Conservative columnist Rich Lowry has an interesting piece on Herman Cain’s ignorance about major public policy:
At a meeting with the editors of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Cain was asked whether he agreed with Pres. Barack Obama’s handling of Libya. You would think he had been asked who is the president of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan, Cain’s joshing description of a prototypical gotcha foreign-policy question. What ensued was the longest five minutes of an editorial-board meeting ever.
Cain paused. Then he asked for a lifeline by trying to confirm with his questioner that President Obama supported the Libyan uprising. He started to say why he disagreed with Obama, but stopped after realizing, “No, that’s a different one.” He hesitated again. “Got all this stuff twirling around in my head,” he explained.
Cain hadn’t been asked about an obscure conflict or one distant in time. We’re not talking the War of Jenkins’s Ear or the Second Peloponnesian War. He seemed to all but have missed that there had recently been a Libyan War that had taxed the capacities of NATO, created an intense conflict with Congress over presidential war powers, teetered on the brink of failure, and divided conservatives....
His typical answer on national-security questions is that he would consult the experts, a thinly disguised dodge. What if the experts are wrong (as they often are) or disagree (as they often do)? Because Cain has no independent knowledge base or bearings, he would be entirely a creature of others on foreign policy.
It’s not as though he’s a wonk on domestic policy, either. He’s tied himself in knots on abortion, contradicted himself on an electrified border fence, and demonstrated an unfamiliarity with the basics of Medicare policy. Even on his signature issue, 9–9-9, he relies on repetition and assertion more than detailed argument.
It’s easy to find examples of Democratic politicians who demonstrate comparably egregious ignorance. But that does not excuse Cain. If you want to be president of the United States, you should have at least a basic knowledge of the issues the office is responsible for.
One can argue that Cain will simply bone up on the issues after taking office. But any such expectation is highly unrealistic. Presidents work under tremendous time pressure, especially early in their tenure, which is when they have the greatest chance of implementing major changes in policy. There is little time for study at that point. Most of the public policy knowledge a president uses in office is knowledge he brought there with him.
Cain’s defenders could also claim that his ignorance is irrelevant because, once in power, he can just rely on the advice of experts. Obviously, every president must rely on advisers to a great extent. But in order to make effective use of those experts, a president needs to have at least a basic understanding of what they’re talking about. That’s especially true in the many cases where experts disagree and the president has to decide whose advice to follow.
Cain’s shortcomings in this respect are reminiscent of Sarah Palin’s troubles in the 2008 election. There is, however, a crucial difference. Palin didn’t know that she was going to be nominated for VP until shortly before it was announced. Before 2008, she had little incentive to study national issues; as governor of Alaska and mayor of Wasilla, she only needed to be familiar with local and state policy, which by all accounts she knew reasonably well. By contrast, Cain has been running for president for many months, and presumably knew that he was going to enter the race months before then. Moreover, he also ran for a Senate seat back in 2004. So he has had far more opportunity than Palin did to study up on the basics of national public policy issues. The fact that he hasn’t chosen to do so is telling.
As in the case of Palin, there is an important difference between ignorance and stupidity. Cain is a successful business executive, and clearly has more than enough intellectual ability to understand the basics of public policy, including Obama’s Libya policy. The problem is not lack of ability, but lack of effort.
MMK says:
War of Jenkins’ Ear
November 20, 2011, 7:55 pmKazinski says:
Rational Ignorance doesn’t apply to Presidential candidates?
That’s why I was never on the Cain bandwagon, an occasional misstep is to be expected, but Cain over and over again had shown he has a limited world view, no matter how smart he is.
November 20, 2011, 8:02 pmAllan L. says:
Besides, there’s always the Google.
November 20, 2011, 8:03 pmanon says:
Is there any evidence whatsoever that this will matter to Republicans?
If not, isn’t Cain right on target?
November 20, 2011, 8:05 pmanon says:
Bush was elected after famously flubbing several foreign policy questions.
He did pretty well on the job, right!?
November 20, 2011, 8:09 pmJimbino says:
So why don’t they try a simple math question. Cain would trump all of them, interviewers and candidates.
Not that math means much in this country!
November 20, 2011, 8:16 pmOwen H. says:
Well, to be fair, it’s hard to know what to say when other, better established Republicans like Newt vacillated so wildly on whether or not it was a good idea, depending on how it looked Obama was going to go. I mean, how was he supposed to know the right answer when even Gingrich couldn’t keep it straight whether to support or condemn?
November 20, 2011, 8:18 pmDoctor Chim Richalds says:
Q: What’s 2 plus 2?
A: 9–9-9.
November 20, 2011, 8:19 pmJames K says:
Here is a link to Cain’s egregiously ignorant non-response to a non-specific question by a reporter attempting to make him look ignorant:
I don’t know. It sounds worse to my ear every time the Commander-in-Chief answers a question without advance warning or a teleprompter.
November 20, 2011, 8:20 pmLisa says:
No, actually he didn’t do “pretty well.” Neither did president Cheney.
November 20, 2011, 8:32 pmJustin says:
” He seemed to all but have missed that there had recently been a Libyan War that had taxed the capacities of NATO, created an intense conflict with Congress over presidential war powers, teetered on the brink of failure, and divided conservatives....”
Libruls suck.
November 20, 2011, 8:52 pmChristopher Taylor says:
I think Cain could learn pretty well and pretty fast, but I’d prefer he did so before taking office — not this time around, thank you. We’ve already suffered through an incompetent dilettante for 3 years. Cain has by far the most impressive resume of all the GOP (and Democratic Party) candidates, and he’s clearly a very bright man with great charisma, but that’s not enough for the toughest job in the world.
These guys are all interviewing for a job. We had one unqualified smooth talker get into the position already due to Affirmative Action pressure from the PR department. Lets do a better job next time around eh?
November 20, 2011, 9:16 pmnewrouter says:
yea the romney review is the go to place. next up jen the rube and commentary crowd. hey throw in some frum for fun.
November 20, 2011, 9:20 pmJncc says:
b.s.
Got a cite to “all” those accounts?
November 20, 2011, 10:03 pmptt says:
Oh, come on. The GOP line-up has an entire wing of nitwits. Be a man, call it what it is.
November 20, 2011, 10:04 pmnewrouter says:
joey hairplugs vp foreign policy super genius!!11!! you go you establishment clowns.
November 20, 2011, 10:10 pmyankee says:
The highlights of Cain’s resume are being (a) a restaurant industry lobbyist and (b) CEO of one of the crappiest pizza chains in America. Ignorance of the issues is not exactly a surprise.
