2012 Presidential Campaign

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

A guy like Cain doesn't run unless he thinks he can make a splash.

... or money

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

... or money

Well, sure! But that's what I'm saying--that he's gotta make a splash to make money off of this.

[JPhillips]

If you look at his campaign staff and appearance schedule through October it's pretty obvious he wasn't running a full campaign. This was initially about selling books and positioning himself to make money after the election. I don't think he's upset that he's now a frontrunner, but I do think it caught him by surprise.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

... or money

Or, a splash like Scrooge McDuck into a pile of money.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I do find the comments about Cain being unintelligent as rather, um, unintelligent. Dude is a math/computers geek at his core, and pretty darned good at it. Cain is clearly ignorant on some matters, but he's no dummy. He's a smart guy--probably not as smart as Newt, but he's a long way from being Perry.

Last thought for now: part of me still thinks Cain's run is nothing more than a smart business move. He'll sell books, command fat speaking fees, perhaps get a much fatter talk show deal, and maybe be a go-to commentator for Fox when this is all said and done. His national recognition is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy up from what it was 9 months ago.

I think that's reading too much into this -- at least, reading too much into the comments made here. This all came up because of "Pride and Prejudice" -- I think you can say that Cain doesn't seem like the kind of guy who would have read Pride and Prejudice, and that doesn't mean you're saying Cain is unintelligent. In fact, I'm guessing most of the people who post here haven't read it, yet are still intelligent (especially if you remove the people who had to read it in high school).

I agree on it being a smart business move -- personally, I'd never heard of Godfather's Pizza until he ran. But last week, I saw one of their menus lying on the ground, and thought "hey, that place does exist!"

Also FTR, a few months back, my mom, a liberal special education teacher who thinks Republican is a dirty word, liked him on Facebook. I can only assume she got some sort of promotional freebie for doing it.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

I think that's reading too much into this -- at least, reading too much into the comments made here. This all came up because of "Pride and Prejudice" -- I think you can say that Cain doesn't seem like the kind of guy who would have read Pride and Prejudice, and that doesn't mean you're saying Cain is unintelligent. In fact, I'm guessing most of the people who post here haven't read it, yet are still intelligent (especially if you remove the people who had to read it in high school).

There was at least one comment here saying he is "stupid." And you may be right about differentiating this board from other places. I get all of you people confused.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

There was at least one comment here saying he is "stupid." And you may be right about differentiating this board from other places. I get all of you people confused.

Oh so what, we all look alike?

Personally, I'd define him as: Smart when it comes to operating businesses, Stupid when it comes to operating politically. "Governing" as business is a very, very, very different thing than governing a country.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

There was at least one comment here saying he is "stupid." And you may be right about differentiating this board from other places. I get all of you people confused.

Perhaps stupid is harsh, but listening to him on anything politics related suggests a guy with no depth in the arena; the 9-9-9 plan (Keep saying it! that answers everything!), the economic advisor who is a "wealth management advisor", the President of Uzbekistan, the "China is trying to develop nuclear capacity" bit - where on earth has he shown any depth, at all in politics?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Perhaps stupid is harsh, but listening to him on anything politics related suggests a guy with no depth in the arena; the 9-9-9 plan (Keep saying it! that answers everything!), the economic advisor who is a "wealth management advisor", the President of Uzbekistan, the "China is trying to develop nuclear capacity" bit - where on earth has he shown any depth, at all in politics?

My first two thoughts are...

1. Depth != winning. I think the 9-9-9 plan is a perfect example. It won't pass if suggested, won't work if passed, but it sounds catchy and simple and everyone hates the IRS, and hates filling out all those forms, so the "GET RID OF THE IRS AND PUT SOMETHING EASIER IN PLACE" works. Little details like viability and being good for the country? Bah. Most voters don't pay close enough attention for that stuff to matter. *shurg*
2. Again, I'm not terribly convinced that winning is the goal here anyway.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

"Famous." I'm not sure I'd use that word. I wonder if it's as simple as the media ramping up its interest in the "sleaze factor" as the 90s progressed, but I strongly suspect that "Monica Lewisky" and "Paula Jones" are far more well known names than "Gennifer Flowers." I paid attention to the '92 election, but if pressed, I don't think I could have called Flowers by name.

