Posted on 10/19/2011 1:54:41 PM PDT by katiedidit1
WASHINGTON -- Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain said Sunday that he should not have stayed silent after the audience at a GOP debate booed a gay soldier serving in Iraq.
The Georgia businessman told ABC's "This Week" that it would have been "appropriate" for him to have defended the soldier. None of the candidates on stage at the Sept. 22 forum responded to the boos.
"In retrospect, because of the controversy it has created and because of the different interpretations that it could have had, yes, that probably -- that would have been appropriate," Cain said, when asked if he should have asked the audience to respect the soldier.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/02/cain-shouldve-defended-gay-soldier-from-boos-at-debate/#ixzz1bGMXVDiU
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Who is?
I’m an anti-federalist, too. This position, as long as its evenly applied, is a positive for Cain.
he is also against a constitutional amendment to protect marriage. Instead he ignores full faith and credit and gives “the states should...” rino double talk.
You can’t be talking about Cain.
Ignoring DOMA is treasonous breach of presidential duty
Q: You said that the administration’s decision not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act was “a breach of presidential duty bordering on treason.” Pretty strong language; isn’t this country moving toward acceptance of gay marriage?
A: The Defense of Marriage Act is the law of the land, signed in 1996 by Pres. Bill Clinton. In his oath of office the president says he is supposed to protect and uphold the laws of the USA. To me that is asking the Justice Department to not uphold the law
Source: 2011 GOP primary debate in South Carolina , May 5, 2011
If you believe in Bible, same-sex marriage is moot point
The issue of same-sex marriage was a hot issue in 2004. Eleven states featured ballot initiatives that asked voters if they support a ban on legalizing same-sex unions. The initiatives passed overwhelmingly in all 11 states.
My pastor had a reply ready to those in his congregation who asked him his position on the same-sex marriage issue:”What part of the Bible do you want to throw out?” If you believe in the Bible, then the issue is a moot point. We cannot separate this “civil rights issue,” as the Democrats call it, from the moral issue. There is a tendency among liberals to lower a moral standard to accommodate a civil behavior. The difference between the civil rights struggle and the so-called gay struggle is that the civil rights struggle constantly moved this nation upward to live up to the ideal that “All men are created equal, endowed by their Creator.” The gay rights struggle involves altering the established moral principle of marriage as the union between one man and one woman.
Source: They Think You’re Stupid, by Herman Cain, p. 89-90 , Jun 14, 2005
Amendment to protect the sacred institution of marriage
[Reacting to a ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Court that allowed for same-sex marriage]: The courts have failed the American people. Congress needs to enact a constitutional amendment to protect the sacred institution of marriage. Liberal-minded judges have opened a floodgate of judicial tyranny that will chip away at the core values of this country until nothing sacred is left! It started with not allowing prayer in schools, not being able to display the Ten Commandments, attempting to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance and now making same-sex marriages legal.
A constitutional amendment is needed to protect the definition of marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman. If we don’t act now all states could be forced to accep same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts. We cannot allow this to happen! The long-term effects will further destroy the moral fabric of our society. Congress needs to take action on instituting a constitutional amendment to defend marriage now.
Source: Herman’s Column Archive, North Star Writer’s Group , Feb 1, 2002
You are correct except that the Constitution was already destroyed when Obama took office, as he is NOT a natural born citizen.
Not a single politician in either party and just one military officer out of thousands objected. These are the same men and women who swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.
Shinning City of Sodom on a hill. America deserves the collapse that is coming.
So far..I am not excited about any of them BUT whoever gets the green light to run on the gop ticket..I will support both finacially and otherwise. Don’t mind all the bad stuff coming out early. Too bad Demint didn’t run
I am going to steal your great saying: Shining City of Sodom on a hill.
The truth is that our legal system was destroyed in the early 1900’s by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. who stated that morality can be taken out of law—and he began that process and concept of “Positive Law”.
We haven’t been under a “Rule of (God’s) Law” since then-—and we have morphed into the Rule (and standard) of Barney Frank.
It has taken many decades but now we have absolutely NO Justice system—where we are equal under the law and where Right Reason according to Nature is the basis of all our laws.
Destroy the Rule of Law (Cicero) and you destroy the nation. We have nonsensical arbitrary law now—like two men are the same as one man and one woman....as if Science doesn’t prove the idiocy of that......It is all is so unconstitutional.
How are those things smears? They all happened and they are all truthful recountings of the facts.
Cain stated he was against a Fed Audit. He’s flipped on that.
Cain was endorsed by Rainbow Push for U.S. Senate. WHY is a question that needs answering.
Cain supported TARP. And of course, now that it’s a problem, he has problems with ‘how it was implemented,’ never mind that TARP gave incredible latitude to the SecTreas to do wtf he wanted and Cain knew that before his article supporting the bank bailout.
