Herman Cain backs mosque bans

[RandomGuy]

Presidential hopeful Herman Cain on Sunday sided with communities that want to ban mosques, saying Americans have a right to oppose the construction of places of Islamic worship.

During a discussion on "Fox News Sunday" of a proposed mosque in Murfreesboro, Tenn. that has drawn protests, legal challenges and even arson, host Chris Wallace asked the former Godfather's Pizza CEO his feelings about communities that wish to ban mosques.

"Yes, they have the right to do that," Cain replied.

Last week, Cain, who is Christian, referred to the planned Murfreesboro mosque as an "infringement and an abuse of our freedom of religion" during interviews with reporters at a campaign stop in Murfreesboro. There, the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro is planning to build a new, larger facility to accommodate its growing congregation.

Cain and others believe leaders at this mosque are trying to force Islamic extremism upon the community. "I don't agree with what's happening because this isn't an innocent mosque," Cain said.

Cain repeated that argument Sunday, adding during his Fox interview that he's generally opposed to Islam.

"Our Constitution guarantees separation of church and state. Islam combines church and state," Cain said Sunday. "They're objecting to the fact that Islam is both a religion and a set of laws," Cain said of the opponents.

When asked if his beliefs constitute discrimination, Cain disagreed, saying: "I am willing to take a harder look at people that might be terrorists. That's what I'm saying."

You can watch Cain's Fox News Sunday interview --- via Mediaite (http://videos.mediaite.com/embed/player/?layout=&playlist_cid=&media_type=video&content=VWDGLT1ZMM4YVSR8&read_more=1&widget_type_cid=svp)

Cain provoked questions about discrimination earlier this year when he said that he would not be comfortable appointing a Muslim to his cabinet or as a federal judge if elected.

Cain told Fox host Glenn Beck in June that he would appoint Muslims who pledged loyalty to the U.S. Constitution--and conceded that we would not require the same pledge from believers who have faced past charges of divided loyalties in U.S. politics, such as Catholics.

----------------------------------------------------------
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/herman-cain-backs-mosque-bans-152052930.html

This whole thing is a giant strawman, and this guy talked to the opponents and took the opponents at their word without actually talking to the imam, then claims to have "talked to the source".

So basically, he got one side of the story that he agrees with, then goes on and attempts to say that the government can ban the building of religioius buildings it objects to.

[coyotes_geek]

A quick public service announcement for republican presidential hopefuls from CG.

The less you talk about muslims, the better off you're going to be in the long run. I know it's tempting, but don't do it.

[Blake]

Lol godfathers pizza

[cheguevara]

:lmao another republican hopeful

[JohnnyMarzetti]

What a hypocrite. These idiots would be the first to bitch if a community wanted to ban a Christian church from being built.

[FromWayDowntown]

Actually understanding the Constitution and its amendments is not a prerequisite to one's ability to claim to revere the Constitution.

[Winehole23]

Wetting the bed over terrorism trumps all, sorry.

[baseline bum]

Right now, I prefer Cain.

Shocking

[DMX7]

Shocking

He was taken out of context.

[LnGrrrR]

That article should change "hopeful" to "extreme longshot" after those comments.

Where's WC to ask whether or not said conversation was recorded, whether the reporter was biased, whether or not he was trying to speak factually about how Muslims make up most terrorists, ask what's wrong with asking people to pledge their loyalty, etc etc...

[LnGrrrR]

Shocking

To be honest, he sounds like WC's kind of libertarian, you know, one that wants to implement poll taxes and mandatory neutering.

[JoeChalupa]

Just a matter of time before he calls it quits. Sanitorium will throw in the towel very soon.

[George Gervin's Afro]

To be honest, he sounds like WC's kind of libertarian, you know, one that wants to implement poll taxes and mandatory neutering.

well you do realize that not all muslims are terrorists but all terrorists have been muslim..

[boutons_deux]

"all terrorists have been muslim."

McVey, MacNichols were a Muslims?

[Drachen]

"all terrorists have been muslim."

McVey, MacNichols were a Muslims?

try to notice the color of the words before getting worked up into one of your signature frenzies.

[coyotes_geek]

Where's WC to ask whether or not said conversation was recorded, whether the reporter was biased, whether or not he was trying to speak factually about how Muslims make up most terrorists, ask what's wrong with asking people to pledge their loyalty, etc etc...

This is a poorly written article. Without conclusive video evidence we can't be certain that the reporter actually asked Mr. Cain whether or not cities had the right to ban moths. Until we see video of the actual interview it would be premature to presume that Cain believes cities have the right to ban mosques. Damn liberal media.