November 20, 2011, 10:12 pmErik says:
I think it was Secretary Rice who said it best today. A Presidential candidate need not be an expert in foreign policy, but he must show a willingness to learn and should at least be familiar with the basics. There are a lot of issues. I honestly cannot remember which major foreign policy issues were brought up in 2000, but certainly Senators Kerry, McCain, and Obama all were able to express an informed opinion on foreign policy during their campaigns.
November 20, 2011, 10:13 pmnewrouter says:
i hope hilarity clinton can defend all 57 states before the unicorn nations. “foreign policy” is where idiots go when they loose the economic debate. more solyndra now!
November 20, 2011, 10:14 pmKazinski says:
Even thought Cain has a limited world view, however if he is the nominee he won’t be the only candidate on the ballot in November with a limited world view. Obama would get the foreign policy questions right, but his knowledge of business and private enterprise is as limited as Cains foreign policy knowledge.
And I think Cain would be the quicker learner, because Obama doesn’t seem to be able to learn anything from his mistakes.
November 20, 2011, 10:15 pmHarryEagar says:
Well, if you don’t count losing two wars, cowardly paying China to attack our aircraft, failing to deal with Iran’s and North Korea’s nuclear programs, he did OK.
November 20, 2011, 10:16 pmzuch says:
Hate to say it, but that’s just one [purported] example, and Reyes’s (not particularly uncommon) ignorance about Sunni versus Shiite is not “comparabl[e]” to Cain’s seeming failure to watch and understand recent headline news. And this is just the latest from Cain, as the NRO article points out. And Cain’s not the only dimbulb at the Republican table. As Randi Rhodes says, Cain, Perry, Bachmann and Trump at a table is a Bucket Full of Stoopid, and Santorum’s a banquet
Cheers,
November 20, 2011, 10:18 pmisland says:
We elected a man as President who had to think long and hard and really tax his brain when he told the world that he had campaigned in 56 States and he had two more to go.
So why are they picking on Cain?
It is absurd for the media to complain about Cain.
Because of that I don’t think a single person who voted for Obama can honestly complain about ANY fact Cain gets wrong or ANY ignorance he shows.
November 20, 2011, 10:22 pmSarcastro says:
Totally! I mean, Biden says thoughtless things all the time, which must mean he’s an idiot.
Like, Obama said 57 states, which is the same thing as not recalling whatever’s going on in Libya.
November 20, 2011, 10:24 pmisland says:
Like the current president who said he campaigned in 57 states. And he was born in the Last State to Join the Union– the 50th?
November 20, 2011, 10:26 pmbyomtov says:
Oh right. Because a substantial percentage of Democrats wanted Reyes to be the Presidential nominee.
Look, Ilya. You’ve got a clown show on your hands. Cain, Gingrich, Bachmann, Perry, Romney. There’s a gang of fools, knaves, and liars if there ever was one. Admit it.
November 20, 2011, 10:31 pmkarrde says:
I must have missed the part where the Taliban kicked the Allied military out of Afghanistan, and the insurgents took over Iraq.
I mean, ‘not winning clearly’ may look like losing, but I don’t even have that impression of the current state of affairs on the ground in Iraq. (It currently looks like a mostly-functioning local government, with occasional troubles for both local military and Allied/US military, and some enemies across the border in Pakistan.)
Afghanistan has varied between kind of a mess to really messy to messy but hopeful so many times I’ve lost count.
It may still be possible to turn the Afghanistan situation into a victory. (If by ‘victory’ we mean ‘local government that has a semblance of stability, and not a home for terrorists who like attacking the United States or our allies’.)
The bit with China looks troublesome...is NK a nuclear state at the moment? It appears that any outside power who wishes to affect NK needs China’s help. While that may not have been the reason for the payment, it might have hung in the back of their minds.
Iran? Things look worse. Though Bush was working with what he had at hand, which didn’t include a lot of leverage against Iran.
Bush didn’t do any miracles on the international-relations front, but he wasn’t a total failure either.
November 20, 2011, 10:39 pmnewrouter says:
you islamists/obamaists what’s going on in libya?
November 20, 2011, 10:46 pmnewrouter says:
too funny in the stupidity. you go you bill ayers idiots. do dat chitown deep dish dailey thing.
November 20, 2011, 10:49 pmzuch says:
“Nein, nein, nein!”
Cheers,
November 20, 2011, 10:52 pmzuch says:
FIFY. No charge.
Cheers,
November 20, 2011, 10:55 pmRicardo says:
In fairness, Romney is the only adult of the bunch. He doesn’t appear to have any principles which, on the plus side, means he isn’t going to do anything crazy or wildly unpopular if he is elected. He certainly is not beholden to the Tea Party.
November 20, 2011, 11:01 pmnewrouter says:
be dat baracky who be not be siding with our friend of 30 years. who be dat idiot? ebonics rules.
November 20, 2011, 11:02 pmSarcastro says:
[For those pointing out that the Republican primary is kinda hilarious, I would note that mocking candidates in the primaries is like shooting fish in a barrel.
Primaries tend to be pretty wacky on both sides.]
November 20, 2011, 11:12 pmAndrew MacKie-Mason says:
Not knowing the Sunni-Shiite distinction is comparably egregious. Of course, the result of that comparison is, without a doubt, that Cain’s ignorance is more egregious.
November 20, 2011, 11:16 pmSarcastro says:
[What was the point of the dialect?]
November 20, 2011, 11:19 pmAndrew MacKie-Mason says:
Perhaps to demonstrate that it’s possible to be terrible at speaking in dialect, even in writing?
November 20, 2011, 11:25 pmTom Rigid says:
If you think it’s possible for an investment banker to be elected president in this climate, then the non-Romney opposition must seem fortunately ridiculous.
Cain was never going to be the nominee. Gingrich will never be the nominee. Romney is the chosen candidate for the party, and the parade of clowns opposing him is an organized charade meant to portray him as the reasonable choice.
November 20, 2011, 11:30 pmJohn Herbison says:
Ah, yes. As Thomas Gray said, where ignorance is bliss, ’tis folly to be wise.
November 20, 2011, 11:37 pmjustin says:
Wait... People smart enough to type think Obama doesn’t know how many states there are?
November 20, 2011, 11:40 pmJohn Herbison says:
It’s as close as Republicans can come to the schoolyard taunt, “So’s yer ol’ man!”
November 20, 2011, 11:44 pmErik says:
Well, he did misspeak. It was mildly amusing and made good fodder for about a day and a half. It was a mild flub not remotely comparable to what happened to Herman Cain, but there really isn’t much that was comparable. Just for comparison’s sake, I’m willing to suggest that Governor Perry’s flub can be comparable to President Obama’s provided others are willing to agree that Cain’s comments were in a league of their own.