Honestly, I never heard about Gennifer Flowers until Paula Jones sued him, and I suspect I was abnormally interested in politics for a 10-year-old.

It might be an interview that's gained notoriety as a result of later events, but it didn't have the cultural impact when it happened that the deposition did.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

My first two thoughts are...

1. Depth != winning. I think the 9-9-9 plan is a perfect example. It won't pass if suggested, won't work if passed, but it sounds catchy and simple and everyone hates the IRS, and hates filling out all those forms, so the "GET RID OF THE IRS AND PUT SOMETHING EASIER IN PLACE" works. Little details like viability and being good for the country? Bah. Most voters don't pay close enough attention for that stuff to matter. *shurg*
2. Again, I'm not terribly convinced that winning is the goal here anyway.

FWIW, I agree with you - I think Cain is trying to sell books and a business as a motivational speaker, and his popularity has exceeded even his best hopes. Still, if he wants to stay in the game, he needs to shape up. If not, than bow out. If you're a hard-core conservative in the GOP right now, are you really going to be happy if Romney wins with 30% because a bunch of ego candidates split the "conservative" vote?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Honestly, I never heard about Gennifer Flowers until Paula Jones sued him, and I suspect I was abnormally interested in politics for a 10-year-old.

It might be an interview that's gained notoriety as a result of later events, but it didn't have the cultural impact when it happened that the deposition did.

It was a very big deal at the time. Having Hillary sit with him during the interview saved his campaign. Without that interview and Hillary's support I don't think he would have been the president.

edit: Of course me misremembering it as BW instead of Sixty Minutes doesn't help my point!

[Chief Rum]

Why is it that the only thing I remember about Gennifer Flowers outside of vaguely knowing Clinton had an affair with her is that she appeared in Playboy?

And do I want to know what that says about me? I say no.

[cuervo72]

I think it was Penthouse, actually.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

If you're a hard-core conservative in the GOP right now, are you really going to be happy if Romney wins with 30% because a bunch of ego candidates split the "conservative" vote?

This is a fair point. My only counterpoint is this: seems to me that the hard-core conservatives in the GOP are going to be disappointed regardless of how this whole thing shakes down. Nominate one of the conservative candidates, and Obama wins. Nominate Romney, and they're still not happy. My guess is that only significant scandals or other major problems for Obama and Romney--enough to allow Cain or Perry to win the nomination and the Presidency--will make the conservative Republicans happy with the 2012 election.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

edit: Of course me misremembering it as BW instead of Sixty Minutes doesn't help my point!

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

This is a fair point. My only counterpoint is this: seems to me that the hard-core conservatives in the GOP are going to be disappointed regardless of how this whole thing shakes down. Nominate one of the conservative candidates, and Obama wins. Nominate Romney, and they're still not happy. My guess is that only significant scandals or other major problems for Obama and Romney--enough to allow Cain or Perry to win the nomination and the Presidency--will make the conservative Republicans happy with the 2012 election.

I figure you're a conservative Republican - who are you voting for?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

I figure you're a conservative Republican - who are you voting for?

I'm not a conservative Republican. Philosophically, I lean Libertarian on most issues. But more than anything else, I'm fairly well beyond thinking there will be change in my lifetime from the White House or Capitol that is acceptable to me, so I guess I'm just a cynic more than anything else. It doesn't help this condition much that I've lived all my adult life in states and districts where the outcome in General Elections was pretty much a given. Cobb County, GA was going (R), period. DeKalb County? Straight-up (D). And the Lowcountry as well as the state of SC are decidedly (R). I still vote in nearly every election, but I'm more inclined to believe my vote actually matters in primaries than in General Elections. I will vote in the (R) primary in SC, probably for Cain, but maybe for Paul. In short, my admittedly-insignificant vote is typically cast for "something different," at least when that exists on the ballot.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I think it was Penthouse, actually.

