Massive (new) Cain gaffe (like on Perrys level) lol

[speciallyblend]

couldn't help but post this one after i saw yours

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RA06Z5e1ZFc&feature=player_embedded

 

[speciallyblend]

I couldn't resist

The next time they ask ron paul to respond to a cain question . He should use that 27 seconds word for word. lmfao

 

[Fermli]

I'm not sure about you guys, but I like Herman Cain. He's a straight shooter. He says what he means, and means what he says.

 

[parocks]

Seriously? he paused for ages, then ran the clock by repeating the question then restated several times a perfectly incoherent and non-specific answer until the reporter gave up.

Ok, well I did watch it again. I did understand his answer when he got to it. There was a bad minute at the top.

This was not worse than Perry. Perry was given the time to finish his sentence about his own plan. And he just couldn't. Never seen that before. I want to do 3 things as President. 1, 2, and I forget 3. We'll give you all the time you need. Sorry, nope.

The Libya question is a somewhat tricky question.

We could've answered the Libya question right. Every single person here would've said "stay out of Libya"

right?

that's the good answer we all would've come up with. You don't need to know much to get that answer.

The problem all Republicans have, pretty much except Ron Paul, is that they agree with a Liberal Democrat on Foreign Policy. And they have to try really really hard
to explain why their position is any different from Obama's. And Cain pretty much admits that he's not comfortable with the specifics. And people don't seem to care. He goes out of his way to say that he's a manager who hires good people. He's setting out an average Republican foreign policy, and promises to hire competent average Republican foreign policy experts. He ran a pizza shop. Give him a break.

 

[Revolution9]

I don't see much of a problem there at all. Certainly not in the same class of problem, or league of problem.

Cain was asked a difficult question about Libya. And he paused for a while before answering. I'm not certain what exactly would be the problem.

Perry started a sentence with "I plan to abolish 3 departments" and was given a full minute to name those 3 departments, and was unable to do so.

Perry's performance was very close to being unable to state your own name. Perry's performance, if it was in the general, would have made him lose, and make us lose house seats and senate seats. We would have been unable to defend him.

I don't even see any problem with what Cain did, at all.

Noted for what it is worth. Looks like "protection" rather than honest assessment. Cain was drubbed and staggering. It was entirely apparent he was lost and way out of his league.

Rev9

 

[Revolution9]

I'm not sure about you guys, but I like Herman Cain. He's a straight shooter. He says what he means, and means what he says.

He is an inveterate liar.

HTH
Rev9

 

[ShaneEnochs]

I've watched the video three times. I can't really draw any kind of meaning out of it except: "I think President Obama was completely wrong. I would have asked more questions, then I would have done exactly what President Obama did."

Is that what you guys got out of it?

 

[DjLoTi]

I'm not sure about you guys, but I like Herman Cain. He's a straight shooter. He says what he means, and means what he says.

Yeah, he was pretty honest about being clueless. I'm not trying to risk the future of America with someone of the philosophy of "I'll figure it out when I get there"....

 

[cornell]

My traditional Republican-type Dad (who had supported Perry and more recently Cain) saw this video on TV today and called me telling me that he had a disaster on TV about Libya and had no clue what he was talking about. This is having an effect on voters, I can assure you that.

Unfortunately, he said he now is rooting for Gingrich, so that doesn't really help us that much...

 

[parocks]

Noted for what it is worth. Looks like "protection" rather than honest assessment. Cain was drubbed and staggering. It was entirely apparent he was lost and way out of his league.

Rev9

You have to understand that the subject line said "Perrys level"

(and, also, I watched it again, and I corrected at least one of my posts, saying that it was worse than I first thought, and I probably should edit the other one too).

The first minute was bad. He was uncertain about what it was that Obama did. After the moderator talked for the 2nd time, I think he answered pretty well. He was on point. The problem that he had was that he wanted to criticize Obama (reflexively), but couldn't come up with any specific reason to do so. What he was saying I thought was very reasonable, rational, and did explain his thinking process pretty well, and I give him points for that. He is right to say that where he is lacking in information, it is hard for him to find fault with specifics. And he didn't have any specific quarrel with anything Obama specifically did. But he did say that the outcomes might've been different if more time and effort was placed on analysing the nature of the opposition. It was a reasonable, lucid argument. Very similar to how he ususally answers foreign policy questions. He did say "hey I dont know everything about foreign policy".

The first minute was weak though, no doubt, and I didn't mind the last 3-4 minutes, thought they were reasonable, which is why I responded how I did the first time.

But. not on Perrys level - not close.

 

[ChrisDixon]

I'm not sure about you guys, but I like Herman Cain. He's a straight shooter. He says what he means, and means what he says.

He sure does shoot straight. At his feet.

 

[Muttley]

I don't agree with something even though I have no fucking clue what I don't agree with. Right Hoyman? Right..

 

[affa]

The first minute was bad. He was uncertain about what it was that Obama did. After the moderator talked for the 2nd time, I think he answered pretty well. He was on point. The problem that he had was that he wanted to criticize Obama (reflexively), but couldn't come up with any specific reason to do so. What he was saying I thought was very reasonable, rational, and did explain his thinking process pretty well, and I give him points for that.

After that disastrous first minute, he just turtled up into standard Cain rhetoric.

Cain: "I would need to talk to everybody, analyze all the facts, and then my solution would be better than [fill in the blank]'s solution."

"So you'd do something differently?"

