Yes!!!!!! Go Cain!!!!
This is good to see, he’s had a rough month or so.
While I’m still of the opinion that these early polls don’t mean all that much, this is a clear indication that the voting public is not as easily fooled as the political operatives might wish.
With unprecedented ability to take their messages directly to the people, the game is changing, and Mr. Cain’s abilities and message are being heard.
Good news even if it is a national poll.
The key will be IA, NH and SC. I think Cain can take 2 of those three.
This seems to be the same poll that fooled TheOtherMcCain....
It’s actually old data from Nov 3.
Cain/Gingrich. Herman can serve one term, retire and Newt can pick it up in 2016.
Just a thought.
I tried to post a poll the the Desmoines Register has a news story on but they have requested not to be copied (due to copy write restrictions).
The gist of this poll conducted in Iowa on Nov. 21 and paid for by the Revolution PAC, a group that supports Ron Paul, puts Paul and Cain tied at 22%, with Gingrich at 21%, and Romney at 17%. The poll was an automated telephone poll with a sample of 2,983 respondents who were sure that they were going to attend, or they were probably going to attend the Iowa Caucus.
The full report can be viewed at:
There’s something disturbing about soliciting campaign donations with bogus polls numbers.
I wonder if the Cain campaign will be “clarifying” this later. Or perhaps we just took Cain out context and it’s our fault for not clearly understanding...
I support Herman cain, but yes, I could not verify these numbers outside of a poll taken Nov 3rd. Do we have anything more recent reflecting the results stated? I see Rasmussen reports Gingrich, Romney and Cain at 32%, 19% and 13% respectively. The false accusations sunk in with the mush brains...
(Sorry for the long post.)
Americas role in the world: Peace through strength and clarity
Posted by Herman Cain on 11/20
A few days ago, after coming under criticism for my answer to a question about Libya in an interview, I made a lighthearted comment that reflected all this that Im not supposed to know everything (most of the media quoted me as saying anything) about foreign policy.
Bizarre things happen when you run for president, one of which is that statements like this go viral, with people claiming I had somehow made the case that no knowledge of world affairs is required for the job.
I obviously dont think that, but Im also quite willing be honest about my strengths. My background is in the business world, and my greatest strength concerns the economy. My motivation in running for president is to apply my leadership skills to all issues foreign and domestic. But clearly, as I have met with foreign policy luminaries like John Bolton and Henry Kissinger, I have done a lot more listening than talking because they know a lot more about it than I do, and it would be absurd for me to claim otherwise.
That said, a man taking the oath of office for the presidency must have a sense of Americas place in the world, and must have a clear idea of the challenges, threats and opportunities that present themselves. Otherwise, success on the economic front likely goes for naught, as mistakes in the international arena tend to be costly both in the short term and in the long term.
My approach to foreign policy is to apply a general set of principles to each situation we face, and I have summarized these principles as peace through strength and clarity. This is a modernized version of the Reagan philosophy that helped bring down the Soviet Union and the communist regimes of Eastern Europe, and also won a series of victories though not a complete and lasting victory in South and Central America.
What does this mean?
In a broad sense, it means that I would not retreat on initiatives that strengthen Americas strategic standing in order to buy some sort of accommodation with those who do not have an interest in our security. For example, I would not have welched on Americas commitment to install a missile defense system in Eastern Europe because the Russians didnt like it. The security of the U.S. and our allies would take precedence over the concerns of a nation whose strategic interests are often contrary to ours.
That is one of the reasons I would not have signed the New START treaty, as President Obama did in 2010. Not only did that treaty commit America to arms reductions that the Russians would not necessarily have to match, but it permitted them to maintain a sizable advantage in tactical nuclear weapons, while ignoring programs and ambitions of other nations like Iran, North Korea, China and Pakistan. But more to the point, we simply dont need to be signing treaties like this with unfriendly countries. The United States can make its own decisions about the nature and the volume of strategic assets we want to deploy. We dont need to ask anyones permission.
As president, I intend to be a strong supporter of Americas strongest allies, and that absolutely includes Israel. I agree with the statement of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that if Israels enemies were to lay down their weapons today, there would be peace, whereas if Israel were to lay down its weapons, there would be no more Israel. Supporting Israel is crucial not only because it is an important strategic ally, but also because it is the most free and democratic nation in the region, and a threat to Israels security is a threat to freedom everywhere.