Yeah, I didn't stop to check the letterhead too often on my way inside in those days. Not that I stopped long at Gennifer Flowers' pictorial neither.

[panerd]

Paul says friendship best way to deal with Iran - Yahoo! News

What a nutty stance! Everyone knows that American soldiers' lives are the best way to deal with Iran! They may build a nuke!!!! OMG, how do we deal with China and Russia having thousands of nukes? But they will nuke Israel!!!! OMG, of course they will nuke a country that has hundreds of nukes and two Superpower allies with thousands of nukes. They are stupid brown people intent on destroying the world.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I thought this was interesting ... and not because of the scriptual reference so let's try not to take it down that road m'kay.

Herman Cain posted on his facebook a little while ago

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus stopped by just now before the debate and shared Isaiah 54:17 with me. God bless him and the rest of this great country!

That scripture reads No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD.

The reason I'm posting is that I wonder how the other GOP hopefuls will react (mostly privately I imagine) to Priebus lending support to Cain. I also wonder whether we might be able to read something into the RNC's own belief/skepticism about the allegations.

[mckerney]

Oops.

[Thomkal]

Man what a disaster, he should just drop out now.

[cartman]

Molly Ivins is up there somewhere smiling.

[DeToxRox]

Rick Perry is like the Aggies, starts off well enough but god forbid he finish strong.

[mckerney]

He still reminds me of Jefferson D'Arcy

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by mckerney

Oops.

Okay, that's funny, I don't care who you are.

Who was it said "EPA" from the wings?

[RPI-Fan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Okay, that's funny, I don't care who you are.

Who was it said "EPA" from the wings?

Romney

[stevew]

Originally Posted by mckerney

He still reminds me of Jefferson D'Arcy

Much like Ted McGinley, Rick Perry will destroy Happy Days.

[Grover]

That was absolutely brilliant.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

Paul says friendship best way to deal with Iran - Yahoo! News

What a nutty stance! Everyone knows that American soldiers' lives are the best way to deal with Iran! They may build a nuke!!!! OMG, how do we deal with China and Russia having thousands of nukes? But they will nuke Israel!!!! OMG, of course they will nuke a country that has hundreds of nukes and two Superpower allies with thousands of nukes. They are stupid brown people intent on destroying the world.

The following things occur in Iran:

-Women are considered half the value of men
-One male witness is worth two female witnesses
-Married women may not leave their home without their husbands permission
-Women must be covered
-Capital punishment for such heinous crimes as adultery, drinking alcohol, and having oral sex
-You can be killed for saying something negative about the government or Islam

I can go on and on with this. But I guess my point is, I don't want to be friends with low-life savages like that.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The following things occur in Iran:

-Women are considered half the value of men
-One male witness is worth two female witnesses
-Married women may not leave their home without their husbands permission
-Women must be covered
-Capital punishment for such heinous crimes as adultery, drinking alcohol, and having oral sex
-You can be killed for saying something negative about the government or Islam

I can go on and on with this. But I guess my point is, I don't want to be friends with low-life savages like that.

Are you really this much of an idiot? we are friends with the Saudi's (allies, even); all those rules apply there. We were friends with Chile when they were torturing the opposition. Getting on a moral high horse is hilarious, even more so when THEIR neighbors do exactly the same thing and we are okay with it. Its Realpolitik, not morality, and do not pretend otherwise. I don't actually agree with Panerd, but your arguement is so absurd it made me laugh.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Are you really this much of an idiot? we are friends with the Saudi's (allies, even); all those rules apply there. We were friends with Chile when they were torturing the opposition. Getting on a moral high horse is hilarious, even more so when THEIR neighbors do exactly the same thing and we are okay with it. Its Realpolitik, not morality, and do not pretend otherwise. I don't actually agree with Panerd, but your arguement is so absurd it made me laugh.

