Why is Washington Post going after Herman Cain? (1 Viewer)

[ksu_aviator]

Why are they going after Cain? Because every candidate should be vetted. Other wise you get....well....Obama.

 

[Camlon]

Why are the Post and other media outlets going after Cain? Because he is rising in the ranks of the GOP nominees. Had he been in the top four when they were barbequing Perry and Bachmann, he would have been on the grill next to them.

Before anyone says the Post is treating GOPs different that Obama - go check some of the negative pieces they have done about Obama.

I took a look at the articles from the Post written in this period in 2007 about Obama, and you're wrong. They are hardly criticizing him at all.

But if they think he has no chance of winning and they are not scared of him at all, then why focus on him. It's not giving them a lot of viewer either, because most people don't know who Herman Cain is. Also, if they start criticizing everyone that rises in the polls, then what about Michelle Bachmann who they promoted?

 

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

I took a look at the articles from the Post written in this period in 2007 about Obama, and you're wrong. They are hardly criticizing him at all.

But if they think he has no chance of winning and they are not scared of him at all, then why focus on him. It's not giving them a lot of viewer either, because most people don't know who Herman Cain is. Also, if they start criticizing everyone that rises in the polls, then what about Michelle Bachmann who they promoted?

What are they saying now - Obama is the apparent Dem nominee for 2012. On the GOP side it seems to be Romney, Cain, and maybe Paul (if Cain ends up like Bachmann and Perry). Perry, Bachmann, Huntsman, Santorum and Gingrich are not even in the running anymore.

They have a political slant - maybe they agreed somewhat with Bachmann? I don't know. I avoid US media mostly - too biased.

 

[jasonxe]

This is not a criticism of the press. This is clearly directed at Washington Post, and a few other liberal media. Most media outlets are not going after Herman Cain.

But, Michelle Bachmann did in fact rise in the polls, and she got promoted by Washington Post. How do you explain that?

So? You got a few liberal papaers against you. Man up! My guy got scars from every media outlet in existence. Put some war paint on and keep on going.

 

[Camlon]

So? You got a few liberal papaers against you. Man up! My guy got scars from every media outlet in existence. Put some war paint on and keep on going.

I will.

I'm not going after Washington Post for criticizing Herman Cain. They can do that. I'm just pointing out their inconsistency and why they criticize him. The Washington Post are scared he might become the Republican candidate, and is trying hard to either get a nutjob or Mitt Romney.

 

[iliveonramen]

Unfortunately, national security has become far too politicized with our elected officials using the issue as a means to polarize our country as the “war hawks” and the “peace doves.” In response, the safety and morale of our brave men and women in uniform are often at risk for political gain. The judgment of our military experts on the ground is often underutilized in exchange for political purposes. National security isn’t about politics. It’s about defending America.

While diplomacy is a critical tool in solving the complex security issues we face, it must never compromise military might. Because we are such a free and prosperous people, we are the envy of the world. Many regimes seek to destroy us because they are threatened by our ideals, and they resent our prosperity. We must acknowledge the real and present danger that terrorist nations and organizations pose to our country’s future.

This could be seen as extreme. There's a reason the Comander in Chief is a civilian elected by the population. If the choice comes down between American people that want to end a war or the military that thinks we should expand it....you should always follow the American people. Our government and military serve the people.

 

[pbrauer]

Can you tell me why the last presidential candidate that you voted for in a primary was "presidential", in your opinion?

Because he knows how to use teleprompters very well, that's why!!! /sarcasm

My comment wasn't meant to imply Herman Cain couldn't function as President, clearly he has to required intelligence to accomplish the task. Any of lack of his knowledge is handled by picking capable advisers. It's the radio talk show rhetoric he uses on the campaign trail that that makes him not Presidential material in my opinion. You can't say you won't appoint Muslims or say blacks have been brainwashed and expect to get nominated by your party and be elected President of the United States. You just can't!! He has zero chance getting the the nomination or being selected for the #2 spot, in my opinion.