[TeyshaBlue]

This is a poorly written article. Without conclusive video evidence we can't be certain that the reporter actually asked Mr. Cain whether or not cities had the right to ban moths. Until we see video of the actual interview it would be premature to presume that Cain believes cities have the right to ban mosques. Damn liberal media.

:lol :tu

[LnGrrrR]

This is a poorly written article. Without conclusive video evidence we can't be certain that the reporter actually asked Mr. Cain whether or not cities had the right to ban moths. Until we see video of the actual interview it would be premature to presume that Cain believes cities have the right to ban mosques. Damn liberal media.

Even if he DID say mosques, why would people have a problem with him using his freedom of speech? Are you all libtard authoritarians?

[ElNono]

Herman Cain in his previous run for US Senator from Georgia, openly endorsed affirmative action on his web site. (http://christiancitizens.org/herman_cain_for_president.html)

This is not going to end well... :lol

[LnGrrrR]

I think I could run a better campaign than this guy.

[CuckingFunt]

I think I could run a better campaign than this guy.

Doubtful.

Unless your last name also rhymes with train.

MOFB-2yJzCY

[LnGrrrR]

Doubtful.

Unless your last name also rhymes with train.


No, but it does rhyme with anger. I could probably use that for something.

In a certain country, it's also slang for penis, idiot and getting smashed. I figure that's pretty impressive as well.

[boutons_deux]

You Stay Classy, Black Repugs

Allen West: Obama Supporters Are ‘A Threat To The Gene Pool’

I believe we are headed towards the ultimate ideological clash in America. There is a widening chasm which has developed between those who believe in principled fiscal policies and those desiring the socialist bureaucratic nanny-state. [...]

And all we hear from the President is talk about “shared sacrifice,” “tax the rich,” and “increase revenues by tax hikes.” It was just December 2010 that President Obama and the Democrats extended the Bush era tax rates for two years…now less than a year later they are FLIP-FLOPPING! [...]

I must confess, when I see anyone with an Obama 2012 bumper sticker, I recognize them as a threat to the gene pool.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/07/19/272794/allen-west-obama-supporters-gene-pool/

=========

these assholes will say anything, nothing is too insane or too hateful for them spew

[DarrinS]

You Stay Classy, Black Repugs

Allen West: Obama Supporters Are ‘A Threat To The Gene Pool’

I believe we are headed towards the ultimate ideological clash in America. There is a widening chasm which has developed between those who believe in principled fiscal policies and those desiring the socialist bureaucratic nanny-state. [...]

And all we hear from the President is talk about “shared sacrifice,” “tax the rich,” and “increase revenues by tax hikes.” It was just December 2010 that President Obama and the Democrats extended the Bush era tax rates for two years…now less than a year later they are FLIP-FLOPPING! [...]

I must confess, when I see anyone with an Obama 2012 bumper sticker, I recognize them as a threat to the gene pool.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/07/19/272794/allen-west-obama-supporters-gene-pool/

=========

these assholes will say anything, nothing is too insane or too hateful for them spew


Awe, boutons feewings hurt :cry

[boutons_deux]

nope, I'm immune to your assholes, but it is amazing, amusing how they keep lowering the bar of public discourse. Even better, you assholes vote them into office.

[DarrinS]

nope, I'm immune to your assholes, but it is amazing, amusing how they keep lowering the bar of public discourse. Even better, you assholes vote them into office.


mkay

[Ignignokt]

gfy

lol jewtons

[LnGrrrR]

mkay

Good catch actually :lol

[Agloco]

Is it me or are most Republican hopefuls........well........off their rockers? :lol

[boutons_deux]

your assholes = your asshole politicians.

[Wild Cobra]

So basically, he got one side of the story that he agrees with, then goes on and attempts to say that the government can ban the building of religioius buildings it objects to.
I thought he was saying the community has a say. How do you get government out of that. I guess you can imply the community is the lowest form of government, but communities generally have no formal structure.

Are you in favor of the people not being able to control their communities?

[ChumpDumper]

I thought he was saying the community has a say. How do you get government out of that. I guess you can imply the community is the lowest form of government, but communities generally have no formal structure.

Are you in favor of the people not being able to control their communities?Define control in this instance.

[LnGrrrR]

Are you in favor of the people not being able to control their communities?

You always bring the goods WC.

And no, the community doesn't have a right to ban buildings because of religious distaste. Pretty sure that's unconstitutional.

