Herman Cain: Idiot or mome?

[Spreeuw]

Important things first:
Jagger 69: I like your sig! The death penalty sucks.

Now:
On topic: As a politician you might not have to know everything, but being ably to answer to the public (represented by the media) is the crucial skill. Why? Because otherwise people won't be able to judge you on your merits. And aswering to the public is your prime job, it's the core of representative democracy.
Based on this interview I'd say he's got a lot of training to do before he can be an effective politician.

 

[D-rock]

Can you list any Republicans that are not running that would have been a better challenge to Obama? Maybe Rudy.

Not really, but that is again a damning thing itself. The republicans as a party got nobody. Of course when most of their policies suck as much they do, they don't do anything that helps the vast majority of the country, and they become even more out of touch with normal non-elite people there is little that can be done.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Sad that these are the only people the republicans can muster who propose to have the capability to lead us out of this mess. Where have all the good men (and women) gone?

Unless Jon Huntsman is the nominee, I will be forced out of principle to vote for Obama....and I really don't want to have to do that. Unfortunately, it looks like the GOP will leave me little option unless something dramatic and unexpected happens.

Newt Gingrich for president? Romney? Perry? What a joke....

Oh....regarding the original question....no, Cain is not an idiot. He's just grossly unqualified to be president.

Jagger

Is Huntsman anti-death penalty?

 

[ralph furley]

republicans don't care about intelligence. they only care about who they would rather have a beer with and vote for them

 

[pool_hustler]

You think appeasement of our enemies and blaming America first is an impenetrable foreign policy stance?

Do you honestly believe that IS his foreign policy stance?

Because as icecold points out in post 19 he's been anything BUT soft on terrorism.

Blaming America first? Why, because he once said that "at times" America has been arrogant? The truth is that "at times" we have been, and everybody knows it. That fact can't be disguised or negated by bluster or other forms of posturing. We simply look silly, or worse delusional, when we try to go that route. The best leadership comes from those who are strong enough to be accountable for their less glorious moments.
And for those who haven't listened to that entire speech, Obama immediately followed that "at times" comment by taking Europeans to task for at times engaging in dangerous anti-Americanism.

 

[xfire]

You think appeasement of our enemies and blaming America first is an impenetrable foreign policy stance?

That's the kind of shining rhetoric Barack Obama loves to hear. I can't wait to see Newt, or Cain, or Perry, or whichever gop clown that wins the primary throw that stinker at the president. When he slaps that down with the facts he can move on to the rest of the republican paper tigers.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Obama, like many presidents enjoy the benefits of their predecessor's polices or suffer the consequences of their mistakes..

He deserves credit for his successes against terrorism, but I believe that it was a natural progression and not so much what Obama did but what he didn't do that allowed for some of the latest successes on the terror front.. The intelligence he had access to from the previous administration led to the capture and killing of OBL. Meanwhile Gitmo is still operational and an establishment Democrat ran the CIA and now the DOD. Panetta is the epitome of a Washington insider and has been privy to everything that has come across the proverbial wire for many years. In Obama's defense, he did take office under dire economic circumstances and the whole current situation is not his fault, but he did nothing but exacerbate the situation by increasing spending when he should have held off on some of his programs until the economy stabilized.

To try and tie any success against terrorism by this administration to foreign policy is a stretch at best.

In the past year, self professed "enemies of democracy" have taken hold in the middle east. And foreign policy success is not based upon who you like, it is how well you can perform business as usual while still dealing with adversaries and potential hot spots. Nothing has happened under Obama's tenure that indicates great strides being made in terms with relations with other countries. And through all of this, Israel is the odd man out and this administration does not care.

There are plenty of things that Obama can be hammered on in a debate with the GOP nominee and foreign policy can be at the top of the list.

 

[dongkong]

I dont really like Cain. However, the media does over play gaff's by GOP hopefuls alot more than gaffs by the president or Vice president. There is a site that tracks gaffs by the president. Now most of these gaffs i never even heard about in the news. Why? but when a GOP person makes a gaff its on the news for a week atleast. I understand people have their biases, but the news media is really just really a whole bunch of propoganda now.

 

[Straight Shooter]

It was a gotcha question, that fucking gotcha journalism

 

[zeeblofowl_1969]

Just another Republican freak show.......