOP field uninspiring, and worse yet, unlikely to unseat Mr. Obama.

If Mr. Cain becomes the GOP nominee, I will vote for him, but I remember 1964 when Goldwater got trounced, and I think Mr. Cain would suffer the same fate. Right now, the GOP has only two candidates whom I think the "swing voters" will take at all seriously: Gingrich and Romney. Don't infer from this that I favor either of them.

I will vote for whoever is the GOP nominee, in preference to Mr. Obama, but I think that any GOP nominee will be in for a very tough fight, and that most of the current candidates stand no significant chance of unseating Mr. Obama.

talkradio55| 11.16.11 @ 1:35PM

This article is just more incoherent drivel from the "Romney or bust people". Aside from the 11 second pause, there was nothing wrong with what Cain said about Libya. It was no different than what every other critic of Obama's Libya policy, but because it's Herman Cain, it has to be stupid. If the people who are so desperate to write Cain's political obituary weighed the substance of what he said, they would actually agree with it, because so many of them said the same thing. This is the same crap done to Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and every other real conservative. Too many Republicans eat their own so they can look "reasonable" to the media, but that's how we ended up with McCain in the first place and by extension now, Comrade Obama. Keep that in mind the next time you offer up "analysis" on Cain, Perry, Bachmann, Palin or any other conservative.

KJH| 11.16.11 @ 11:50PM

I would respect the blogger who wrote this piece more if he just came out and admitted that he is a progressive republican who is now apart of the cheerlead chorus line for Chameleon Gingrich. His observations are elementary and shallow. Particularly regarding Cain`s foreign policy accuman. None of the other candidates said anything different from what Cain said, they just used more words.

ole meanie| 11.17.11 @ 9:38AM

Any GOP candidate faces one key problem in trying to attract the "conservative" vote: there are social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, faith-based conservatives, Constitutional conservatives, and libertarian conservatives. These people don't all want the same thing. So, one way or another, a candidate risks losing the support of one group in his/her pursuit of the support of the other. In fact, our vetting process seems to be to drive our candidates into doctrinaire positions, when what we should be doing is to demand that our candidates state their key positions in simple declarative sentences.

Most people understand that a leader may have to deviate from his announced positions under particular circumstances. Candidates willing and able to do this won't be so subject to media muggings. Candidates who can't or won't do this are going to be taking positions on the fly in response to the latest poll or the latest question.

More Articles by Ross Kaminsky

More Articles From A Further Perspective

Flatten the IRS

May 20, 2013 | Ray V. Hartwell, III

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

May 17, 2013 | Marta H. Mossburg

Pick Obama’s Brain

May 16, 2013 | Paul Kengor

What Is It About Benghazi?

May 15, 2013 | Andrew B. Wilson

Neighborhood Watch, Anyone?

May 14, 2013 | Ralph R. Reiland

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/11/15/hermans-just-not-ready

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

From the Obama Ministry of Truth

Ben Stein|51 comments

Despite the WaPost, Benghazi Is a Major Scandal

Quin Hillyer|45 comments

IRS Union Chief Stonewalls

Jeffrey Lord|56 comments

McCain-Feingold Gave Us the IRS Scandal

Ross Kaminsky|105 comments

Anyone Still Believe Me?

Aaron Goldstein|33 comments

The Book We Still Can’t Spare

Lars Walker|48 comments

Delivering Serbs to the Wolves

Doug Bandow|20 comments

Wincing at Cumberbatch

James Bowman|9 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Carney Goes Birther on Major Garrett

Aaron Goldstein | 12:10AM

UPDATED: More on Lerner Pleading the Fifth

Kaylin Bugos | 5.21.13

Did Virginia Republicans Just Elect Terry McAuliffe?

Ross Kaminsky | 5.21.13

Lois Lerner Will Take the Fifth

Ross Kaminsky | 5.21.13

Cook Insists: No Income Shifting, Tax Avoidance

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.21.13

Democrats Outraged Over IRS, But Not the Right Aspect of It

Kaylin Bugos | 5.21.13

What Happens If the Uninsured Can’t Register Under Obamacare?

Patrick Ryan | 5.21.13

Whitehouse Berates Republicans for Causing Tornadoes

Claire Healey | 5.21.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.