Skip to comments.Herman Cain~Newt Gingrich in Lincoln/Douglas-type Debate C-SPAN Sat.11- 5: 8 PM EDT - LIVE THREAD
Posted on 11/05/2011 3:16:26 PM PDT by blueyon
click here to read article
I haven’t paid close enough attention to the dynamics of all the threads to form my own observation as to whether what you say is true or not.
BUT if there is an obsession in attacking Perry, there also is evidently an obsession in defending him. You may find that the latter is more reasonable than the other, but I find them equally worthy of avoiding.
You say if Perry is toast, there is no reason to attack him. Well, yes and no.
I’m not advocating it, but I think you have to agree that so long as he is in the race AND — unlike Huntsman — has (or may have) the favor of the big donors who could try to crank up his candidacy at any time — he could be seen as the worst of all things: a potential spoiler. He also could be viewed as continuing to suck of oxygen when, if he’s toast, that’s a big waste.
IOW, there’s toast and then there’s toast that can cause trouble without any potential for benefitting the process. Huntsman, thus, is “harmless” toast; he has and can have zero impact on the race. But maybe Perry is toast that can still gum up the works, mainly because he might still (however reluctantly) get the Romney elites to turn to him when they finally realize Romney can’t win.
The problem with that is that most in the base have concluded that Perry STILL could not win the nomination. Therefore, even if the elites go full-on for him, all that will happen is he will prolong the process until we get a nominee (who, again, will not be Perry).
OTOH, if you think Perry is NOT toast, why the absolute obsession with defending him?
As far as those seemingly obsessed with defending Perry, I’m not sure who they think their audience is. It’s clear that there are a lot of people in the base who just don’t like the guy. That is not changeable by people jawboning at them that they SHOULD like the guy or that it’s UNFAIR that they dislike that. That fact is only changeable BY PERRY.
So unless and until Perry changes the minds of people who just don’t like them (which they are perfectly entitled to not like him), the obsessive Perry supporters risk putting people off more. That’s just the way it is: it’s a social dynamic that is inevitable.
If the obsessive Perry supporters are hoping they are spurring on the elites to go big in supporting Perry as the anti-Romney, the elites are not reading FR. So, see the problem above.
As far as I’m concerned, the solution is to ignore, so far as possible, BOTH obsessive attacks and obsessive defenses.
I in no way said or believe that Cain did not believe his endorsement.
I said his endorsement was tepid and mainly because it was between Romney and McCain.
That in no way implies that I believe Cain didn’t believe, however reluctantly or for whatever pragmatic reasons, that at that time Romney was the better candidate, given the choices.
Ok, we’ll know soon enough. You’ll be welcome if you change your mind.
The deterioration of this thread into backbiting and insults (after the very enlightening discussion between Cain and Gingrich) is why I NEVER recommend FR to others.
I post informed opinion. I freely admit that I may miss a nit here or a grit there. But my big picture is almost always on the money. Perry did not even show up on the list of Pubbie/conservative candidates in the latest Newsmax survey.
Real conservatives are backing Cain. He reaped more than a million dollars last week—at the height of the Perry, Romney, RINO, GOP and demrat GOP controllers lynching attempt. A little of that was my money. I will be sending him some more.
Wow, I’ve seen more than a few insipid remarks here, but that one takes the cake. Sounds like you’re one of the losers who couldn’t change and got left by the wayside. Sorry about that....but really, comments like that make you sound pretty stupid to anyone who knows anything about the subject.
If, as you declare without a shred of proof, the Governor would say anything to get elected, why isn’t he saying that in state tuition was a bad, Democrat, pandering law? He could just point to the fact that it passed with a veto-proof margin, twice, and blame the Legislature.
Now, for the Senator (who ran against him last year, and then couldn’t meet with Texans who visited DC for at least a month after her defeat in the Primary):
Kay Bailey Hutchison is not prolife, so she and her staff don’t like me very much because I keep urging her to be the one pro-life woman in the Senate.
And are you sure that she was talking about the same “endorsement” the interviewer was talking about?