Are you in favor of people not being allowed to build edifices that express their religious beliefs? Are you saying you don't believe in the right to gather freely?

[ElNono]

Cobra, what are your thoughts on this:


Herman Cain in his previous run for US Senator from Georgia, openly endorsed affirmative action on his web site. (http://christiancitizens.org/herman_cain_for_president.html)

Are you going to need a transcript?

[Agloco]

Cobra, what are your thoughts on this:



Are you going to need a transcript?

Or a sedative :lol

[boutons_deux]

Rep. Allen West demands ‘vile’ Rep. Wasserman Schultz ‘shut the heck up’


calling her "the most vile, unprofessional, and despicable member of the U.S. House."

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/19/rep-allen-west-demands-vile-rep-wasserman-schultz-shut-the-heck-up/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

====

slap da bitch, nigga

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Herman Cain in his previous run for US Senator from Georgia, openly endorsed affirmative action on his web site. (http://christiancitizens.org/herman_cain_for_president.html)

This is not going to end well... :lol
I wonder what Cain's feelings are on black surgeons :lol

[boutons_deux]

GOP Candidate Cain Gets Away With Bigotry

It is time to stop giving Herman Cain’s unapologetic bigotry a free pass. The man and his poison need to be seen clearly and taken seriously.

Imagine the reaction if a major-party presidential candidate—one who, like Cain, shows actual support in the polls—said he “wouldn’t be comfortable” appointing a Jew to a Cabinet position. Imagine the outrage if this same candidate loudly supported a community’s efforts to block Mormons from building a house of worship.

But Cain’s prejudice isn’t against Mormons or Jews, it’s against Muslims. Open religious prejudice is usually enough to disqualify a candidate for national office—but not, apparently, when the religion in question is Islam.

On Sunday, Cain took the position that any community in the nation has the right to prohibit Muslims from building a mosque. The sound you hear is the collective hum of the Founding Fathers whirring like turbines in their graves.

Freedom of religion is, of course, guaranteed by the Constitution. There’s no asterisk or footnote exempting Muslims from this protection. Cain says he knows this. Obviously, he doesn’t care.

Cain launched into an elaborate conspiratorial fantasy about how the proposed place of worship is “not just a mosque for religious purposes” and how there are “other things going on.”

http://www.truthdig.com/report/print/gop_candidate_cain_gets_away_with_bigotry_20110718/

========

Racist Cain pandering to the KKK and "Christian" Taleban crowds.

[RandomGuy]

Is it me or are most Republican hopefuls........well........off their rockers? :lol

I think it is indicative of the party in general, and a direct product of the echo-chamber of Fox "news" and the radio jocks that make up the self-professed conservative media in this country.

It is said that "revolutions eat their children", and this is no different to me.

The Repbulican Revolution under Gingrich spawned a whole new generation deeply concerned with ideological purity on the conservative side. I'm not sure when the term "RINO" (Republican In Name Only) came about, but it would not surprise me that it came out of this era.

After this revolution, like all others, the true measure of your credibility is/was how closely you hew to the official dogma of that revolution. If you deviate or have the temerity to question the underlying assumptions, you are out.

In actual shooting revolutions, such as the various communist/totalitarian insurgencies, or the American/French revolution, that tended to lead to actual hangings, so I guess the moderates so villified by the GOP rank and file have it lucky that they are simply ostracised and marginalised.

The upside to all this for me as a Democrat, is that the party is driving to the right pretty hard and alienating a LOT of people at a time when the demographic clock is ticking against the party of rich white people, by rich white people, and for rich white people. It will find itself increasingly isolated.

Unfortunately that will make them feel more and more threatened, and I would expect to see some uptick of violence on the fringes as that happens.

To be clear: I don't think the vast majority of conservatives are violent people. They aren't. But for the small minority that are predisposed to violence, the electoral decline against the conservative party will be seen as "proof" that "they" are winning, and "something must be done". This will be a long-term 20+ year trend, but one I am sadly confident in.

[RandomGuy]

GOP Candidate Cain Gets Away With Bigotry

It is time to stop giving Herman Cain’s unapologetic bigotry a free pass. The man and his poison need to be seen clearly and taken seriously.

Imagine the reaction if a major-party presidential candidate—one who, like Cain, shows actual support in the polls—said he “wouldn’t be comfortable” appointing a Jew to a Cabinet position. Imagine the outrage if this same candidate loudly supported a community’s efforts to block Mormons from building a house of worship.

But Cain’s prejudice isn’t against Mormons or Jews, it’s against Muslims. Open religious prejudice is usually enough to disqualify a candidate for national office—but not, apparently, when the religion in question is Islam.

