why i may withdraw my support for herman cain

Post Reply New Topic

Cain used to be one of my favorites, but he's making me very nervous how he's handling his little conspiracy on harassment. I'm not saying yay or nay on the facts. It's merely a test by his opponents to see how he'll react under pressure, and I don't like his reaction. He comes across too nervous to me, and that would be very bad in a foreign policy situation.

I think he's qualified and a man of great character, but I think he needs to get a better handle on his emotions, and reactions.

Just my 2 cents.

So I take your points number 1 and 5 to heart seriously.

You are so going to pretend not to be embarrassed when when Cain comes clean.

The difference is, while there have been Democrats who haven't been able to keep it in their pants, they've never claimed to be the party of values. And they've certainly never tried to shame and alienate people for their personal sexual behavior.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Kraichgauer, would you be upset with yourself if it turns out Cain is innocent?

Seriously Cain has offered to take a lie detector test for crying out loud.

Ever seen Night Patrol? Pat Paulsen was so good in that movie. I liked Billy Barty playing the farting police chief.

You think his offer to take a lie detector test may have something to do with the fact that they are statistically somewhat less reliable than flipping a coin?

It's really just another method of interrogation with intimidation. The results are still basically the interpretation of the interrogator.

So, you know, I'm willing to take any lie detector test administered by, oh, lets say Panda. And that's aside from the fact that google can tell you how to cheat.

I might feel a little bad for thinking the worst about him - but he's still not going to get my vote.
And while he did earlier on say he'd take a lie detector test, as I understand it, he's sort of backed away from that. So we'll see.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I would make sure that he didn't cheat.

And, if he didn't want to cooperate, then we would move on to waterboarding.

As someone who thinks the person in the big seat must be a moral person, I have issues with every election. Are we better with a moral idiot or a skilled politician who does whatever suits his own agenda?

Neither are ideal.

Right now, I suppose we could say Romney is the "moral leader" going for the job, but many critics, and I agree, say he's as conservative right now as he will ever be. There's a reason I call him "Obama lite." Many of the things conservatives want undone from the Obama administration likely will not go anywhere if Romney is in the White House. We can't expect that he will pressure Congress to pass the conservative platform. There is a tendency to give one power the majority control in Congress and the other party the White House. The only hope to push a conservative agenda would require a majority control by conservatives in both houses if Romney gets elected, and then we have to hope he won't veto what's passed.

While right now anything can happen, the last time "Republicans" got both houses and the White House, it was disastrous. The only rub is that the last time Democrats had both houses and the White House, it was equally disastrous. However, one party having the hill and the other having the White House = high chance of deadlock.

We need a LEADER who stands for common sense principles. We've had too many politicians, and most of the people going for 2012 are lackluster politicians nobody is really excited about.



The problem with Ron Paul is that I see him as just as much a sell out. In 2008, when confronted about ending the federal reserve, he admitted that it couldn't be done right away. If Ron Paul SURVIVED his first term in office, I doubt he would get re-elected as what America needs will only come at a high personal cost we all must be willing to bear. We've seen what the "unwashed masses" do when they are asked to sacrifice...they run for the guy promising to give them free bread and cheese in the next election.

So, if Ron Paul did get the nomination (which we know will not happen with the RNC), he would have one shot to make meaningful reforms to American society, and I suspect he really won't push hard for it.

Ron Paul could run as an independent, but if he does, and does not win, it will ensure that Obama gets another 4 years. When Ross Perot did his little run and pull his "I quit" garbage, he upset the political apple cart. Bill Clinton was a 3rd round draft pick for the DNC, and he should not have beaten H.W. Bush for the White House, but Perot got people energized, and when he dropped out, the Perot supporters largely sided with Clinton as H.W. Bush's trying to mimic Perot simply wasn't believable.

Even if Ron Paul does not quit the campaign, it will turn 2012 into a 3-way race, and with no real "leader" on the RNC's side, conservatives will have to decide if they go with Ron Paul or the RNC's choice. Obama supporters are sufficient in number to easily pull over 1/3 of the vote nationwide, and if the goal is to remove Obama from office, all the votes in opposition need to rally behind one candidate.

Sadly, 2012 is a very critical election. It will likely be the last meaningful election in US history. People don't realized how "screwed" the "pooch" is in America right now. It's taken Herculean efforts by those in power to maintain the illusion of prosperity and stability that most Americans believe to be the norm. What MUST be done to save America is going to be hard and painful, but it can be done. I doubt America can survive another 4 years of "business as usual," and even if we make significant strides to fix what's broken, it isn't enough to just do it for the next 4 years...it must continue well beyond that.

We are, in essence, one election away from becoming irrelevant as a nation and sliding towards a 3rd world status after our support structure collapses.