November 20, 2011, 11:46 pmMichael Sykora says:
Obama’s big flub is his presidency.
November 21, 2011, 12:34 amRinao says:
What’s interesting is that CNN aired a sound-bite of a Cain speech in which he tried to qualify some of his comments to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. He claimed that al Qaeda is “going to be part of the new [Libyan] government” but also vaguely mentions the Taliban in the same breath. The media is projecting this as an instance of Cain confusing Libyan conflicts with Afghanistan; however, it seems rather clear on the basis of the clip that Cain does actually believe al Qaeda will have a role in the new Libyan government.
November 21, 2011, 12:43 amleo marvin says:
Are you on roofies or something, asking that [in brackets] as if you expect a serious answer?
November 21, 2011, 12:50 amHarryEagar says:
Yes, you did.
Dunno why you’re fixated on ‘local government,’ whatever you mean by that. Iraq has a parliament that doesn’t convene, Afghanistan doesn’t have effective central government much of anywhere outside the capital.
I’m pretty sure I don’t remember Bush saying we were invading Iraq and Afghanistan in order to restore ‘local government.’
November 21, 2011, 12:55 amSarcastro says:
[When someone starts randomly performing in textual blackface, you gotta ask what the deal is, even if there is no answer.
And I bracketed it ’cause there’s no way to mock that.]
November 21, 2011, 1:59 amWayne says:
Every time some GOP candidate says something ignorant or foolish, a bunch of commenters bring up the old 57 state thing. As an initial comment, Obama has been in office almost three years, plus a year campaigning, and that seems to be the only example of a stupid statement his detractors can come up with. Most of the GOP candidates have far more examples than that after only a few months of campaigning.
But I have a question, and I wonder if island or newrouter, or anyone else who ever mentions the “57 states” mistake, is willing to answer. Do you really think Obama didn’t know how many states there are, or do you think that Obama just had a slip of the tongue?
November 21, 2011, 2:34 amRandolph says:
People on roofies write in brackets? Or is a date-rape drug just the first conscious altering substance that came to mind for you?
November 21, 2011, 2:56 amManju says:
Man…any Conservative with some gravitas could’ve taken the nom easy. But early in 2011, the smart money was on Obama as Juggernaut. Huckabee, Thune, and Bush III all said as much, resulting in Bill Kristol going apeshit.
But you could see their point back then. As a rule of thumb, sitting Presidents are at an advantage. Obama was already a significant war President, so forget about Jimmy Cartering him. Meanwhile he was raising like a gazilion dollars.
That left the economy. It was bad in early ’11 but no one (but Krugman) was betting on employment stagnating, since the laggard still has to catch up to the recover. So Huckabee, Daniels, Pence, Jindal, Ryan, Thune, Bush, Rubio and Christie were all like; “throw someone else to the Lion and I’ll pick up the bones in ’16.”
So what are conservatives left with?
We got a guy whose last success came with selling Pizzas. Another is a Governor who likes touching 3rd rails for fun, can’t even beat the Pizza Guy, and I errr forgot the 3rd one. Or we have a Congresswoman married to a first lady with a J.Edgar Hoover complex.
Then you have one guy who sounds like Noam Chomsky every time he opens his mouth on Foreign policy. How’s that going to look when he stands next the Man who personally strangled Osama Bin Laden to death? And finally, we have a former Conservative hero who makes Bill Clinton look like Ed Koch.
So Romney it is.
November 21, 2011, 3:59 amCan't find a good name says:
I note that when George W. Bush first ran for president, it was noted as early as March of 1999 that he was intensely studying national issues in preparation for his campaign and serving as president. See here. I don’t see any evidence that Cain has been doing intense studying along those lines nor that he thinks that he needs to do so. He probably would have benefited from such study, though.
(The comment in the article about Bush, “Politicians in both parties said they had never seen such a comprehensive and elaborate undertaking, particularly this early in a campaign. There may never have been a “serious” candidate who needed it more.” (emphasis added), was not written by the original reporters, but was inserted by Adam Clymer, which he later admitted. It is likely that this is what led to Bush calling Clymer a “major league asshole.”)
November 21, 2011, 4:08 amRicardo says:
The most plausible explanation for Herman Cain I’ve seen is that he doesn’t seriously think he can win and is instead using the campaign to pull a Sarah Palin and cash in on the gravy train of six-figure speaking engagements, book deals, and a possible Fox News contract. Unlike Palin, he has the credibility and business experience to sell himself as a top business and leadership self-help guru like Donald Trump or Stephen Covey.
Cain had a very successful career as a CEO and then restaurant industry lobbyist but this appears to have ended in 2000. Since then, he has run a couple of unsuccessful political campaigns and has hosted a marginal talk radio show. Now is the time for him to go prime time and really cash in on a second career.
November 21, 2011, 4:51 amTatil says:
I remember Bush having a hard time remembering the name of the general who took over the presidency of Pakistan following a coup, but otherwise he knew the issues pretty well there. Who cares if a candidate cannot remember a difficult name or an exact date? Even though Bush ended up wasting more than a trillion dollars in Iraq and strengthening Iran in the Middle East by getting Shias of Iraq gain a lot of politicial power, he did not look woefully unprepared leading up to the election.
In any case, I don’t think Cain has much of a chance. I would be surprised if Perry does not win against Romney. He is more of a genuine Republican candidate, if there is such a thing, and at least as electable. I would prefer Huntsman as the more libertarian candidate, but it seems it would take a minor miracle for him to win the nomination.
November 21, 2011, 5:09 amStephen Lathrop says:
How about Huntsman? He seems never to get mentioned, maybe on “one of these things is not like the others” principles.
November 21, 2011, 6:04 amStephen Lathrop says:
Somin seems to believe that anyone could do a good job in office if he was smart enough to study and learn the details necessary for policy. I disagree. I don’t think a lifetime of ignoring public issues (think Palin) can be compensated for by cramming. The context and habits of thought are missing, and there is no way to pick that up in a few months of effort, however intense.
November 21, 2011, 6:08 amChrisHo says:
None of which seemed to matter when our current President was running for office, then again the press was notorious for the softball questions they tossed to him.
FWIW, I am not a Cain supporter by far, I did not care for his no Muslims in his cabinet talk, but to some of what they hold against him is hilarious considering what happened in 08
November 21, 2011, 6:19 amdearieme says:
I conclude that he’s not very quick off the mark. The obvious answer to give was “I’ll lead all 57 states into battle against whoever threatens the interests of our enemies.”
