Skip to comments.Brutal: Cain blanks on Libya, supports collective bargaining for public employee unions
Posted on 11/14/2011 2:59:28 PM PST by Bigtigermike
You wont believe me until you click play but this is much worse than Perrys brain lock at the debate last week. Perry lost his train of thought; Cain doesnt have a train at all here, to the point where he needs confirmation from the interviewer of what Obamas position on Libya actually was.
Eventually he produces some boilerplate about not supporting the opposition until youre sure whos in it and of course not making a decision as president until he has all the information, which is a standard Cain fallback talking point whenever he gets in trouble on a question, but the first two minutes or so are pure agony. The board actually took pity on him, I think, by not following up.
And that still only barely qualifies as the worst answer he gave today. Heres what he told them when asked, predictably enough, about Scott Walkers righteous crusade against public employee unions:
"On the issue of collective bargaining, Cain said he supported the right of public employees to bargain collectively." But not collective hijacking. What I mean by that, if they have gotten so much for so many years and its going to bankrupt the state, I dont think thats good. It appears that in some instances, they really dont care.
Cain also appeared to be unclear on the issue of collective bargaining as it involves federal employees. Asked if he thought federal employees should have the ability to bargain collectively, Cain said: They already have it, dont they?
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
We desparately need someone who knows what’s going on with all issues because Cain could agree to things presented by liberals/trans-nationals and not have a clue of the consequences that will unfold.
His instincts are not the greatest and governing is too complex to wing it these days.
NO! The fear of Cain being elected to a Presidency he is not even close to being prepared for or qualified for. He is absolutely clueless on foreign policy. We’ve seen it over and over again, he lacks the depth of knowledge most of the people on this forum have on what is happening around the world and he has no vision for an American foreign policy . . . but after he gets with his “experts,” he’ll come back and tell us what it is. LOL!
Newt has some disturbing skeletons in his closet. And he is one of the few Speakers to be removed on ethics violations.
I thought his answers were perfectly fine. He seemed tired and stressed out, and obviously had a brainfreeze initially on the Libya questionbut he recollected himself perfectly fine and gave a solid reply. That’s what counts.
Presidents are only human, they’re not superheros. Hence, theyre subject to the same human limitations as the rest of us.
Agreed. Cain is not a serious candidate. Never was, never will be.
people see what they want to see and cain handled the questions very well... he has my vote and support all the way...
just like the china nuclear capabilities answer... people wanted to hear he was clueless, but proved they were just clueless as to what he was talking about.
He contradicted himself. First he said he’d have done a better job of assessing, than Obama did. Last he said he simply didn’t know how much or how well it was assessed because he didn’t see the reports.
Seems to me he collected his thoughts and gave a pretty good answer.
Compare that to Gingrich and Perry’s lifelong dreams of amnesty.
Or Newt’s lifelong support of ethanol subsidies.
Or Newt’s couch dance with Pelosi
Or Perry’s “hate crimes” legislation.
Or worse, Perry’s inexplicable answer in a debate on Iran’s nukes.
Let’s see the raw video of other candidates during their interviews. This isn’t to be televised and so the audience is more contemplative. I’ve been interviewed by the press and his actions are normal.
Obama and company fear him most. Cui bono?
Calling all Cain Supporters -- is this really an accurate representation of Herman Cain's Position on public employee collective bargaining? Because I hate to argue the point only to have a half-dozen of you show up and claim that it isn't his position at all.
i watched the film and yes, it did take a while and a clarification, and it looked like he was up sh-— creek but then when he started to speek, I think he had found the paddle store and just had to get the feel of it, in the end he was just fine and no real dammage done, still suport him
My goodness, I thought it was an excellent response.
He focused on the importance of knowing who the US was supporting, the nature of the opposition.
He recognized that he was not privy to the information available to Obama so he refrained from criticizing specific actions,
but rather focused on what elements would be important in his decision making process.
I saw an intelligent man, engaged in what appears to be a fairly relaxed interview,
taking time to gather his thoughts in order to clearly explain his position
I don’t understand the conclusion that this shows him unfit to be President.
Is it the lack of a sound bite answer that makes some uncomfortable?
And his Ford-esque flub when he stated China was a threat because it was trying to acquire nuclear weapons?
As to that, he could have said Obama should've kept his trap shut about Khadaffi altogether, since we were not at risk in the situation. He could have said any number of good opinions, but instead he made an unproven assertion and then admitted he had no facts on which to base it.
The question was asked poorly.
Question: Do you agree with Obama about Libya?
Answer: No, I do not agree with Obama about Libya.
And that would have been it.
But Cain is too thoughtful, kind and respectful to tell this guy he is a dope - so Cain attempts to make the question worthwhile and at the same time is trying to answer it.
Cain is doing both his job and the dumbass reporter’s job at the same time.
welcome to Free Republic, I think.
there is NO ONE who knows what’s going on with every issue 24/7. The MSM will point out every weakness in each candidate.
He was not removed for ethics violations. He resigned after the 1998 elections, because some house members wanted to replace him as speaker since the Clinton impeachment turned badly on them.
And his one "ethics violation" was a joke. He got caught up in a snare because he taught a college class about conservative policies that got characterized as a political training session, and the democrats trumped up a false tax issue because it was paid for by a tax-exempt group and they argued it was partisan.
I'll let Wikipedia explain it:
During his term as Speaker, eighty-four ethics charges were filed against him; eighty-three of them were dropped. The remaining charge concerned a 20-hour college course called "Renewing American Civilization" that Gingrich had taught through a tax-deductible foundation, Kennesaw State College Foundation. Allegations of tax improprieties led to two counts "of failure to seek legal advice" and one count of "providing the committee with information which he knew or should have known was inaccurate" concerning the use of a tax exempt college course for political purposes. To avoid a full hearing, Gingrich and the House Ethics Subcommittee negotiated a sanctions agreement. Democrats accused Gingrich of violating the agreement, but it was forwarded to the House for approval. On January 21, 1997, the House voted 395 to 28 to reprimand Gingrich, including a $300,000 "cost assessment" to recoup money spent on the investigation.
The full committee panel did not agree whether tax law had been violated. In 1999, the IRS cleared the organizations connected with the courses.
This is the kind of thing that has me wishing that Michele Bachmann had not imploded. As it stands, I am having a hard time getting excited about anyone who is within striking distance of the nomination. I will vote for whoever ends up with the nomination, but at the moment I really do not have a horse in this race.