On Sunday, Cain took the position that any community in the nation has the right to prohibit Muslims from building a mosque. The sound you hear is the collective hum of the Founding Fathers whirring like turbines in their graves.

Freedom of religion is, of course, guaranteed by the Constitution. There’s no asterisk or footnote exempting Muslims from this protection. Cain says he knows this. Obviously, he doesn’t care.

Cain launched into an elaborate conspiratorial fantasy about how the proposed place of worship is “not just a mosque for religious purposes” and how there are “other things going on.”

http://www.truthdig.com/report/print/gop_candidate_cain_gets_away_with_bigotry_20110718/

========

Racist Cain pandering to the KKK and "Christian" Taleban crowds.

If this had been a case of a liberal secular community attempting to ban a new Christian church out of fear that the Christians in the community were going to impose "Bible law" on the country, you can bet your ass which side the Republicans would be on, and what their arguments would be.

[Blake]

I thought he was saying the community has a say. How do you get government out of that. I guess you can imply the community is the lowest form of government, but communities generally have no formal structure.

Are you in favor of the people not being able to control their communities?

this post makes little sense.

[RandomGuy]

I thought he was saying the community has a say. How do you get government out of that. I guess you can imply the community is the lowest form of government, but communities generally have no formal structure.

Are you in favor of the people not being able to control their communities?

News Flash:

County Governments Issue Building Permits.

Read all about it! Extra! Extra!

[RandomGuy]

News Flash:

Community decides to require poll taxes of all voters!!

Read all about in the Special Edition insert!

[RandomGuy]

"Controlling a community" does not give anyone a license to disregard the Constitution.

I am all in favor of letting a community set its own standards.

I am *not* in favor of letting that community trample on the constitutional rights of minorities.

[boutons_deux]

all kinds of groups like schools, Mormons, Catholics, orthodox Jews, Ron-Hubbardites set and enforce their own rules. The military disregards the Constitution and removes just about all rights from military grunts. OK if you're an enlistee, but not so OK if you're conscripted to waste your mind, body in a disaster like Viet Nam.

Cain singles out Muslims to rouse and sucker the xenophobic, paranoid, ignorant, racist rabble. Works every time. Just ask Fox Repug Propaganda network, Palin, Bachmann, etc.

[FromWayDowntown]

I thought he was saying the community has a say. How do you get government out of that. I guess you can imply the community is the lowest form of government, but communities generally have no formal structure.

Are you in favor of the people not being able to control their communities?

If the community in Orlando had decided that Casey Anthony should be executed without a trial, would that have been okay? After all, shouldn't the people be able to control their community?

[Wild Cobra]

Cobra, what are your thoughts on this:



Are you going to need a transcript?
It depends of if it's the original quota free system or not.

You obviously don't pay attention to specifics. Just the catch phrases.

From the little I know, he doesn't support quota's.

Show me wrong.

[ElNono]

It depends of if it's the original quota free system or not.

What's your opinion in either case?


You obviously don't pay attention to specifics. Just the catch phrases.

I really have no interest in Cain. I was specifically asking you since you seemed interested enough in him, so I figured you did your homework.

Guess not.

[Wild Cobra]

What's your opinion in either case?



I really have no interest in Cain. I was specifically asking you since you seemed interested enough in him, so I figured you did your homework.

Guess not.
LOL...

You have zero clue.

If you understood my past statements on affirmative action, you wouldn't be saying what you are.

If he supports quotas, I will cross him off my list.

[TeyshaBlue]

What's your opinion in either case?



I really have no interest in Cain. I was specifically asking you since you seemed interested enough in him, so I figured you did your homework.

Guess not.

Shocking, I know.:lol

[Wild Cobra]

Bottom line is I don't believe he supports quota systems, and he denies it. It is impossible for me to read everything to find a single incident that he might, hence, "as little I know."

If any of you are so obsessed by someone to read that much material. Have at it.

[ElNono]

You have zero clue.
If you understood my past statements on affirmative action, you wouldn't be saying what you are.

What am I saying? I'm asking you for your opinion...


If he supports quotas, I will cross him off my list.

That's what I thought.

[Winehole23]

Bottom line is I don't believe he supports quota systems, and he denies it.That'll do. Got a link for that?

[ElNono]

Got a link for that?

I actually googled it. Here:
http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/2004/04/28/op_413767.shtml

[Winehole23]

"Reading everything" apparently isn't so hard. Thx for the link.