November 21, 2011, 7:04 amDerrick says:
It would be nice if Republicans weren’t so able to ignore reality. Obama debated McCain, a war vet whose been involved in national security issues, and bested him. Cain would have a hard time battling Kucinich in a debate.
And, isn’t it funny how no conservative can’t come up with anything other than 57 states line. 6 years on the national stage and this one flub is the only thing you can come up with. GRASPING AT STRAWS!!
November 21, 2011, 7:37 amMr. Whiskas says:
I think the Obama “57” states thing was what people call “mis-speaking,” when a person is talking and something “comes out” wrong. I don’t think he thought there were 57 states.
But I would also defend Cain. Watched the video recently and it certainly didn’t seem as bad as folks make out. The reporter asked him a very broad question like “Do you agree with Obama on Libya” and he seemed to pause and say things that on a fair reading seem like was wondering “on what exactly concerning Libya?”
November 21, 2011, 8:19 amragebot says:
Some folks think the same thing about general elections.
November 21, 2011, 8:25 amragebot says:
What worries me most about some of these comments is a general ignoring of the media in fabricating the image of public figures.
Jerry Ford was portrayed as a stumbling, bumbling, buffoon who seemed not to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time; while Obama enjoys an image of a fairly athletic guy. This is completely at odds with reality.
Ford was an Eagle Scout at 15, a star football player in high school who earned all state status, played football at UM in the days when players went two ways, was the MVP of the team which was national champion, captain of the team, consensus All American, and first round draft pick of the Detroit Lions. Obama is a self admitted hard drug user with a history of smoking, and some folks do not buy the claim that he has quit.
Same goes for the media high lighting Clinton’s jogging efforts and playing down Bush’s ability to run sub eight minute miles; a very creditable effort for someone his age.
Sorta variation of the old adage “never pick a fight with someone who buys printer’s ink by the barrel”.
November 21, 2011, 8:38 amErik says:
The only way that possibly works is if it’s impossible to figure out from the context that the reporter was talking about the military conflict with Libya. He seemed to only have the vaguest recollection and wanted to at least make sure he wasn’t completely off base. I mean, seriously, what else could a reporter have meant? If they asked Romney, he would certainly know what the question was about (and still have to finesse an answer that did not praise President Obama while still acknowledging his success). Even a valid defense of Herman Cain has to acknowledge a significant lack of familiarity of both foreign politics in general and current events involving foreign politics.
November 21, 2011, 8:47 amMike says:
You know, when Obama was elected, there was a part of me that was really happy to have a president who could speak eloquently, was obviously intelligent, and sounded like he had really thought out his answers to questions.
And that resulted in a continuation of the bailouts in an even more “payback” oriented sort of way, starting yet another war (this time without even congressional authorization), no stepping back on Guantanamo or other civil liberties violations, a botched abortion of a healthcare bill that won’t have any of the benefits of centralized healthcare or privatized healthcare, but will make everything more expensive and provide a huge kickback to the insurance industry, and cronyism toward energy companies rather than defense companies (oh wait, defense spending has continued to go up? Make that cronyism to energy companies in *addition* to defense companies).
What I’m saying is, recent history suggests that the results don’t change based on how informed and articulate the president is. It’s all just picking which guy you think sounds most like you, and mocking the other guy.
November 21, 2011, 8:49 amAJ says:
Just as Perry reinforces the idea that a President must be intellectually nimble, Cain shows that a President must continually demonstrate preparation and discipline. Gingrich is certainly bright enough and has thought seriously on all of the major policy issues, but he generally falters on the discipline front as evidenced by being on all sides of Libya and goofing on Paul Ryan’s entitlement reform (as well as his personal life!). Romney remains the only one that has the campaign infrastructure, discipline, experience, and preparation to be a solid alternative to Obama. The key for him is to find an attractive #2 that will broaden his appeal. It will be interesting to see who emerges. Rubio would be a great choice though Michael Steele could be interesting as well.
November 21, 2011, 8:58 amragebot says:
I agree Romney has everything needed except appeal; which is the only thing you really need.
November 21, 2011, 9:18 amepluribus says:
AJ says:
Perry reinforces the idea that, if you are proposing the abolition of three executive departments, remember what the three departments are. Cain shows that a President must continually read the newspapers. (“A leader, not a reader” is a [lame] slogan, not a solution to what ails the
November 21, 2011, 10:20 amcountryRepublican Party these days.)epluribus says:
ragebot says:
November 21, 2011, 10:23 amI agree Romney has everything needed except
appealprinciples; which is the only thing you really need.loki13 says:
This may be the first (and last) time I will defend Perry, but I will say this.
He has long advocated getting rid of all sorts of programs and departments in the government. It is my understanding that the three departments (as a list and talking point) was foisted on him by his campaign. People make misstatements and have “brain farts” all the time; I do not honestly believe that Perry is unaware that there is DoE (just like I get annoyed when other people constantly troll the “but Obama said 57 states once” canard).
There are many reasons to not want Perry to be President from my point of view. This particular flub isn’t one of them.
November 21, 2011, 10:26 amRicardo says:
Gingrich seems particularly vulnerable to the revelations coming out about his business dealings after leaving Congress. Gingrich appears to have worked as an unlicensed lobbyist, taking on pharmaceutical companies and Freddie Mac as clients and then using his Republican name recognition to push for Medicare Part D and the affordable housing initiatives that Republicans now wish everyone would forget about.
Romney may be a flip-flopper but Gingrich appears to simply be a racketeer and a grifter.
November 21, 2011, 10:32 amuh_clem says:
I would assume that most people who bring up the 57 states thing genuinely believe that Obama doesn’t know how many states there are. People believe what they want to believe, and if you’re invested in the meme that Obama is “bad” you believe and repeat anything that supports that, no matter how preposterous.
For example, take the “Obama can’t speak without a teleprompter” meme — it’s demonstrably false (and demonstrated on nearly a daily basis) yet some people cling to it as it was revealed truth and the lord is just testing their faith by providing seeming counterexamples.
The alternative to thinking that the people who bring up 57 states genuinely believe that Obama doesn’t know how many states there are is to posit that they are being disingenuous — and while I’m fairly confident the professional pundits who flog this nonsense know it’s nonsense, the people who consume it are not intentionally misrepresenting it. They honestly believe it.