And I don't think we should be friends with those countries. And yes, I'm on a moral high horse for thinking our country should look down upon those with civilizations 500 years behind the times.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Are you really this much of an idiot? we are friends with the Saudi's (allies, even); all those rules apply there. We were friends with Chile when they were torturing the opposition. Getting on a moral high horse is hilarious, even more so when THEIR neighbors do exactly the same thing and we are okay with it. Its Realpolitik, not morality, and do not pretend otherwise. I don't actually agree with Panerd, but your arguement is so absurd it made me laugh.

Hey I'm with Paul on the soundbytes that don't make the front page (most of the time anywhere in the paper). Our country is going bankrupt. We can't keep forcing our values on Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Chile... Even if we want to we have no money. This is why empires collapse.

I agree that Rainmaker is almost comical though buying the company line on women and oppression. The stated reason for American intervention all over the world for the past 40 years. I know he's capable of deeper thinking than this I wonder if his account was hacked by somebody else. And I wonder what will happen if Romney or Cain or somebody wins the presidency and starts bombing Iran. I am sure he will fully support installing American values (especially American corporate values) all throughout the world!

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by panerd

Hey I'm with Paul on the soundbytes that don't make the front page (most of the time anywhere in the paper). Our country is going bankrupt. We can't keep forcing our values on Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Chile... Even if we want to we have no money. This is why empires collapse.

Well, I don't know that we need to be friends with Iran but I do agree that we shouldn't be friends with countries who don't share the vast majority of ideals with us. Unfortunately, we don't have the luxury to be quite as selective so long as we need their oil.

This is 1 of the dozens of reasons to add to a real energy independence initiative. That doesn't mean we replace foreign oil for domestic oil 1 for 1...but it does mean we should be thinking bigger than "everybody cram into boxes in the cities & ride bikes to work". To that end...it would actually bring us back to the reasons Section 8 housing was created in the 1st place...because low income people couldn't afford the city when everybody lived there.

I'm digressing again but I just see the vast majority of economic & geopolitical problems we have tied to world oil supply. The world supply of it is dominated by cultures that are not in line with Western societal thinking & every day we wait, the balance of wealth continues to go towards those same cultures/societies. Its a bit like borrowing money off your irresponsible kid...you can borrow it but then you have no business lecturing them about their own irresponsibility.

[albionmoonlight]

I don't see how it isn't Romney.

Bachmann flamed out and apparently has no money.

Cain's scandal seems to really have some legs, and he's always been running for Well-Paid-Pundit-In-Chief instead of President anyway.

Paul has never been able to get his support above his core supporters.

Gingrich will probably get a bit of a bump, but he's (very) low on cash right now.

Perry comes across as an idiot. And not a likable idiot.

Huntsman is too liberal.

Palin/Jindal/Huckabee/Christie/etc. would get too late of a start.

Santorum I know nothing about, but no one seems to be supporting him.


If I had to pick a non-Mitt, I guess I would go with Santorum (on the theory that I know little enough about him that I can't say why it isn't him) or Gingrich. As a former Speaker, he's probably still able to raise the money and the institutional support pretty quickly if it looks like his campaign has some legs.

But, really, I don't see how it isn't Mitt at this point.

[QuikSand]

It doesn't seem too far-fetched that Newt Gingrich would be a logical "next in line" for the anti-Romney legion. Prediction markets seem to agree - a month ago, his chance to win the nomination was judged at <2%, now it's around 9% (via InTrade).

[JPhillips]

There really isn't anyone left but Newt to be the notRomney.

It's got to be worrisome for the Romney camp that even after the parade of losers challenging him has been totally exposed he still can't break out of the mid-twenties.