[ElNono]

"Reading everything" apparently isn't so hard. Thx for the link.

His views pre-1999 seem to be somewhat different though, from the stuff you can read out there. But I really stopped there since I don't care that much about the guy.

[boutons_deux]

From Cain, more crap about, "I did it, everybody can" and "everybody in America has equal opportunity and everybody can be a big winner, just believe in God and work hard".

How about poor people holding down 2 or 3 shitty jobs and who will very probably never "make it" or "make it big", like being CEO of a junk food company. Is that "hard" enough?

Why has social mobility stagnated these last 30+ years, corresponding to the ascension of conservative financial and social practices?

The evidence is so overwhelmingly against Cain's fairy tale.

[Winehole23]

His views pre-1999 seem to be somewhat different thoughThis sort of inconsistency doesn't bother me. People's political views drift and evolve, sometimes dramatically.

[FromWayDowntown]

This sort of inconsistency doesn't bother me. People's political views drift and evolve, sometimes dramatically.

Not too many election cycles ago, the evolution of a political viewpoint was derided and mocked by people waving sandals during a partisan convention. Anything to win, of course, but the seeming popularity of criticizing a candidate for having the temerity to change his mind on an issue was striking.

I happen to share your viewpoint on the evolution of views; the example, however, shows (sadly, I think) that such changes are so easily spun -- to the agreement of many -- into evidence of weakness.

[ElNono]

Not too many election cycles ago, the evolution of a political viewpoint was derided and mocked by people waving sandals during a partisan convention. Anything to win, of course, but the seeming popularity of criticizing a candidate for having the temerity to change his mind on an issue was striking.

I remember that.

[LnGrrrR]

This sort of inconsistency doesn't bother me. People's political views drift and evolve, sometimes dramatically.

The problem with that, though, is if you elect a person expecting them to hold X view on an issue, and then they change to Y view midway through their campaign. I think it's a legitimate gripe in some instances.

I don't mind if people change their views on an issue, but I think they should at least explain why. For instance, Obama ran heavily on civil liberties, but then has abandoned many of his stances, for no apparent reason.

[Wild Cobra]

The problem with that, though, is if you elect a person expecting them to hold X view on an issue, and then they change to Y view midway through their campaign. I think it's a legitimate gripe in some instances.

I don't mind if people change their views on an issue, but I think they should at least explain why. For instance, Obama ran heavily on civil liberties, but then has abandoned many of his stances, for no apparent reason.
Did you expect otherwise?

He's a Chicago style politician!

[LnGrrrR]

Did you expect otherwise?

He's a Chicago style politician!

Eh, I was hoping. He's done some good things that I support: took out those pirates, took out Osama, signed the Lilly Ledbetter Act, working on taking away the execrable "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, and a few other things.

But he's been shit on civil liberties, which is one of my key concerns.

[velik_m]

Not too many election cycles ago, the evolution of a political viewpoint was derided and mocked by people waving sandals during a partisan convention. Anything to win, of course, but the seeming popularity of criticizing a candidate for having the temerity to change his mind on an issue was striking.

I happen to share your viewpoint on the evolution of views; the example, however, shows (sadly, I think) that such changes are so easily spun -- to the agreement of many -- into evidence of weakness.


When a man you like switches from what he said a year ago, or four years
ago, he is a broad-minded man who has courage enough to change his mind
with changing conditions. When a man you don't like does it, he is a
liar who has broken his promises.

[Wild Cobra]

Eh, I was hoping. He's done some good things that I support: took out those pirates, took out Osama, signed the Lilly Ledbetter Act, working on taking away the execrable "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, and a few other things.

But he's been shit on civil liberties, which is one of my key concerns.
Well, the first two would have happened anyway. The 3rd? Don't know. I do have a problem with it being an "ex post facto" law.

PUBLIC LAW 111–2 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ2/pdf/PLAW-111publ2.pdf).

DADT... You know my thoughts already.

[Winehole23]

The problem with that, though, is if you elect a person expecting them to hold X view on an issue, and then they change to Y view midway through their campaign. I think it's a legitimate gripe in some instances.It's a legitimate gripe in all instances, and the explanation does make a difference. Because it doesn't bother me doesn't mean I make that into a principle.

I don't mind if people change their views on an issue, but I think they should at least explain why. For instance, Obama ran heavily on civil liberties, but then has abandoned many of his stances, for no apparent reason.skQuhoG7fFM

[Winehole23]

Not too many election cycles ago, the evolution of a political viewpoint was derided and mocked by people waving sandals during a partisan convention. Anything to win, of course, but the seeming popularity of criticizing a candidate for having the temerity to change his mind on an issue was striking.I see what you mean, but I doubt Kerry lost because of the flip-flops. The Swift-boat furore was probably more damaging to him.