November 21, 2011, 10:35 amSteveL says:
This reminds me of the discussion about law school education, focusing on academic vs. practical or practice oriented education. Obama is an academic, his practical experience solving problems is and was nil. He could speak well, and is certainly intellectually capable, but he lacked experience making difficult decisions. In that respect, I have no doubt, that Herman Cain, while lacking the academic knowledge and articulate style, has considerably more experience making tough decisions than Obama did in 2008. Clearly George W. Bush had both private business experience and experience as a governor. Romney does as well. Newt, ironically, is more like Obama. He can talk and put forth intelligent sounding positions in an eloquent way, but can he make decisions? Ron Paul has the same gap in my mind, no real leadership experience.
There are many skills needed to be President. As 2008 shows, we certainly have elected people who didn’t demonstrate all of them.
November 21, 2011, 10:40 amSala says:
You’re being deliberately obtuse. Obviously that’s not the only flub Obama has said, it’s just a mildly amusing one. Same way Democrats kept bringing up Bush’s “Internets” thing over and over.
November 21, 2011, 10:41 amloki13 says:
To put it more precisely, I think there are different categories of gaffes–
There are the mental mistakes– the moments where a a candidate misspeaks, forgets something, or has a “senior moment.” But it doesn’t go to the substance of the candidate. I would hope that no one actually believes that either Perry doesn’t really believe there are government programs or departments he wants to get rid of, or that he doesn’t know about the DoE. By the same token, I hope that no one honestly believes Obama doesn’t know the correct number of states in the country in which he wasn’t born. ;)
These make for great jokes and partisan sniping, but shouldn’t affect the substance of a candidate. Unless...
They are repeatedly made. Then they might show that the candidate is either woefully unprepared, fast-and-loose with the facts, or might shed some light on how they handle being repeatedly caught in misstatements. See also, Bachmann.
Not quite related is the gaffe that goes to the heart of concerns about the candidate, or that the candidate doubles down on. Like Ford and Poland. Or remarks made “off the record” that reveal the candidate’s “true character” (the recent remarks by Gordon Brown in his re-election loss come to mind).
Finally, there are the media narratives. These can be wholly unrelated. SNL chose Chevy Chase to play Ford. Chevy Chase was a gifted physical comedian known for pratfalls. And now we remember one of the greatest athletes to serve in the oval office as a bumbling, tripping person.
November 21, 2011, 10:41 amSala says:
It’s like you were unconscious the entire time from 2000–2008.
November 21, 2011, 10:43 amSala says:
Sarah Palin thinks she can see Russia from her house!
November 21, 2011, 10:44 amjosh says:
“It’s easy to find examples of Democratic politicians who demonstrate comparably egregious ignorance.” (Linking to cite herein Silvestro Reyes doesn’t know whether Al Qaeda is Sunni or Shia.)
And then I stopped reading this post ...
November 21, 2011, 10:46 amepluribus says:
Obama-haters dwell on the “57 states” slip of the tongue because they can no longer demand that he produce his long-form birth certificate without provoking howls of laughter. (Remember supposed Republican savior Donald Trump–now back at his reality show day job?) I say let ‘em keep it up. If that’s Obama’s worst slip of the tongue after three years under the presidential microscope, it reflects pretty well on his command of the facts–and of his tongue.
November 21, 2011, 10:47 amSmooth, Like a Rhapsody says:
Cain’s flubs are not about “details”. The question was not about Uzbekistan. Any sentient adult who has been following the news—much less preparing to be the leader of the semi-free world—should know about the Arab Spring, including something salient about Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Syria. Either he choked under pressure or he’s ignorant.
The “Obama 57″ remark is cheap, “gotcha” stuff. Everyone knows he is a bright guy and that deficient intellect is not his problem; his problem is callowness and poor political skills.
I have always found Gingrich to be an attractive figure because he is so well-informed. But I have always been of the opinion that he can not be elected President because he is too polarizing (see, Clinton, Hillary) and lacks discipline. He seems to think government can be treated like one big a graduate seminar.
Romney and Huntsman are the only two current candidates worthy of the nomination. There are better candidates, but they are on the sidelines.
November 21, 2011, 10:50 amjosh says:
Obama’s “practical experience solving problems is and was nil.”
Yes. Totally. As a legislator in a state that had to release almost half its death row population because of wrongful convictions by passing the state’s first law mandating videotaping of witnesses, he has no clue.
November 21, 2011, 10:51 amepluribus says:
Quite a guy.
Asked about his nearly two million dollars worth of payments from Freddie Mac, Newt said he was hired as a historian.
Asked about his and his (third) wife’s half-million dollar revolving account at Tiffany’s, Newt said he wasn’t going to answer “gotcha questions.”
Asked about Paul Ryan’s budget plan after it had already passed the Republican House, he said that “right-wing social engineering” isn’t any better than “left-wing social engineering.”
Asked about his description of the Ryan Plan as “right-wing social engineering,” he said that he misspoke, and if anybody quoted that statement in the future they were just lying.
Asked for his views on the hated Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (well-known as the source of all the social ills of the country), he said that if he is elected it will have no clerks, that its electric bill won’t be paid for two years, and it won’t have a law library, either.
Asked why he had been married three times and divorced twice, why he carried on an illicit affair in the House of Representatives while he was pushing for Bill Clinton’s impeachment for carrying on an illicit affair in the White House, he said that he has asked for and received forgiveness from God. He now professes to be a practicing member of the Catholic Church, which teaches its members that God regards divorce and remarriage as a serious (and continuing) sin. In other words, a real no-no.
This is the kind of guy we need to restore honor and confidence to the White House. [Not]
November 21, 2011, 11:13 amDave N. says:
My personal prediction at this juncture is that Romney will be the nominee and his running mate will be Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, who has a record of accomplishment as a popular Governor, is young enough (41) to wait 8 years to run for President, and is liked by many of the Tea Party types. He is also one of the smartest people in public life. It would be very interesting watching him and Joe Biden debate.
November 21, 2011, 11:14 amepluribus says:
Smooth, Like a Rhapsody says:
Right. Try as he might, he just can’t restrain himself from lying.
November 21, 2011, 11:19 amepluribus says:
Gingrich’s latest is classic Gingrich. Asked about the Occupy movements that have swept across the country (and the world) protesting economic inequality, he said the demonstrators should take a bath and get a job. Right. With some 14 million now unemployed, those Occupy demonstrators should have absolutely no problem getting jobs. They just have bad attitudes.
November 21, 2011, 11:23 amMDJD from NY says:
How does solving math problems or knowledge of mathematics translate into presidential success? How is a president benefitted by having a greater facility with math than a good MBA (like Romney’s)?
November 21, 2011, 11:32 amDave N. says:
Actually she never said that. Tina Fey did on Saturday Night Live.