Cain, in company with John McCain, is for some reason harping on how this partisan Democrat gay deserved better than booing simply because he’s been in the service. (opinion) They both seem to be piously implying military service somehow should make partisan behavior immune from political blowback—as if this would not be to their own benefit.
Cain has flipped or ‘clarified’ or ‘joked’ repeatedly. He’s not polished at politicking, doesn’t seem to really know where he stands on a lot of issues, and certainly can’t clearly enunciate an overarching political philosophy to fall back on except (lately) ‘we need to look at everything in context.’ Which is a load of horse manure everything’s gray b.s. rat philosophy when it comes to, for example, negotiating with terrorists for hostages, which Cain under repeated questioning would not rule out at the debate.
As to the affirmative action issue, I can’t see where he’s stated conclusively that he would do away with it. And that should be his answer, but Cain has said instead “This is very tricky. If it means that economically impoverished kids who happen to be minorities should get consideration for assistance, that’s great. If that means that minorities get slots in place of white kids with better academic credentials, then that is not fair.” What he should be saying is ANY government consideration of the color of people’s skin is unconstitutional. Instead, it’s just ‘tricky.’
“Cain stated he was against a Fed Audit. He’s flipped on that.”
In the post I referred to katiedid said that he was AGAINST an audit of the Fed. That is false. I have been there since the beginning of this whole ridiculous thing which has been taken and blown out of proportion by Paulbots. He had an interview where he basically states that people didn’t need to audit the Fed because they had internal audits and people could call up and get the copies. Well, Paul supporters took a PART of that interview, and still to this day use it. Well, Cain, as soon as Paulbots started posting this on his page, clarified that if Paul wants to audit the Fed, go right ahead, but that Cain himself is not going to lead the charge.
Paul followers have made the most outrageous statements - to listen to them Cain was directly responsible for setting monetary policy. He was a Class C director, meaning that he was a liason between the Fed and the business community. His job description is right here - http://kansascityfed.org/publicat/newsroom/2011pdf/press.release.05.26.11.pdf
Who knows why Rainbow push endorsed him. Project Q in Atlanta hates his guts. So what? I have never heard him waiver on his stance on homosexuality.
Yes he supported the first TARP under Bush. He did see how badly it was implemented and he wrote a letter criticizing TARP it as early as January 2009 and warned against future bailouts and stimulus. http://economicfreedomcoalition.com/news/press-opinion-011909.asp He at least admits it unlike other candidates who backtrack.
Speaking of that - Perry, Romney, Gingrich, Palin also supported Tarp. Bachmann supported Patriot Act. Santorum supported No Child Left Behind. Ron Paul voted with Dems against an amendment to protect out troops on the battlefield. NO ONE has a perfect stance on everything.
I already answered the “gay soldier booing” situation and as I pointed out Cain sided with the audience that he did not think they were booing the soldier. I happen to agree with Cain about respecting people. I hate the gay lifestyle. I think it’s wrong Biblically, and I will tell people that, but I do not hate people, and I do respect people who are serving our country.
Cain went further in his book ‘They Think Your Stupid’ that he agrees with equal opportunity but not equal outcome. For some people Affirmative Action means equal outcome. That is not his definition. AA has been co-opted by liberals to mean more than it meant to people who came up through the civil rights era.
I agree with you that he’s not polished. He doesn’t give poll tested answers. He is REAL. People are responding to that. I’m sure he will misspeak dozens more times because he is not a professional politician.
And the “flip flops” everyone keeps referring too - he is not flip flopping on any major stances like Romney. He uses a lot of hyperbole in his speaking which some take literally (China, moats, alligators?) so he has to go back for the idiots who take ever word literally, even though most people understand his meaning, especially here in the South.
Thankfully, other than the people who are desparate for Cain to lose, most people don’t CARE about the small faux pas. They know where Herman Cain’s heart is, they trust him. People from his past all stand by him as a man of integrity and character. His wife, his children, his church, his coworkers, his bosses, even his employees.
He lives conservative values, he doesn’t just parade them for political gain.
Every candidate out there has flaws, but instead of going after Romney, the RINO, it seems to be open season on Cain for the smallest of gaffes. It really borders on insane, and reminds me of the liberal’s almost tangible hatred and evisceration of Palin for the smallest of things.
It’s not going to happen again, not if I can help it. It’s why, as a stay at home mom, I am here at my computer nearly 10 hours a day providing links to facts to fight every lie and misrepresentation posted on this site.
--That's because Cain basically said that the idea of auditing the Fed was ignorant as they had nothing that wasn't already audited internally. The bailout that the Fed led embarrassed Bush and Obama and the Fed by covering international banks, not just American institutions, and hid which banks got the money and why. Cain could have said, hey, nothing to hide, let's audit them. Instead, his reaction was essentially perceived as, "I worked there, they're clean, if you weren't so stupid, you'd know that."