[Wild Cobra]

I see what you mean, but I doubt Kerry lost because of the flip-flops. The Swift-boat furore was probably more damaging to him.
I would disagree. I believe the flip-flops did him more hard.

Would liberals ever win if they didn't lie about their competition?

[Winehole23]

I would disagree. I believe the flip-flops did him more hard.Hell, you could be right.

Would liberals ever win if they didn't lie about their competition? Half right.

Everyone lies about the competition; therefore, nobody wins without lying.

[FromWayDowntown]

Well, the first two would have happened anyway. The 3rd? Don't know. I do have a problem with it being an "ex post facto" law.

PUBLIC LAW 111–2 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ2/pdf/PLAW-111publ2.pdf).

You do realize that not all laws with retroactive application are violative of the ex post facto clause, right?

[FromWayDowntown]

I see what you mean, but I doubt Kerry lost because of the flip-flops. The Swift-boat furore was probably more damaging to him.

Undoubtedly, Senator Kerry had more flaws than his willingness to revisit past political decisions and revise his views of those issues. But the adamant disdain for his having engaged in such introspection fueled the opposition's masses in that campaign -- moreso, I believe, than any substantive policy position or campaign gaffe.

The widespread willingness to believe that politicians' conclusions should be ironclad once reached was stunning.

[Winehole23]

The widespread willingness to believe that politicians' conclusions should be ironclad once reached....Or that changing one's opinion signifies a lack of principles and thralldom to political expediency...the evident point of the windsurfing ad, for example.

[boutons_deux]

"to ban a new Christian church out of fear that the Christians in the community were going to impose "Bible law" on the country"

Of course!!

If the "Christian" group was known to be Constitutional law violator (establishing their militant, extreme, treasonous, exclusionary cult of "Christian" supremacy as the official US religion), then I would support blocking the establishment of their "church".

If they wanted to establish their "church" but not impose their weird morality on tax-payer institutions, then I'd be quite content to let them drink their own Kool-aid in private in their "church".

[Winehole23]

But the adamant disdain for his having engaged in such introspection fueled the opposition's masses in that campaign -- moreso, I believe, than any substantive policy position or campaign gaffe. Likeability and how you look on TV has more electoral significance than policy positions. Sad, yes. I don't see it changing anytime soon.

[FromWayDowntown]

Likeability and how you look on TV has more electoral significance than policy positions. Sad, yes. I don't see it changing anytime soon.

Indeed, there is ample reason to suspect that Governor Perry's vapid responses to occasionally-challenging policy questions will have little to no bearing upon his ultimate electability in 2012.

His hair, however, will likely have a say.

[coyotes_geek]

Policy positions are irrelevant in determining election outcomes. They're nothing more than made up justifications people use to validify their predetermined decisions. The only three things that matter are party affiliation, physical appearance / likeability and which side has the better marketing campaign.

[Winehole23]

You forgot money, but agreed.

[coyotes_geek]

True.

[Winehole23]

There are two important things in politics. The first is money and I can't remember the second.

[Spurminator]

John Kerry lost because the prevailing voice of the Left in 2004 consisted of a disorganized bloc of rabid, belligerent protest sign wavers who spent much of the day arguing about which level of Dante's circle Bush and Cheney would be designated to when they died. It was like hearing from 100 different versions of boutons every day.

The leading voice on the Left at that time was Michael Moore, which was not a good thing when a majority of the country was still either approving or uncertain of the job Bush was doing as President.

Barack Obama won because the leading voice on the Left in 2008 was Barack Obama. I see the Right's campaign against him in 2012 being very similar to the Left's campaign in 2004, which would be a bad thing for them. The only exception would be Rick Perry, who I think would run a less anti-Obama campaign, preferring a pro-Jesus campaign that will still allow his supporters to maintain their anti-Obamaism under the guise that Perry is God's Choice.

[boutons_deux]

"John Kerry lost..."

.... by the lowest margin for any incumbent Pres.

dubya won because Repugs started a fake war for oil, expecting that they could sell the ignorant, incompetent life-loser, affirmative-action dubya as a victorious war "mission accomplished" president, then when the war wasn't won, ridiculing every single Repug/military prediction, they switched to selling "you don't change Pres during a war".

With no Iraq war, Kerry wins.