November 21, 2011, 11:40 amMDJD from NY says:
He accepted an appointment from Obama. To paraphrase Scalia (out of context): you can’t ride with the cops and cheer for the robbers.
November 21, 2011, 11:44 amuh_clem says:
Where did I say that this was a phenomenon particular to conservatives?
November 21, 2011, 11:45 amzuch says:
Racist much? Obama doesn’t talk like that at all. If anyone shows a trace of such, it’s Cain. But that’s not a problem: It’s the substance of what Cains says [Taliban in Libya?!?!?], not the mode of expression, that is completely wacky.
Cheers,
November 21, 2011, 11:46 amAdam J says:
David N– you’re right, all she said was “you can actually see Russia, from land, here in Alaska.” That’s totally different...
November 21, 2011, 11:58 amSteve P. says:
Silvestro Reyes was being tapped to be the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. I can understand it not being important for a random House member to understand those things, but presumably the chair of the HPSC/I should know whether Al Queda is Sunni or Shiite.
I think the comparison is apt, and especially because it highlights the difference — Reyes was a representative, Cain is a presidential hopeful. If we hold our presidential candidates to a higher standard of current-event knowledge, Cain’s comments make him look bad.
November 21, 2011, 12:06 pmCalderon says:
My bet is that he’s next on the not-Romney merry-go-round. Some media outlets are picking up on the fact that he’s actually more conservative than his current image. See the following and sources cited therein: http://reason.com/archives/2011/11/21/why-not-huntsman
November 21, 2011, 12:13 pmArthur Kirkland says:
I agree. It is understandable, but regrettable, that these sensational “gotcha” moments are valuable campaign currency.
November 21, 2011, 12:17 pmYant says:
Re the 57 states thing. My understanding is that Obama said something along the lines of campaigning in 57 states. While there are clearly not 57 states, there were 57 primaries (Puerto Rico, etc).
November 21, 2011, 12:22 pmA. Zarkov says:
With Cain we get another politician, or would-be politician, who exhibits the Dunning-Kruger effect. However unlike most politicians, he tries to actually answer the question posed across a variety of subjects. But he can’t because he would have to be a genuine polymath to do that. Thus his overconfidence leads him to think he can“wing it” during interviews, and he ends up looking ignorant.
Obama too suffers Dunning-Kruger, but he will avoid answering the question by running-out-the-clock with long-winded responses that don’t answer the question. He’s got an added advantage because the MSM generally tries to help him, and they won’t press him to answer the question posed. Hilary really plays the no-answer game. Tim Russert (on Meet the Press) asked her a question about giving drivers licenses to illegal aliens, and she steadfastly refused to give anything resembling an answer. He pressed on, but only got a tantrum. She accused him of “piling on” because she’s a “woman.” In my opinion, Hilary is actually worse than Obama, and that’s saying a lot.
These days we really do need a polymath as president. He can’t simply rely on experts because he has to choose the experts and resolve disputes among them. Cain won’t be able to do that because he lacks the necessary knowledge and skill base. So did Bush, and so does Obama.
November 21, 2011, 12:26 pmloki13 says:
Did it ever occur you to step back from your partisan hidey-hole and consider he was being (gasp) a politician?
Of course, this is the fault of the media (and us), but not in the way you posit. Take any issue that even semi-divides us. What real advantage is there for a politician to come out strongly, unless it’s part of a serious campaign strategy or they need a bill passed? Say something meaningless on the news shows, and, well, no one cares. Take a stand, and then *that becomes the issue*. And you then have to devote your political capital to something just because you have a view on it. Not to mention alienating viewers.
Of course, a lot of complicated questions and issues have long, complicated (dare I say nuanced) responses. The vast majority of Americans won’t hear your full response. They’ll hear the most inflammatory 10 seconds ripped out of context.
So from a cost-benefit analysis, it almost never pays to give your opinions on issues unless you’ve got an agenda you want to bring to the fore. Which is why all politicians do this.
November 21, 2011, 12:42 pmgooners says:
No, he meant to say 47. He was saying he’d been in 47 states and still had 1 to go.
Now, originally this was a huge deal among the right-wing because they immediately claimed there were 57 Islamic states, and this was further proof Obama is a secret Muslim terrorist. I see the “intellectuals” here have dropped that part of the fauxrage.
November 21, 2011, 12:42 pmRandolph says:
Yup, that’s the context. Which makes it truly amazing that this is apparently still the greatest gaff by Obama. It was a funny blooper reel clip for about a week, but the fact that his critics are still riding it years later shows just how well spoken the guy really is.
I like to consider myself pretty articulate, and I make slips like that on a daily basis.
November 21, 2011, 12:46 pmrumpelstiltskin says:
facepalm.jpg
November 21, 2011, 12:48 pmjosh says:
It’s a fair point, but I still think it’s an attempt to draw false equivalencies and ultimately makes Somin appear more hackish than intellectually honest.
I read one newspaper a day and can’t honestly as I sit here recall which is Sunni and which is Shia. As I tell my corporate rep client-deponents, though, it’s not a memory test, and I have no way of knowing from the quote the in the link if Reyes was totally ignorant of the difference, or just didn’t at the time recall which was which (probably the former, but could be the latter). I also don’t knock Bush (or Cain) for not being able to cite on the spot the current president of Becky Becky-stan. It indeed is not a memory test.
But the notion that Cain’s inability to recall HIS OWN POSITION on this country’s MOST RECENT WAR is a far cry from not knowing who the president of some stan is, or whether Al Qaeda is Sunni or Shia. The two do not comprise “comparably egregious ignorance” as Somin writes.
At worst for Reyes, Reyes was ignorant of particular fact relating to a detail of policy. Cain could not recall his own policy, except to say, of course, Obama is a jerk.
Comparing the two to show “balance” is just hackery, and it does a disservice to any writer because the lack of intellectual honesty makes readers stop reading.
November 21, 2011, 12:50 pmTim J. says:
A thousand times this. When campaigning, Obama eloquently stated, “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” When governing, he did exactly what he had previously declared unconstitutional. His answer checked the right “political knowledge” box, but why should we care when it had no bearing on what he’d actually do? Would we think better of him for that than if he’d said “As president, I intend to break the constitution in order to authorize military attacks unilaterally”? The latter statement would be more accurate than what we got.
The same goes for things like Guantanamo, or even the individual mandate. He was able to give passionate, seemingly intelligent answers on these, but once in office, he did the opposite. Is a fluent president better than one who stumbles if he is still not fluent in telling the truth?