 

[Camlon]

Because he knows how to use teleprompters very well, that's why!!! /sarcasm

My comment wasn't meant to imply Herman Cain couldn't function as President, clearly he has to required intelligence to accomplish the task. Any of lack of his knowledge is handled by picking capable advisers. It's the radio talk show rhetoric he uses on the campaign trail that that makes him not Presidential material in my opinion. You can't say you won't appoint Muslims or say blacks have been brainwashed and expect to get nominated by your party and be elected President of the United States. You just can't!! He has zero chance getting the the nomination or being selected for the #2 spot, in my opinion.

First off, you have a memory of a goldfish. He never said blacks are braiwashed. He said many blacks are brainwashed into voting democrat. For me, it only seems like Democrats care about that statement. The Muslim statements is bad, but he has appologised. It is a minor issue, hence the other candidates and media are not focusing on it.

Secondly, the other candidates are making provocative statements as well. By your logic Jon Huntsman should be front-runner of the Republicans. You are not a republican, and you are not the one picking Republican candidates. When you apply your liberal logic to the Republican primaries, you are doomed to fail.

 

[hazlnut]

This is clearly not defined to Washinton Post, but they have been the ones criticizing Cain the most.

Herman Cain and the race card; - The Washington Post
The GOP cynical embrace of Herman Cain - The Washington Post
Herman Cain is Republican flavor of month. Who will be next? - The Washington Post
Herman Cain, the new man in the middle - The Plum Line - The Washington Post
Stand up to Herman Cain's bigotry - The Washington Post

They tell us, he has no chance of winning. Then why do they focus so much time on criticizing Herman Cain? If they are just criticizing candidates they think are bigots, then why not Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum which have come with much worse comments. If they don't think there is any chance he will win, shouldn't they focus on Mitt Romney who they do think are going to win the nomination?

I think they are scared of him, because many liberals have been convinced that the Tea Party is racists. If they nominate a black man, the myth will get crushed.

Do you know the difference between a blog, and Op-Ed, and weekly column. And could you please count up the same type of Op-ed and blogs about Perry, Bachmann, or any of the GOP train wrecks? Then your point might have some validity.

 

[pbrauer]

First off, you have a memory of a goldfish. He never said blacks are braiwashed. He said many blacks are brainwashed into voting democrat. For me, it only seems like Democrats care about that statement. The Muslim statements is bad, but he has appologised. It is a minor issue, hence the other candidates and media are not focusing on it.

Secondly, the other candidates are making provocative statements as well. By your logic Jon Huntsman should be front-runner of the Republicans. You are not a republican, and you are not the one picking Republican candidates. When you apply your liberal logic to the Republican primaries, you are doomed to fail.

I don't care about the statements he has made, it seems to me that if you want him elected President, you should care about him making divisive statements. Go Herman Cain, go.

 

[The Barbarian]

Personally I like Cain, he is the only Republican candidate, that has a plan. The others including Romney, do the usual political two step when asked a question. To me it's refreshing to hear someone say … this is what I would do, this is how this should be handled … . and go on to give a definitive plan. The others side step the question, then go on to tell you how badly Obama is doing, well I have news for them .. . we all know how bad Obama is doing, we know what policies aren't working, I want hear what policies they would try to put in place that are different.


It's easy to understand why the liberals support Romney so much as the Republican. He is the closest to Obama and their liberal thinking as the Republicans have. For all their bravo they know that unless things get better in the next 7 months or so, there is a very good chance that Obama won't be re-elected.
IMO Romney is just another politician that will pander to whom ever he needs to, to get elected, if anyone thinks that going with the status quo of politician that has gotten us into this mess, is going to get us out of it .. .has their head stuck …... well you know. Bush's policies helped to get us into this mess, Obama's policies haven't helped, and in many cases hurt. From where I sit .. 4 more years of Obama or Romney, will be all it takes to destroy everything our country has stood for, for 200 years.

 

[sangha]

Okay. Here's his published position on national security. Would you mind explaining why it is extreme?



I'll post his stance on education after I see your response.

It is very dishonest to post one piece of his and pretend that it represents the sum total of what he has said and what he stands for, especially after his extremist positions have been described in this thread.