Peace through strength and clarity means there is no doubt about where we stand, for what we stand and with whom we stand. We stand in support of free nations who respect the rights of their people and do not threaten their neighbors. And we treat our allies like allies. President Obamas lukewarm treatment of Great Britain has served to create tension within the most important strategic relationship we have ever had. Likewise, his friendly embrace of Venezuelas Hugo Chavez during a meeting of regional leaders sent exactly the wrong signal, as did his naïve statement during the 2008 campaign that he would sit down and talk to Irans Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without conditions.
Peace through strength means recognizing that we are the United States, and we are the ones who approach these things from a position of strategic superiority. Clarity means we treat our allies like allies, and others have to earn the right to stand with us (and that especially applies to those who hope to receive aid from us that isnt happening if you are hostile to us or to our allies).
I agree with former President George W. Bush that the United States should promote free democratic movements throughout the world, and that it is in our strategic interests to do so. That does not mean we try to impose democracy at the barrel of a gun, as some of Bushs rather disingenuous critics claimed he was doing. It means we support these movements where the opportunity presents itself (as President Obama should have in Iran and Syria) or when strategic necessity compels us (as I believe President Bush correctly did in Iraq in 2003). And you dont always have to use force.
Peace through strength and clarity also recognizes the danger posed by nuclear proliferation, particularly when it involves regimes like Iran or North Korea, which give every reason to believe they may initiate the use of nuclear weapons against other nations. The U.S. must be willing to use its power to stop nuclear proliferation. If we regard such action as beyond the pale, then we essentially concede that all non-proliferation agreements are meaningless.
The most effective application of strength is that which is rarely used. Our troops are already overstretched and our financial resources are limited. An America that is capable and ready, and backs up what it says, wont have to take action all that often. The worlds bad actors will know we are serious.
I think its clear by now that I am not going to score the best of all the candidates on media pop quizzes about the details of current international events. Some have claimed that I take some sort of perverse satisfaction in not knowing all these details. That is not true. I want to know as much as I can. But a leader leads by gathering all the information available in a given situation, and making the best decision at the time based on that information, and in accordance with sound principles. As president, I would not be required to make decisions on the spur of the moment based on a question from a reporter. I would make them the way I made them as a CEO based on careful consideration of all the facts and the best advice of the best people.
But it is crucial to understand that my foreign policy decisions will always be based on the principles I have laid out here. That will not change, because these are the principles that best represent Americas heritage, and best advance our interests, as well as the interests of all freedom-loving nations and peoples.
...these numbers strike me as a bit pre-mature.
But given Newt’s meltdown on Illegal Immigration, I do expect Cain to, at least, be tied for the lead within 2 weeks.
Let’s put a conservative in the White House.
NO TO RINOs!
We are with you, Mr. Cain, every step of the way. Prayers going up daily for your safety and your family’s safety and well being. And that the Cain road to the White House is unobstructed.
If you want a proven problem solver; the man with the plan who can restore America’s respect in the world, bring jobs and prosperity back to our shores, improve public schools, and follow our wonderful Constitution, Please send your most generous checks to:
Herman Cain, Inc.
Friends of Herman Cain, Inc.
P.O. Box 2158
Stockbridge, Georgia 30281
This is not news. It’s a spam campaign email asking for money. Other posters who posted a campaign press statement got a big admonishment from the admin mod.
Does anyone know when we are going to see the first fairly respected polls since Gingrich insulted all of us? I know it will be sometime next week before we start seeing the average from the most respected polls, but when will get some first glimpses of what the trend may be?
HEY THERE EVERYONE !
who I hear saying things like “has a chance”, “could be elected”, “electable”, “chance of winning”.
America has never worked that way. It’s just never been a part of a true American mindset.
George Washington did not take up the cause because he like the Colonies’ chances.
The defenders of the Alamo did not decide to fight because they liked their chances against the Mexican army.
Andrew Carnegie did not get up in the morning as a young man and bust his @ss because he liked his chances at founding U.S. Steel.
The most adventurous venture capitalist would never have bet on the Wright Brothers - seeing them in their printing business in the early 1890’s - designing and building the Wright Flyer I.
Compromise and mediocrity have brought America down, and will continue to do so until she turns away from them and again towards truth.
America can handle a leader like Obama who everyone knows is against her, since Congress is more responsive to the will of the people than he is. But when a Republican President is elected - it will be to actually restore America to truth. If that Republican President simply continues the corrupt “Fall-of-Rome” style politics that we have now - that will cause far more damage that Obama could in the White House with a completely disagreeable Congress.
Wake up, I just made some coffee - smell it ?