And then of course, Repug Ken Blackwell stole OH with vote fraud.

[coyotes_geek]

"John Kerry lost..."

.... by the lowest margin for any incumbent Pres.

dubya won because Repugs started a fake war for oil, expecting that they could sell the ignorant, incompetent life-loser, affirmative-action dubya as a victorious war "mission accomplished" president, then when the war wasn't won, ridiculing every single Repug/military prediction, they switched to selling "you don't change Pres during a war".

With no Iraq war, Kerry wins.

And then of course, Repug Ken Blackwell stole OH with vote fraud.

This is easily one of the dumbest things said on this forum.

Without Iraq, 2004 voters are thinking about 5% unemployment, low taxes, a 30% gain in the DOW over the last year, rising home prices and an Afghanistan war that people are generally tolerant of.

Without Iraq, Kerry gets crushed.

[DMX7]

This is easily one of the dumbest things said on this forum.

Without Iraq, 2004 voters are thinking about 5% unemployment, low taxes, a 30% gain in the DOW over the last year, rising home prices and an Afghanistan war that people are generally tolerant of.

Without Iraq, Kerry gets crushed.

Without Swiftboat Gate, he probably wins.

[boutons_deux]

you're saying the Iraq war in 2004 was a negative for dubya? This is easily one of the dumbest things said on this forum.

[coyotes_geek]

You're right boutons. Everybody loved the way Iraq worked out and appreciated George W. Bush's bold decision making. No WMD's? No problem. Without Iraq though, voters just weren't going to tolerate a good economy and would have kicked Bush out.

[ElNono]

You're right boutons. Everybody loved the way Iraq worked out and appreciated George W. Bush's bold decision making. No WMD's? No problem. Without Iraq though, voters just weren't going to tolerate a good economy and would have kicked Bush out.

I agree with boutons on this one. Iraq was actually something Bush used as leverage in those elections. Because back then the spin was that Iraq war = War against terror. Here's an article from back then: link (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-01-22-bush_x.htm)

The fallout for the war started later on, with Abu Ghrahib (sp?), and the civil war concerns that required the extra troop buildup.

[coyotes_geek]

I agree with boutons on this one. Iraq was actually something Bush used as leverage in those elections. Because back then the spin was that Iraq war = War against terror. Here's an article from back then: link (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-01-22-bush_x.htm)

The fallout for the war started later on, with Abu Ghrahib (sp?), and the civil war concerns that required the extra troop buildup.

The Abu Grahib story broke well before the election. Public support was already declining.

If you want to say that Bush's ability to spin Iraq is the reason he won when compared to a scenario where Iraq still happened, then yeah, I'd agree. But that's not what boutons is saying. He's saying that if Iraq never happened at all Bush wouldn't have won. That's just ridiculous. The economy was good, people were okay with Afghanistan. What issue was out there that was going to cause independents (republicans and democrats don't count since their votes are predetermined) to look past a good economy to vote bush out?

[boutons_deux]

"Public support was already declining"

For us smart ones, it had declined before Mar 03.

There was a clear, persistent, fear-and-monger, Rove-ian message/suggestion that "We don't change Presidents in the middle (of even an unpopular) Global War on Terror."

[coyotes_geek]

A message deemed necessary by an unpopular war that threatened the re-election chances of the president, and provides no justification whatsoever towards the claim that the president's re-election chances would have diminished if the unpopular war never occurred.

[Winehole23]

Undoubtedly, Senator Kerry had more flaws than his willingness to revisit past political decisions and revise his views of those issues. Political bad habit arising from the privilege of revising and extending the record?

[ElNono]

The Abu Grahib story broke well before the election. Public support was already declining.

You're right. I thought it was 2006, but it was early 2004.


If you want to say that Bush's ability to spin Iraq is the reason he won when compared to a scenario where Iraq still happened, then yeah, I'd agree.

That's what I was going at. He definitely used Iraq and the war on terror as a leverage on that election. Which basically played the 'determined commander' against the 'flip flopper'.

[boutons_deux]

Herman Cain: Austerity for You, Ritz Carlton for Me

Cain's presidential committee, Friends of Herman Cain, spent $448,000 on air travel in the first half of 2011. That comes out to nearly $2,500 a day. And when it came to hotels, Cain's operation doled out nearly $100,000 in the first half of the year—or $538 a day—on some of swankiest hotels in America.