Even before we clashed over Hutchison’s endorsement of embryonic stem cell research, I used to write letters or make phone calls, and even visited her office a couple of times in DC, to encourage her to vote for this Bill or against that Bill. I would get back form letters that had nothing to do with what I’d written or called about.
She and her staff ignored my invitations to meet with the National Advisory Committee on Violence Against Women (not “no,” ignored) and once sent a letter to my office, addressed to”Dr. ___” on the envelope but inside was a letter on a Medical issue (but not the one I had written her office about) and it was addressed to “Dear Mrs. ____.” (I’m happy to be “Mrs.” much longer than I’ve been “Dr.,” but she messed up the subject and the letter came to my office.)
Needless to say, I’m not impressed with Mrs. Hutchison.
"Frankly, if it's 'Perry's stance,' then he should be thanking Cain and Gingrich for speaking it for him, since he obviously can't articulate anything for himself."
Wish I'd have thought of that myself!
"But now, after seeing that my Shetland Sheepdog could do better in a debate than Perry..."
I propose that Texas Tea Party sponsor another one of these events: My Yorkie against your Shetland Sheepdog. Your Sheepdog may be smart but my Yorkie is cunning and relentless!
As long as she is against Perry, that’s good enough for the anti-Perry flash mob!
In the case of our own facility, we were about 70 people when we started. We're now at about 100. We got better, we got more customer-focussed, and we got more business. We're the only facility in our division that added people in this time. There's a fallacy that it's about mindlessly cutting heads, and that just isn't the case. Not when done by people who know what they're doing.
Hutchinson is not running for office. I merely pointed out her criticism of Perry. Apparently many Texans agree with her. At least try to be coherent.
I noticed how Congressman Steve King spoke using well worn talking points and high minded platitudes during his speech at the beginning debate. But when he was aiming questions at Cain, he dove into the weeds, lobbed a couple of gotcha questions, and pressed him for follow-ups. In essence, he was teeing up Newt.
I believe that wasn’t an accident.
I actually agree that most of the work defending perry is a waste of time. Frankly, the candidate needs to defend themselves. If they do it well, they’ll survive, if not, they won’t.
Nothing we do here will make a bit of difference. However, I do find input from other conservatives useful (or I used to when conservatives actually voiced considered judgements, now it’s more like campaign central, which is useless. In the former case, arguing with people is a good way to determine truth, or understand the issues better. For example, I actually am much more supportive of giving children of illegals in-state tuition in a situation like that in Texas than I was before I started arguing. Not that I’m going to push for it in my state.
Anyway, someone here mentioned they thought I did a better job of defending Perry than he did. I don’t know if that’s true, but if so, Perry is in trouble, because he needs to defend himself. I’ve been told he’s won 3 elections. I know he had these SAME issues against him in those elections, so I have to presume he CAN defend himself. It’s almost like he thought he wouldn’t have to. Anyway, that will settle itself.
But having discussed this over the past couple of days, I’ll likely stop wasting my time in the attack-Perry threads. I can answer the charges, and ignore the vitriol and childishness, but I don’t see the point.
And I’ve made my arguments against Cain. I don’t want to promote my arguments to their own threads of a blog, because I don’t want them to become fodder for attacks. So I’ll probably be done with those threads as well.
I have a profound fear that if I can see these facts about Cain, so can many people. But the media is not covering it. I expect them to, the question is when. I hope our candidates go after Cain for his lack of real experience — because if he can survive it, it will innoculate him, and if not we’ll have saved conservatism from disaster.
And the nice thing about that will be it won’t matter what I think or you think — either Cain will come out stronger, or will fail, on his own.
Can’t promise I’ll shut down. I do enjoy the arguments. But I’ll most likely be scarce in attack threads for a while. Maybe after the next debate. In any case, we’ve got our final push here in Virginia to try to take back our senate.
I come here for discussion that is useful, ultimately. That means discussion that helps to clarify issues and contributes information that people may want to consider.