[cartman]

Rick Perry is going to go on Fox News in a bit for an announcement. All I can figure is that he's going to give three reasons he is staying in the race.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by cartman

Rick Perry is going to go on Fox News in a bit for an announcement. All I can figure is that he's going to give three reasons he is staying in the race.

He needs to write them on his hand so he can remember them.

[AgustusM]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

My first two thoughts are...

1. Depth != winning. I think the 9-9-9 plan is a perfect example. It won't pass if suggested, won't work if passed, but it sounds catchy and simple and everyone hates the IRS, and hates filling out all those forms, so the "GET RID OF THE IRS AND PUT SOMETHING EASIER IN PLACE" works. Little details like viability and being good for the country? Bah. Most voters don't pay close enough attention for that stuff to matter. *shurg*
2. Again, I'm not terribly convinced that winning is the goal here anyway.

best political analysis I have read in years.

The worst part about the current harassment scandal is somehow that has become the story instead of the absurdity of the 9-9-9 plan. It drives me crazy the nonsense that we as a society become obsessed with.

[cartman]

As someone (not sure who, maybe Molly Ivins) once said:

How does a Republican win an election? By letting them talk for 30 seconds.
How does a Republican lose an election? By letting them talk for two minutes.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by cartman

Rick Perry is going to go on Fox News in a bit for an announcement. All I can figure is that he's going to give three reasons he is staying in the race.

Oh he's already been on all the morning news shows telling people to go to his website and tell him what they think the third government agency that should be abolished should be.

I'd like to suggest whatever agency it is that allows incompetent people to think they can successfully run for President.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Oh he's already been on all the morning news shows telling people to go to his website and tell him what they think the third government agency that should be abolished should be.

I'd like to suggest whatever agency it is that allows incompetent people to think they can successfully run for President.

He is just a perfect example of a politician who has no principles at all and just says whatever it takes to be elected. Perry can't name the agencies he will get rid of because he doesn't really know or care somebody just told him what is trending high to the Republican crowd. Obviously the chance of his following through with promises that he can't even come up with in a debate is basically zero.

Besides him getting nailed and looking like a fool I would be interested to hear how he is really any different than most of the candidates.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

I agree that Rainmaker is almost comical though buying the company line on women and oppression. The stated reason for American intervention all over the world for the past 40 years. I know he's capable of deeper thinking than this I wonder if his account was hacked by somebody else. And I wonder what will happen if Romney or Cain or somebody wins the presidency and starts bombing Iran. I am sure he will fully support installing American values (especially American corporate values) all throughout the world!

I don't believe in American intervention. I just don't believe we need to be pals with countries who don't respect even the most basic of human rights.

[Grover]

Originally Posted by panerd

He is just a perfect example of a politician who has no principles at all and just says whatever it takes to be elected.

Funny, this works perfectly for Romney too.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Grover

Funny, this works perfectly for Romney too.

No doubt. (Obama as well)

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Oh he's already been on all the morning news shows telling people to go to his website and tell him what they think the third government agency that should be abolished should be.

Can we suggest Texas as the 3rd one? I mean, I know it isn't an agency, but, I would love to see the response to that.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Can we suggest Texas as the 3rd one? I mean, I know it isn't an agency, but, I would love to see the response to that.

Actually he's already tried that-when he suggested secession for Texas from the US.

[molson]

Originally Posted by panerd

He is just a perfect example of a politician who has no principles at all and just says whatever it takes to be elected.

Doesn't Perry have a few views very unpopular with the Republican base?

It was a funny slip-up, but I think the better-polished, faker candidates are more likely to have memorized everything properly. Obama and Romney aren't making mistakes like that, because they're the most manufactured, image-conscious, candidate robots one could possibly design. That doesn't make them sincere, it sure as hell doesn't make them effective as presidents.

Presentation is THE most important thing for a U.S. presidential candidate. Sure, a botch like that could reflect a declining mental capacity I guess, or a problem with pressure, but otherwise, I'd be a lot more concerned with somebody's background (or lack of a background) then whether he botches something at a debate.