Bonus presidential foreign affairs question: “Do you think it is smart to sell weapons to Mexican drug cartels without any attempt to track and control the weapons, or informing the Mexican government of your activities?”
November 21, 2011, 12:51 pmrumpelstiltskin says:
Well, I think Huntsman is probably an adult. Too bad believing in evolution and global warming disqualifies you from the nomination.
November 21, 2011, 12:52 pmManju says:
How can Al Quaeda be Sunni? Its all gloom, doom, rain and darkness with them. Shiiti makes much more sense.
November 21, 2011, 12:55 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Whoops.
To me, this makes it worse. Are we electing a president or a campaign? Where will the buck stop?
November 21, 2011, 12:56 pmA. Zarkov says:
I don’t care about Biden’s occasional misstatements of fact. For example he thought FDR’s fireside chats were televised. I’m more concerned about substantive errors. For example in this video Biden extols Jon Corzine as the go to guy for economic advice. The expert on world markets. Listen to the worship. Well Corzine doesn’t know shit from Shinola about world markets. Corzine had his firm, M F Global, bet the farm on government bonds issued by the PIIGS. It also seems that $600 million (perhaps much more) of client money is missing. Meaning M F stole their client’s money to try to backstop their losses. Now I know what “M F” stands for. Biden might have to call Corzine in his jail cell for advice int the future.
November 21, 2011, 12:59 pmdht says:
The real problem is that the skills needed to be elected president (or most other offices) are not the same skills needed to actually serve in those offices. Furthermore, most people say that they want a candidate who is “genuine” or “not a politician”, but when the various candidates open their mouths, it is those with political skills who actually win. This is because politicians know how to talk to the public without alienating anyone. This is where Cain is falling down. Like Ross Perot is 1992, he was plausible as a business man, but he stumbled when he could not communicate smoothly with the electorate.
November 21, 2011, 1:00 pmrumpelstiltskin says:
Well, I think Huntsman is probably an adult. Too bad believing in evolution and global warming disqualifies you from the nomination.
November 21, 2011, 1:02 pmdht says:
The real problem is that the skills needed to be elected president (or most other offices) are not the same skills needed to actually serve in those offices. Furthermore, most people say that they want a candidate who is “genuine” or “not a politician”, but when the various candidates open their mouths, it is those with political skills who actually win. This is because politicians know how to talk to the public without alienating anyone. This is where Cain is falling down. Like Ross Perot is 1992, he was plausible as a business man, but he stumbled when he could not communicate smoothly with the electorate.
November 21, 2011, 1:03 pmdht says:
The real problem is that the skills needed to be elected president (or most other offices) are not the same skills needed to actually serve in those offices. Furthermore, most people say that they want a candidate who is “genuine” or “not a politician”, but when the various candidates open their mouths, it is those with political skills who actually win. This is because politicians know how to talk to the public without alienating anyone. This is where Cain is falling down. Like Ross Perot is 1992, he was plausible as a business man, but he stumbled when he could not communicate smoothly with the electorate.
November 21, 2011, 1:06 pmzuch says:
“57 states! 57 states!! 57 states!!!”
Uhhhhh.....
“... but what about the 57 STATES?!?!?”
Yeah, all the Republicans thought Obama a lightweight, so they did a Q&A session with him. And he spanked their little behinds ... and then they whined and cried about how unkind and unfair he was.
“Did I mention ’57 states’?”
Cheers,
November 21, 2011, 1:15 pmMDT says:
josh,
I read one newspaper a day and can’t honestly as I sit here recall which is Sunni and which is Shia.
If that’s so, you must be completely at sea wrt Middle Eastern politics. The varieties of Islam determine the biggest of the alliances and fault lines. If I hadn’t got at least that far, after reading (daily!) about events in the region, I’d be seriously tempted to write the whole thing off.
November 21, 2011, 1:42 pmloki13 says:
That wasn’t the point I was getting at. I really hate defending Perry, but here goes–
He has long shown that wants to get rid of numerous programs and departments. All over the map.
His campaign thought it would be nice to put this into a more audience-friendly “three departments” soundbite. I am sure he approved it.
That said, his core belief was reducing the departments and programs overall, and the particular three was a (IIRC relatively new) campaign point.
So the “flub” doesn’t go to his core beliefs, but his momentary forgetting of the three particular things put on the soundbite.
I can argue until the cows come home about the substance of Perry’s proposals. But everyone has a moment where they’re reaching for a word, or term, and it just isn’t there.
Stupid gotcha politics.
(And yes, we elect both presidents and campaigns. Or do you personally know everyone that is running?)
November 21, 2011, 1:44 pmSarcastro says:
The important thing is that we talk about the 57 States thing, or Joe Biden, and not what Cain’s ascendancy says about the Republican primary electorate.
November 21, 2011, 1:50 pmChris Green says:
We went into Iraq (supposedly) to find WMDs, but also, to set up an America friendly, democratic, relatively prosperous nation in the Middle East to counter the idea popular among extremist (and a lot of other people) in the region that the only alternative to Middle Eastern dictatorship is a constitutional theocracy opposed to the America (the Great Satan). Iraq is much more prosperous than it was 10 years ago and is certainly more US friendly than it was 10 years ago. Weather it will become a truly functioning democracy is still undecided. However, countries new to democracy often take several decades to fully transition. South Korea is a perfect example of this. Iraq could go the route of South Korea, or the route of Pakistan. However, the current gridlock is NOT a sure indication (except to strident pessimists) that a stable democracy won’t eventually prevail. Since WMDs were not a big issue in Iraq, I’d say that getting out of there without precipitating a civil war and leaving behind an economy significantly more prosperous than before is a victory of sorts. It is certainly not a defeat. Weather it was ever worth it to go into Iraq in the first place is a different question.
November 21, 2011, 2:14 pmChristopher Taylor says:
The 57 states thing comes up because its so goofy and wrong (he said 57 plus one more for a total of 58, so the “primaries” excuse doesn’t work either). He’s made a host of dumb statements, flubs, and boners over the years, the latest being “Hawaii is Asia.”
The reason people bring it up is that it’s shorthand for all the dumb stuff he’s said and nobody in the press or on the left care about after 8 years of screaming about how much of a retard Bush was for saying something silly once in a while.
Its the comparison, not the statement its self that’s at stake.
November 21, 2011, 2:21 pmChristopher Taylor says:
Incidentally my few European friends think Cain is the best of the GOP lot that’s out there, interestingly enough. They see most of the others as “scary” such as Paul, Bachman, and Santorum.