I'll answer your questions when you ask an honest one

 

[tessaesque]

It is very dishonest to post one piece of his and pretend that it represents the sum total of what he has said and what he stands for, especially after his extremist positions have been described in this thread.

I'll answer your questions when you ask an honest one

I told you I'd post his stance on education following your response. After education we can move on to jobs, then every issue beyond that in succession. Copying/pasting every single one of his issues into one post would make a ridiculously long post that you, quite honestly, probably won't read. So since you made a blanket statement about his stance on issues, let's dissect them one at a time. Go ahead and break down the extremism in his national security stance and then we'll move on to the next. I'm playing fair, here.

 

[1Perry]

I don't care about the statements he has made, it seems to me that if you want him elected President, you should care about him making divisive statements. Go Herman Cain, go.

Did he repeat that line about clinging to your beliefs? He didn't did he? Because if he made some sort of divisive statement like that, I could never support him. I'm sure we can agree on that. Right?

 

[sangha]

I told you I'd post his stance on education following your response. After education we can move on to jobs, then every issue beyond that in succession. Copying/pasting every single one of his issues into one post would make a ridiculously long post that you, quite honestly, probably won't read. So since you made a blanket statement about his stance on issues, let's dissect them one at a time. Go ahead and break down the extremism in his national security stance and then we'll move on to the next. I'm playing fair, here.

And I said

It is very dishonest to post one piece of his and pretend that it represents the sum total of what he has said and what he stands for, especially after his extremist positions have been described in this thread.

His extreme stances have already been mentioned. Ignore that if you want, but you do not, and will not, get to dictate how this issue is discussed.

 

[tessaesque]

And I said


His extreme stances have already been mentioned. Ignore that if you want, but you do not, and will not, get to dictate how this issue is discussed.

I get it. You've realized you made a completely generalized, erroneous statement. You then realized you couldn't legitimately defend that statement and are now backtracking in the worst possible way to avoid admitting you're wrong.

That's okay, I understand.

 

[lpast]

Christie endorsed Romney...now after two weeks of powwows with top GOP elite and top GOP donors I hope no one is naive enough to think that the GOP elite didnt throw cain under the bus because they wanted him president....Christie was TOLD to endorse Romney....

 

[sangha]

I get it. You've realized you made a completely generalized, erroneous statement. You then realized you couldn't legitimately defend that statement and are now backtracking in the worst possible way to avoid admitting you're wrong.

That's okay, I understand.

I get it. You can't address the specifics that were mentioned, so you'll pretend they were never posted and make dishonest claims about what I said. Then you'll pretend that you get to tell people how and when to respond to your dishonest questions instead of admitting that Caines extremist positions and statements were already posted

That's OK, I understand

 

[Thrilla]

Herman Cain is not an extremist.... that's an absurd claim... but hyperpartisanship often makes people claim absurd things.

 

[sangha]

hyperpartisanship often makes people claim absurd things.

Well, that explains the Caines campaign

 

[Karl]

Sorry, your argument makes no sense. If they all agreed he is a buffoon, then they can make comedy articles about him like they do with Sarah Palin and Donald Trump. Or they could be promoting him in the hope of getting him nominated.

I don't mind, because who reads Washington Post anyway. They are fighting a desperate uphill battle.

If that is the case, then why did you create a thread about it?

 

[ksu_aviator]

And I said


His extreme stances have already been mentioned. Ignore that if you want, but you do not, and will not, get to dictate how this issue is discussed.

You just don't want a black Republican to be President.

 

[Thrilla]

Well, that explains the Caines campaign

.. and your posts.

 

[pbrauer]

You just don't want a black Republican to be President.

Are you saying he is a racist?

I don't want a Republican of any skin color being president.

 

[lpast]

You just don't want a black Republican to be President.

Neither does Chris Christie or the GOP elite and top GOP donors who christie has spent the last two weeks with....Id bet a donut he was told who to endorse..
<gasp> A RINO ...theres going to be alot of pissed of far right puppies over this

Gov. Christie: Romney 'is the man we need to lead America' | NJ.com