Will Americans make the hard choices needed to save America or just make the easy choices? History indicates it will be the latter.

2012 is indeed a critical election but gravely mistaken if you think Mittens Romney or the Cainwreck are any different than Obama. It would actually be worse if they won because when the SHTF with them in office, the left will field a candidate that would make Chairman Mao blush.

The only true conservative running is Ron Paul and I won't compromise on my principles. I have no loyalty at all to the Republican party, I vote for candidates that I agree with. If there was Democrat that I agreed with, I would have no issue voting for them. If neither have a candidate that I support; I'll vote 3rd party, write in, or not vote at all. If there's still an America in 2016, maybe we can get a real candidate.

As for the rest of your post, it sounds like you're just inventing reasons to yourself to rationalize not supporting Ron. I have no idea what you're talking about when you mentioned selling out. Ron's vision for America is a radical change from where we are now, it will have to take a fundamental change in the way Americans view the role of government in their lives. It won't be over night, I wish it could, but that's not the say we wouldn't be a much better situation that we will otherwise. The Presidency of the United States is biggest bully pulpit in the world so I think that would obviously go a long way to educating the populace. He can build coalitions with GOP and Democrats to pass his agenda; not to mention control of our nation's foreign policy. I am not worried at all about a him making a difference once elected.

Don't buy the media propaganda about Ron running as a third party candidate, he said he isn't and it makes no sense to do so. The media is just pushing it to scare away potential GOP voters from him. His supporters, however, will most likely not be voting for whoever wins GOP nomination if it's not Ron because it's not about the party; it's principles. They better tread lightly as that's solid 10% of the GOP base that's rock solid.

I hardly think Bill Clinton's presidency was a failure. It was Bush Jr. who had squandered the solid legacy he had left us. And Obama's presidency has proven to be less than stellar as of yet because the Republicans have made it their mission to see that he fails. Strange that you conservatives seem to deny that fact while at the same time work against the economy to make sure he has only one term.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Sadly, as I pointed out, Ron Paul, if he stands on his principles, probably would be assassinated before his first term was up. Last guy who wanted to audit the FED and put us back on a currency backed by gold/silver was JFK. He made a lot of enemies with his ideas. Ron Paul would do likewise.

So, if he gets in and is not assassinated, Ron Paul is guaranteed only 4 years to get stuff done. If he manages to get re-elected, he gets a maximum of 8 years....he does not have 10 years or more to bring people around. He has to do the largest share of the work in under 4 years and hope the American people suck it up and agree to sacrifice to save the nation.

Frankly, when he started waffling on how fast he'd push for basic changes that need to be made, I realized maybe he really wasn't going to follow it through.

As I know the RNC absolutely will not let Ron Paul get the nomination, he only has a shot as an independent candidate, and we'd need a massive grass roots campaign to not only get him a good shot of getting more than 1/3 of the vote, but we'd need to convince all the Republicans to support him over the RNC's choice. I don't have a lot of confidence in that happening. It's a key reason why Ron Paul will not run on a third-party ticket...he knows it would ensure Obama's re-election more than anything else. At best, you can hope that a lot of Democrats like what Ron Paul is saying, but frankly, the "progressive" movement doesn't attract libertarian-minded people as much as the conservative movement does.

There is no way that Ron Paul could defeat Obama (most of Ron Paul supporters would likely vote Obama in the General anyways even if Ron is the nominee), there is also no way Romney can defeat Obama due to Obamney Care. Perry is toast.

Cain might be able to beat Obama, but I don't think he has good chances.

Bachmann couldn't win in the General, neither could Santorum.

Newt Gingrich however, could beat Obama easily.

I've watched every debate, and Newt has consistently out-performed the other candidates, he hasn't bothered attacking the other candidates, but has instead made the Obama's 1000 press secretaries look like morons on National Television.

Then there is the idea of Newt debating Obama in 7 Lincoln/Douglas style debates with a time keeper but no moderator. I would actually pay money to see that.


Jacoby I do think Newt should give Ron Paul the job of auditing the Federal Reserve (and the pleasure of tossing Ben Bernake out the door).

What amazes me is that you all seem to be fixating on whether or not Herman Cain committed sexual harassment against three or four women sometime in the past. (Although it is interesting that when he ran for Congress in '03, he reportedly made sure that all of his staffers were briefed on the details - details which he now denies ever knowing.)

It was only a few days ago that Cain made the statement that should have dropped him straight out of contention - that one of his major goals as President would be to prevent China from getting nuclear weapons.

Is this staggering level of current ignorance on the part of a man who would lead this nation truly less of a hindrance than a tendency to have made women uncomfortable ten years ago??

I have one word for you Tardis. now who looks stupid.