Cain: "Perhaps you didn't hear me. I did not say that, nor did I not not say that. I said, I would need to talk to my advisors, and get ALL the facts, so that I could analyze them and develop a BOLD plan that is far superior to what was done."

"So your superior plan, then, would be different from what was done?"

Cain: "I did not say that."

This is all the man says. Ever. I can't believe anyone supports him for any reason. I mean, seriously, the last 4 minutes after that terrible first minute was him repeating non-answers.

 

[parocks]

I've watched the video three times. I can't really draw any kind of meaning out of it except: "I think President Obama was completely wrong. I would have asked more questions, then I would have done exactly what President Obama did."

Is that what you guys got out of it?

I just watched it again.

he "would have done a better job determining who the opposition is"

I don't think he ever went as far as saying Obama was completely wrong. He was basically saying "Obama wasn't perfect, because I just can't say that Here's one area where the results could've been different. There was no specific harsh criticism. That I could see. What he was basically saying is that he, Cain, would have studied the opposition more. Depending on what he found, he might've come to different conclusions or could've acted differently.

You do know that the question that he was asked was "do you approve or disapprove of what Obama did?" So, Cain, in order to answer and be completely on point, is going to have to discuss Obama, what Obama did, and what he, Cain, would've done differently. He screwed up the first minute, for the most part.

It was fair enough of him to ask for clarification on what they meant by what Obama did in Libya. And the transcript of that exchange would look fine. In the video, Cain seemed nervous when he asked about Quadafi.

Watching it again.

From the top

M - "So you agree with President Obama on Libya or not"

Ok, that's a fairly broad question. It's the kind of question that would allow a candidate to throw out a generic Libya answer. Either Cain didn't have a generic Libya answer, or he fell into the trap of having to compare and contrast on his feet. The generic Libya answer would've worked just fine.

C - Ok, Libya.

Pausing for a long time. Not good. Perhaps he's thinking "which one is Libya?" Not reassuring.

C - President Obama supported the uprising, correct?

Doesn't sound 100% sure about this. Not good.

C - President Obama called for the removal of Quadafi.

A little bit more sure of this one, he suddenly gains confidence with

C - Just wanna make sure we're talking about the same thing before I say yes I agree or (I?) no I didn't agree.

That was a confident line. A-Ok there.

C - I do not agree with the way he handled it for the following reason.

Another good line, much like Perrys "I have a list of 3 things"

at :45
"nope that's, that's a different one"
"??? I gotta go back and see, ah"
"got all this stuff twirling around in my head"

1:07

That was the worst of it above. I didn't really get the feeling that he actually was losing it, but simply pretending to. I thought I saw a little troll smile there. But, yup that was the worst of it. Bad, no doubt.


C - "specifically, what are you asking me did I agree or not disagree with Obama"

That line was pretty much ok. And he's back on track.

C - "i would have done a better job determining who the opposition is"

This line could've finished the sentence that he cut short.

C - "I do not agree with the way he handled it for the following reason."
"i would have done a better job determining who the opposition is"

And basically, you have at least a written transcript that looks ok, except for between 45 secs and around 1:20.

 

[Tod]

I'm not sure about you guys, but I like Herman Cain. He's a straight shooter. He says what he means, and means what he says.

LOL! Good one!

 

[jbuttell]

I've watched the video three times. I can't really draw any kind of meaning out of it except: "I think President Obama was completely wrong. I would have asked more questions, then I would have done exactly what President Obama did."

Is that what you guys got out of it?

Yep, basically. I think I get parocks point that it wasn't as bad as what Perry did... but I only agree in respects that most people who don't pay attention will recognize Perry's gaffe because it only took a minute, but just get completely lost with what Cain said since it stretched on for so long. This just confirms what I already thought about Cain.

 

[speciallyblend]

He is an inveterate liar.

HTH
Rev9

did rev9 just miss sarcasm?

 

[shadowhooch]

Hilarious. It is like he has no coherent thoughts of his own.

"I do not agree with the way Obama handled it for the following reasons.....umm...wait...nope wrong (prepared) response. uhhhh....what was the question again? Hmmmm.......I would assess the assessment better than Obama assessed it, even if he happened to assess it correctly, which I can't assess right now."

 

[jclay2]

This is a complete joke. How can people like this rise to such high position of power? I always thought that our overlords were smart, cunning, and deliberate in their sinful deeds. Now I am just confused. What is the driving force behind the likes of Perry and Cain? Why would they want to be President when they can't even answer basic questions about the job. Maybe their families have been threatened by some high level bankers? The bs is just so insane, I wonder if I am crazy sometimes.

 

[Adam West]

Are you serious?

I grew up in America (7-24 age) and Australia has been my home for the last 28 years (now 53 yo.). I was turned onto Ron Paul in 2007 and have been a devotee ever since. There are many things I miss and love about the States although I call Australia home.

Examining the U.S. political/corporate/media system from abroad, for 28 years, has perhaps allowed me to look at things in a more objective manner. It saddens me to see a once proud nation that was not perfect (no nation is), founded on a beautiful ducument, descend to the depraved position it currently holds.

Largely, it is people like you Sir, who are willing to defend mediocrity, which contributes further to the deminution of America, the Founding Fathers and the Constitution.

As a Nation, the general population of America is reaping the harvest of the seeds they have sown. They have ignored the warning signs and blindly followed their masters, forgetting their origins and hard fought-for historical roots.

This is why it is so refreshing and mind expanding to support Dr. Paul and like-minded people. True supporters feel it in their gut. They will not accept anything less.

You Sir, as illustrated by your post, need to do some soul searching.