Straight up comparison from wiki…
Which one should be running the US?
Honestly I find Cain’s resume quite incredible. Call me old fashioned but I love the fact he’s a real person and not a career politician
Go through just about any thread on this Forum, and you’ll get the negatives on the President; so I won’t go through all those.
Cain is what he is…a motivational speaker…and he is very good at it; especially at tapping into the Conservative base.
However; get him past rhetoric and business; and he has shown himself to be quite vulnerable when pressed on a) specifics and b) international affairs/foreign policy.
The “Mister Robinson Goes to Washington” schtick only goes so far.
Iowa and New Hampshire should really tell us a lot. Will those who profess to “like” Cain actually pull that lever/press that screen for him?
We’ll know in about two months.
Mufasa
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
However; get him past rhetoric…and he has shown himself to be quite vulnerable when pressed on a) specifics and b) international affairs/foreign policy.
[/quote]
Ummm…are you talking about Cain here or Obama in 2007 - 2008? I’m not sure…[/quote]
Ummm…neither…more Ronald Reagan in 1984…
Mufasa
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
However; get him past rhetoric…and he has shown himself to be quite vulnerable when pressed on a) specifics and b) international affairs/foreign policy.
[/quote]
Ummm…are you talking about Cain here or Obama in 2007 - 2008? I’m not sure…[/quote]
Ummm…neither…more Ronald Reagan in 1984…
Mufasa[/quote]
How old were you in 1984, Muf?[/quote]
Ah, Push…after all these years we know each other too well!
What’s the “real” question or point you want to make?
Mufasa
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
However; get him past rhetoric…and he has shown himself to be quite vulnerable when pressed on a) specifics and b) international affairs/foreign policy.
[/quote]
Ummm…are you talking about Cain here or Obama in 2007 - 2008? I’m not sure…[/quote]
Seriously?
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Cain…he has shown himself to be quite vulnerable when pressed on a) specifics and b) international affairs/foreign policy.
[/quote]
Cain circa 2011 on China: They’ve indicated that they’re trying to develop nuclear capability.
But on a brighter note: Cain has indicated that his views on foreign policy are influenced by John Bolton, Henry Kissinger and K.T. McFarland.
Did anyone else watch the Cain/Gingrich Debate?
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Cain is what he is…a motivational speaker…and he is very good at it; especially at tapping into the Conservative base
However; get him past rhetoric and business; and he has shown himself to be quite vulnerable when pressed on a) specifics and b) international affairs/foreign policy…[/quote]
I’m not a huge fan of Cain, but Obama was/is no different.
On the most important policy issue of the day, Obama has no fluency, and he didn’t in 2008. On his signature piece of legislation - ObamaCare - he made little policy defense of it.
In 2008, sweeping bromides from Obama about “Hope and Change” equaled “being a visionary” - progress was afoot, and details could be filled in later. In 2012, sweeping bromides from Cain indicate a lack of qualification for the job.
Obama supporters are many things - being big fans of double standards are at the top of that list.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Seriously?
[/quote]
Worth a relook too.
McCain 2007
http://www.cfr.org/us-election-2008/john-mccains-speech-foreign-policy/p14336
'But Democrats who aspire to the office of commander in chief ought to be able to demonstrate that their positions on Iraq and the long war against Islamic extremists are the product of sober reasoning and their promise of more realistic statecraft is based on, well, reality. Instead, they argue we will mysteriously have MORE leverage to induce difficult political reforms in Iraq when we announce we are leaving. They argue the war is lost just as we have finally begun making progress and al Qaeda’s fortunes have taken a decided to turn for the worse in Iraq. They argue nothing has changed in Iraq over the last six months despite the incontrovertible evidence of improvements. They argue we can fight al Qaeda better by ceding the battlefield to them in Iraq.
They refuse to consider the consequences of defeat: an empowered Iran, a victorious al Qaeda, a terrorist safe haven, civil war, genocide, and a wider regional war.
They are silent about Syria’s export of suicide bombers, and Iran’s exports of training, weapons and equipment that is being used to kill and maim American soldiers. They offer nothing other than generalities based on a withdrawal that amounts to defeat.
If we choose to lose in Iraq, one of the many dire consequences will be a surge of anther type: a surge of al Qaeda into Afghanistan. The level of violence will increase, casualties will increase, and political progress will slow. How long will it then take before the same advocates of surrender in Iraq, begin demanding an end to our mission in Afghanistan, and a “surge in diplomacy” aimed at a negotiated stalemate with the Taliban?
It is no less true today than it has been in the past: defeatism will not buy peace in our time. It will only make our future less secure and our world less safe.’
Obama built a fricken basketball court in the White House. If that’s not revolutionary I don’t know what is.
Cain’s experience matters little at this point. All of you folks dreaming of Cain being nominated can forget about it. This sexual harassment story is not going away. A fourth woman has stepped up and will soon hold a press conference with her attorney…Ready? Gloria (I’ll do anything for a buck) Allred. Cain will most assuredly NOT get past this latest attack. And those of you who want to see Obama defeated better hope that he doesn’t get past this as the Obama people will slice him and dice him should he be unfortunate enough to actually capture the nomination. Think Chicago politics my friends. Cain’s political fortunes are DOA!
One last point. Only democrats are allowed to get past any sort of sex scandals, see Clintion’s 1996 dodge of charges by Paula Jones, Jeniffer Flowers and others. The answer is simple, the main stream liberal media said that we have to separate his personal life from his private life. The womens groups were silent. Many maintained this position even in the face of White House intern Monica Lewinsky’s now famous tryst with President Clinton right there in the Oval office. It’s all okay and quite personal when it’s a democrat. But not at all cool and very threatening to women if it’s a republican.
Cain will neither get the nomination or be on the ticket. By the time this story plays out he will most likely be forced to drop out of the race. Quite a bit poorer than when he entered and no doubt somewhat bitter over how it all ended. If nothing else it will serve as a good lesson to those who dare enter the race for President while flying the republican banner. Beware! The double standard that the press lives by, and which greatly increased in 08’ in their negligence to vett an inexperienced Obama, will only get worse from this point forward.
Republican woman comes forward. Names hotel, restaurant, told 2 people shortly after (they’ve signed statements). In a parked car, Cain allegedly tried to fondle this woman while trying to pull her head into his lap. When she rebuffed him he said something like “you want a job don’t you?” She’d been let go apparently, and had agreed to meet him, Cain, to see if he could help her get her job back.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
One last point. Only democrats are allowed to get past any sort of sex scandals, see Clintion’s 1996 dodge of charges by Paula Jones, Jeniffer Flowers and others. The answer is simple, the main stream liberal media said that we have to separate his personal life from his private life. The womens groups were silent. Many maintained this position even in the face of White House intern Monica Lewinsky’s now famous tryst with President Clinton right there in the Oval office. It’s all okay and quite personal when it’s a democrat. But not at all cool and very threatening to women if it’s a republican.
[/quote]
Well, there is “hey, wanna fuck?” Clinton, and there is “hey, want your job back?” Cain.
I dunno, that is not quite the same.
You know why Obama doesn’t have any sex scandals? People don’t regret having sex with him. You know what they say.
[quote]ironcross wrote:
You know why Obama doesn’t have any sex scandals? People don’t regret having sex with him. You know what they say.[/quote]
April showers bring May flowers?
[quote]ironcross wrote:
You know why Obama doesn’t have any sex scandals? People don’t regret having sex with him. You know what they say.[/quote]
Nah. It’s just that he was too busy screwing the country. Zing!