[Cain] had an interview where he basically states that people didn’t need to audit the Fed because they had internal audits and people could call up and get the copies. Well, Paul supporters took a PART of that interview, and still to this day use it. Well, Cain, as soon as Paulbots started posting this on his page, clarified that if Paul wants to audit the Fed, go right ahead, but that Cain himself is not going to lead the charge.
--I've seen the interview, and Cain is a bit less than charitable in his wording. When Paul pointed this out during the debate, Cain denied that. You may be partial to the man, but others view his defense of the Fed as obstruction until he saw it was not sustainable in the face of broad public support for an independent, not internal, audit. Cain isn't leading the charge because again, he's never supported a public audit. That isn't acceptable in the eyes of the public, who don't want an agency that has so much power to be secretive or private. The Fed is both.
Paul followers have made the most outrageous statements - to listen to them Cain was directly responsible for setting monetary policy. He was a Class C director, meaning that he was a liason between the Fed and the business community. His job description is right here - http://kansascityfed.org/publicat/newsroom/2011pdf/press.release.05.26.11.pdf
--Where? Allegations that he 'set monetary policy' is not anything I have ever seen. But he sure has carried water for the Fed.
Who knows why Rainbow push endorsed him. Project Q in Atlanta hates his guts. So what? I have never heard him waiver on his stance on homosexuality.
So what? This seems to me to go to the heart of concerns that the guy isn't a principled conservative when it comes down to it. If he's got a soft spot for gays--and his recent statement re: this gay soldier sure seem to lean Log Cabin--this is one more weakness in the chain.
Yes he supported the first TARP under Bush. He did see how badly it was implemented and he wrote a letter criticizing TARP it as early as January 2009 and warned against future bailouts and stimulus. http://economicfreedomcoalition.com/news/press-opinion-011909.asp He at least admits it unlike other candidates who backtrack.
BUT he doesn't say it was wrong in the first place, just that he didn't like the implementation. That's an issue you and he miss. It doesn't matter if it's implemented perfectly if it is unconstitutional in the first place.
Speaking of that - Perry, Romney, Gingrich, Palin also supported Tarp. Bachmann supported Patriot Act. Santorum supported No Child Left Behind. Ron Paul voted with Dems against an amendment to protect out troops on the battlefield. NO ONE has a perfect stance on everything.
Hang on--I'd enjoy seeing the vote you're talking about with Paul, simply because he usually has a Constitutional justification for his actions that is pretty solid. IIRC, something like that happened where the Congress was trying to infringe on the CinC's enumerated power to command the military. It's easy to make a statement about how everyone makes imperfect stances when you aren't detailing what those really are. But even if 'everyone does it,' do I want to vote for someone who does on the basis of 'he's no worse than the next guy?' Heck no. I'd rather 'waste my vote' than vote for the lesser of two evils again.
I already answered the “gay soldier booing” situation and as I pointed out Cain sided with the audience that he did not think they were booing the soldier. I happen to agree with Cain about respecting people. I hate the gay lifestyle. I think it’s wrong Biblically, and I will tell people that, but I do not hate people, and I do respect people who are serving our country.
I don't agree with Cain or McCain that respecting the uniform requires an audience for a political event to remain silent in the face of questions intended to solicit an adverse political aim, i.e., pro-gay statements from the GOP candidates. I dislike granting rights to any class without a particular reason, and I don't think military service makes you immune from blowback--it had better not ever be that way, or the next John Kerry will get off scot free.
Cain went further in his book ‘They Think Your Stupid’ that he agrees with equal opportunity but not equal outcome. For some people Affirmative Action means equal outcome. That is not his definition. AA has been co-opted by liberals to mean more than it meant to people who came up through the civil rights era.
His problem here is again that he hasn't said "I would not allow so-called 'affirmative action' in any way and do not approve of using the power of government to promote selection on the basis of skin color, race, or sex." His parsing of words here has been very careful.
I agree with you that he’s not polished. He doesn’t give poll tested answers. He is REAL. People are responding to that. I’m sure he will misspeak dozens more times because he is not a professional politician.
He's not always so real, though. He's chosen 9-9-9 for a reason, even though he supports something different as the end goal. He was 'joking' about a border wall--but he wasn't, and anyone who heard the speech knows it. So why wouldn't the real Herman Cain defend the statement instead of backing off? Why not be 'real' about affirmative action in a way that clearly says it's not acceptable, PERIOD?
And the “flip flops” everyone keeps referring too - he is not flip flopping on any major stances like Romney. He uses a lot of hyperbole in his speaking which some take literally (China, moats, alligators?) so he has to go back for the idiots who take ever word literally, even though most people understand his meaning, especially here in the South.