Cain has spent less than his biggest rivals this election cycle—his $2.1 million trails Tim Pawlenty's $2.5 million and Mitt Romney's $5.6 million. But what separates Pawlenty and Romney is that their campaigns spend within their means, raising far more—Romney $17.1 million and Pawlenty $4 million—than they spend. Cain, on the other hand, contradicts his own fiscal responsibility message: His spending has outpaced his fundraising haul by nearly $43,000. (He's in the black if you include the $500,000 loan Cain made to his campaign in his haul.)

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/07/herman-cain-campaign-ritz-carlton-president

[ChumpDumper]

He's in the black

http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/entries/icons/original/000/002/135/sw50sw8sw578.gif?1293729577

Seriously, I pretty much expect a guy worth $18 million to not stay in a Super 8.

[LnGrrrR]

Well, the first two would have happened anyway. The 3rd? Don't know. I do have a problem with it being an "ex post facto" law.

PUBLIC LAW 111–2 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ2/pdf/PLAW-111publ2.pdf).

DADT... You know my thoughts already.

I think the Lily Ledbetter ruling in the courts was atrocious, personally. And whether or not the first two "would have happened" is arguable.

[Blake]

A message deemed necessary by an unpopular war that threatened the re-election chances of the president, and provides no justification whatsoever towards the claim that the president's re-election chances would have diminished if the unpopular war never occurred.

I dunno.


Posted 8/27/2003 11:42 PM Updated 8/28/2003 7:45 AM

Most say Iraq war was worth fighting
By Richard Benedetto, USA TODAY

CRAWFORD, Texas — The news from Iraq is mostly bad, and criticism of President Bush from Democrats is relentless. But nearly two-thirds — 63% — of Americans say the war in Iraq was worth fighting, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll shows. (Related: Full poll results)
.......

If the election were held today, the poll shows Bush would defeat an unnamed Democrat, 51%-39%, among registered voters. That's a slight gain from the 48%-40% that was measured in late July. Other polls taken last week showed the race closer. One had the Democrat slightly ahead.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-08-27-poll-usat_x.htm

[Blake]

Herman Cain: Austerity for You, Ritz Carlton for Me

Cain's presidential committee, Friends of Herman Cain, spent $448,000 on air travel in the first half of 2011. That comes out to nearly $2,500 a day. And when it came to hotels, Cain's operation doled out nearly $100,000 in the first half of the year—or $538 a day—on some of swankiest hotels in America.

Cain has spent less than his biggest rivals this election cycle—his $2.1 million trails Tim Pawlenty's $2.5 million and Mitt Romney's $5.6 million. But what separates Pawlenty and Romney is that their campaigns spend within their means, raising far more—Romney $17.1 million and Pawlenty $4 million—than they spend. Cain, on the other hand, contradicts his own fiscal responsibility message: His spending has outpaced his fundraising haul by nearly $43,000. (He's in the black if you include the $500,000 loan Cain made to his campaign in his haul.)

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/07/herman-cain-campaign-ritz-carlton-president

I've never heard of Tim Pawlenty

[boutons_deux]

"nearly two-thirds — 63% — of Americans say the war in Iraq was worth fighting"

in Aug 03? The Repug lie machine is very effective exploiting Human-Americans' good will and faith in govt in times of national trauma.

[Wild Cobra]

You do realize that not all laws with retroactive application are violative of the ex post facto clause, right?
It doesn't mean I have to like it now, does it?

Please read my words again. I said I didn't like it. I never claimed it violated anything.

Do you purposely misinterpret my words because of you bias against me?

[DMX7]

"nearly two-thirds — 63% — of Americans say the war in Iraq was worth fighting"

in Aug 03? The Repug lie machine is very effective exploiting Human-Americans' good will and faith in govt in times of national trauma.

Exactly

You're either with us or against us.

Why don't you support the troops?

We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.

We have to fight them over there or they'll follow us home.

There's a connection between Sadaam and Osama.

etc.

etc.

etc.

[Blake]

Do you purposely misinterpret my words because of you bias against me?

good lord

[FromWayDowntown]

It doesn't mean I have to like it now, does it?

Please read my words again. I said I didn't like it. I never claimed it violated anything.

Do you purposely misinterpret my words because of you bias against me?

I disagree with much of what you say, but I don't disagree with it because you say it. I harbor no bias against you; how could I, after all? I don't know you.

Concerns for ex post facto laws tend (by and large) to coincide with arguments that the law is unconstitutional (because it is an ex post facto law). That's the entire basis for my response to your statement. I'm not going to apologize for failing to engage in some tedious effort to find out if your statement was more nuanced. It's a message board.

[Winehole23]

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/15163990/gop-presidential-candidate-apologizes-for-comments