Sometimes I post to people simply because I know many people are reading the thread, and perhaps these other people are interested in the counterarguments that might be made. IOW, sometimes it’s obvious the person I’m posting to has no interest in an honest or open debate; at the same time, their points help me make my points to anyone reading the thread, so I go for it.
That said, I’m going to be ignoring a lot more of the clearly ridiculous posts (unless, in the great FR tradition, there’s an opportunity for some wholesome humor involved).
I don’t agree that things that happen here have no influence. I think FR is read or at least perused by many pundits. I have seen things show up in widely published pieces that I know had their origin in discussions on FR. However, in general, you’re right: the process is what it is and where go where it goes. It all depends on the candidates.
I think you know the difference between making a substantive point and simply attacking/defending a candidate. So I hope you’ll continue on with that. The problem is that not all posters do understand how to make a substantive argument — they think, for example, that simply whining “why don’t y’all like Perry?,” or unloading a list of conclusory statements about the candidate’s record, or claiming that the reason people don’t agree with them is that they are “uninformed” (or worse), will be engaged in the same way as constructive criticism or praise of policy position. Those, I am going to ignore.
Thanks for the old ad hominem reply.
Actually what I am is an old creative software guy. There's a pretty good chance you seen some of the stuff I've done, and read about some stuff you probably haven't seen. I'm also a math guy. (Math degrees, SAT scores with closed curves only, you know or maybe you don't)
Here's what Wikipedia says about your beloved six-sigma:
A six sigma process is one in which 99.99966% of the products manufactured are statistically expected to be free of defects (3.4 defects per million).So this BS is about manufacturing. Much of the stuff I do has NEVER been done before. (E.g. I was the one who wrote the control software for the first electric brakes that were flown on an airplane; and stopped it too.) Unfortunately the bozos who run big corporations and get sold this six-sigma load really don't view manufacturing very differently from R&D and Engineering; and they have their underlings tell us how to do what we do. The problem is that they haven't a clue. And they don't know how to compose symphonies either.
But what about manufacturing. Does it matter what the cost is of trying to manufacture something with fewer than one failure in every 250,000 units? Not to the Ivory Tower A$$holes who push this nonsense, it doesn't. Sure it's nice not to get any returns. But the company I am most familiar with that pushes this nonsense, manufactures in the thousands, not millions; and half the stuff they ship out comes back for repair. It's a real Dilbertorium.
Six Sigma on the other hand has almost nothing to do with production per se and is primarily an engineering design toolkit - and yes, manufacturing engineering as well.
The comment about symphonies is non sequitur idiocy. No one has ever suggested the use of either for purely creative aesthetic endeavors. But then you know that don't you? You were just looking for a chance at a cheap shot.
"I propose that Texas Tea Party sponsor another one of these events: My Yorkie against your Shetland Sheepdog. Your Sheepdog may be smart but my Yorkie is cunning and relentless!"
Yes, however my Sheltie is not only smart, but can also steal the hearts of the audience when it tells them "Wye Wu-uhv Wooo!" (Maybe Perry should try that in his next debate.)
I guess it's no wonder my post struck a chord with you... I'm a former (disabled now) six-sigma black belt, with a bit of ISO experience to boot.
More than once reading through this thread, I noticed I was thinking some of the same things you were posting.
Truth be told, Six Sigma can be applied WAY beyond simply manufacturing. (Seriously, the guy who posted to you is trusting Wikipedia to tell him what it is?!?!?!?) While early adopters primarily applied it to manufacturing, Six Sigma is a PROCESS IMPROVEMENT TOOL that can be applied to nearly any process that can be measured. For example, the Ritz-Carlton hotel chain has used six sigma as one of its primary tools to help it deliver world class customer service. Newt Gingrich is absolutely correct in his desire to apply it to the federal government... applied even half-heartedly, I'd bet it could save billions.
In terms of application, I wouldn't say it's primarily an engineering design tool, although using it in design is a great proactive way to use it. But it's also a great improvement tool to fix processes that are broken, whether by bad design or simply from unforseen degradation over time.