I AM a Southron, and I don't care if Cain's got a schtick about his speechmaking that's not literal, he's in the political arena now. Words mean things, and even hyperbole needs to be considered as something that indicates policy aims. Calling words 'jokes' when they're addressing political issues that are important to me is no more than saying it's okay for politicians to lie as long as they're on the stump. Cain HAS flip-flopped, just like he's doing some 'adjusting' with 9-9-9. Perry pulled the same crap with his 'secession' talk, and lately, with this anti-UN stuff. If a politician doesn't believe it, it shouldn't be part of their hype-the-conservative language. And they shouldn't have to flip-flop if they are conservatives because their philosophy ought to be clear to begin with.
Thankfully, other than the people who are desparate for Cain to lose, most people don’t CARE about the small faux pas. They know where Herman Cain’s heart is, they trust him. People from his past all stand by him as a man of integrity and character. His wife, his children, his church, his coworkers, his bosses, even his employees.
Most people care about what you call 'faux pas' when they provide insight into the candidate's principles. He is woefully waffly when it comes to what he doesn't know. That is indicative of a candidate without a guiding principle at either the national or international level. I'm not desperate for any candidate to lose. I just want a principled conservative to win.
He lives conservative values, he doesn’t just parade them for political gain.
That would explain why he's used campaign money to buy books from his own company for use by the campaign, basically, legally turning campaign dollars into personal gain. I felt the same sinking feeling when Buchanan hired his sister as his campaign manager and gave her hundreds of thousands of consulting fees.
Every candidate out there has flaws, but instead of going after Romney, the RINO, it seems to be open season on Cain for the smallest of gaffes. It really borders on insane, and reminds me of the liberal’s almost tangible hatred and evisceration of Palin for the smallest of things.
People eviscerate Cain because he's not proven and his 'faux pas' never seem to be backed up when they're conservative. When they're perceptibly left-leaning, on the other hand, he sure sticks to his guns. Romney, everyone here knows is a RINO. Who defends the defenseless? Romney doesn't even have the overt support of a single poster here as far as I can see.
It’s not going to happen again, not if I can help it. It’s why, as a stay at home mom, I am here at my computer nearly 10 hours a day providing links to facts to fight every lie and misrepresentation posted on this site.
Are you kidding me? 10 hours a day politicking for Cain? How do you mother when you're constantly cruising the site? I can't sit here for more than a couple hours at a time, let alone 10. You've got to be cashing a check from the man--I won't buy that you sit in front of the computer and mommy at the same time for 10 hours a day.
Simple to understand: She is working for her children's future, with about the same amount of time invested as a full-time employed mother, and with the benefit of being able to be home with them. That's a dedicated mom.
I'm assuming you have no understanding of the volunteer force behind Herman Cain's campaign, wherein hundreds, if not thousands, of supporters are putting in 12 to 16 hour+ days.....NO paycheck. They loyally and consistently dedicate their time and talents to Mr. Cain, believing him to be a true patriot with the best interest of America at heart.
(Not really something worth a personal attack, is it?)
Thanks, Tara :-)
There are several FReepers who do a lot more than me - one runs a nationwide phone bank for Cain, and another who started up the Draft Cain (now Elect Cain) group which is grassroots nationwide.
I believe Cain only had around 30 something paid staff for most of the year (although I know he has added more in the past few weeks), and between 100K-200K volunteers.
My kids are older (preteen and teen) so it’s not like I’m toting around little ones, but I AM working for their future. My oldest turns 18 one week before 2012 elections :-)
“I’m assuming you have no understanding of the volunteer force behind Herman Cain’s campaign, wherein hundreds, if not thousands, of supporters are putting in 12 to 16 hour+ days.....NO paycheck. They loyally and consistently dedicate their time and talents to Mr. Cain, believing him to be a true patriot with the best interest of America at heart.”
No, I simply don’t believe that a mom can be actively mothering while sitting on a computer 10 hours a day. That’s not a “personal attack” on a Cain volunteer, it’s an opinion regarding what activities are required to raise a child. Sure, you can tell a kid to do things and hold a kid and get up occasionally to do other things, but if you are literally sitting in front of a computer 10 hours a day, you will not be doing the other things that parenting demands. Volunteers are dedicated people, but I can’t believe that most parents could volunteer to that level and do both things well.
And I just don’t buy that someone really sits 10 hours a day without any other compensation, because too many ‘volunteers’ here are obviously shilling for their candidates full time, posting every 30 minutes a new puff piece for Perry or whoever. It’s unsubtle astroturfing. That isn’t volunteer level work.
I’ll call you on both points, and raise you a Cain!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.