November 21, 2011, 2:24 pmSarcastro says:
All those unreported misstatements! This is at least as bad as Cain’s active avoidance of studying foreign policy.
But yeah, lets talk about press bias and not Herman Cain.
November 21, 2011, 2:33 pmChris Green says:
What Cains ascendancy says about the Republican primary electorate is that a large number of them want a Black guy too. It isn’t much more complicated than that.
November 21, 2011, 2:37 pmSarcastro says:
[I daresey it’s more his “not Mitt Romney” status than his skin color.
Though there is clearly a strong ‘get the blacks off the Democrat plantation’ undercurrent, I will admit.]
November 21, 2011, 2:43 pmB-Rob says:
If you really thought that the President of the United States, a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law and a resident of Hawaii, did not actually know there were 50 states and he had visited 47 (not 57, as he said), then I would see the point of bringing this up. There is a difference, of course, with saying 57 when you meant 47 (Obama) and not being able to articulate why you oppose the president’s handling of a situation you obviously did not understand in the first place (Cain). You cons call that “authentic”; I call it laughably unprepared for the job he seeks.
But if you cons want to play the “Obama is dumb” card, run with it. And when the independents stop giggling as they vote for Obama a second time, maybe then you will understand how silly a meme it is. Seriously . . . you can call the man dumb and say he “can’t speak without a teleprompter” (thought somehow he was able to teach law at a top law school without one), . . . or you can call him an intellectual elitist because he graduated at the top of his class at a top law school. But you can’t do both at the same times, cons . . . it makes as little sense as . . . oh, nominating Sarah Palin for the vice presidency.
November 21, 2011, 2:47 pmB-Rob says:
If you can find any of “the blacks” who would follow Herman Cain anywhere other than the corner store to buy a soda, you might be right. But here is a hint, cons: the way to attract “the blacks” to vote for your side might not include referring to them as “the blacks”, or calling them “brainwashed” because they don’t buy your Southern conservative policy positions and rhetoric, or saying they are on a “plantation” (although the White House, where one of their own resides, sorta does look like a plantation).
I love it . . . conservatives use belittling rhetoric to describe the Blacks who won’t vote for them, then are amazed that they won’t vote for them in later years. Here is another hint, cons: if you want to know why Blacks, Latinos, East Asians, Pacific Asians, Arabs and Native Americans won’t vote GOPer, you should not be asking White GOPers why that dynamic exists. Ask those peoples and LISTEN TO THEM, not your own smug, lily white echo chamber, where the con backs are patted as quickly as the martinis are shaken.
November 21, 2011, 2:58 pmgooners says:
The Obama is Muslim card, actually. Again, most Republicans don’t want to cop to it now, but the 57 states misstatement is so well known and so often repeated because the lunatic fringe thought it was proof Obama is a Muslim. Here’s Rep. Louie Gohmert (R_TX):
November 21, 2011, 3:04 pmB-Rob says:
Another thought: I suspect that, among Black voters, an Obama vs. Cain race would have a similar outcome as the Obama vs. Alan Keyes Senate race in Illinois. If you want to have a Black candidate attract Black voters, the first thing you must do is (a) don’t choose one with a shaky grasp on basic facts; (b) don’t choose one with a long paper trail of sexually harassing White women who work for him; and (c) make sure all the non-Black cons keep their damn mouths shut whenever they get the urge to start declaring why “your” Blacks are better than “their” Blacks, or why your fact-deprived and inarticulate Black candidate is “authentic” and their better educated, more articulate Black candidate is “not really Black.” Because the conservative ranks are about as White as the average Klan meeting, I am sure they don’t grasp how offensive such observations are to Black people.
November 21, 2011, 3:11 pmGiant Frog says:
Solyndra people are green, so Solyndra green is people.
November 21, 2011, 3:13 pmB-Rob says:
You know the best part about that little garden party? They invited him into the lion’s den for a twenty minute talk. He ended up whacking them for more than an hour, on national television. Then the cons had three responses: the House cons claimed he hijacked their meeting; they then declared themselves the winners; and the Senate cons immediately refused to permit him to repeat the performance at their conference, saying the House invite was a big mistake. It was so damn funny!
November 21, 2011, 3:22 pmyguy says:
Perhaps someone would like to explain why deficiencies in this regard are within an order of magnitude of the importance of the moral character of the candidate.
November 21, 2011, 3:46 pmHarryEagar says:
I have never seen a bar set lower.
A paltry return at a cost of tens of thousands of lives.
November 21, 2011, 3:56 pmavoidswork says:
Dont’ forget the “corpse-man” gaffe (http://patriotpost.us/perspective/2010/02/05/obama-calls-navy-corpsman-a-corpse-man/) or the bowling “Special Olympics” gaffe. Heck, here’s a link to a site with some of his gaffes http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/barackobama/a/top-10-obama-quotes.htm.
That said, I still remember all of Shrub’s flubs and still cringe when I hear “nuclear” mispronounced.
But, usually, the two gaffes RWers will throw out most frequently are 57 states (2008) and corpsman (2010). *yawn. bored now.*
But the UnSeriousness of Cain, as evidenced by his own words and lack of campaign infrastructure, while capturing the popularity of a certain hypothetical voting segment that have now started batting their eyelashes at Gingrich is the real gaffe, the real political ignorance.
Don’t they recall that Newter went on vacation to Greece instead of campaigning? That his staff bailed, some to Perry? His disgraceful exit from the House? His “family values”?
Methinks TPaw is kicking himself every day for throwing in the towel so soon in the face of Newter’s resurgence.
November 21, 2011, 3:59 pmavoidswork says:
Goehmert.
He’s the secret soul-mate of NC’s Virginia Foxx.
November 21, 2011, 4:01 pmtomemos says:
Given recent revelations, I don’t think running as the morality candidate is going to be a winning strategy for Cain, either.
November 21, 2011, 4:03 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Loki, x’ing out the entire DOE is a big deal with lots of ramifications. Before you commit to such a thing you need to have thought through in great detail the pro’s and con’s and have solid reason for doing it. And if you’ve done that, it’s hard to believe that you’d forget it. If it’s a soundbite just to have a soundbite, that’s worthless fluff you probably have no intention of following through on. I expect better, that’s all.
November 21, 2011, 4:06 pmtomemos says:
Laura, well-said. Matt Bai makes the same point: we expect our politicians to at least believe the things they suggest. If he claims to believe firmly that three departments should be cut but can’t think of one of them in two minutes of grasping, that suggests that “three departments” is just a sound bite rather than a genuine conviction.
November 21, 2011, 4:18 pmdht says:
Not sure what you are getting at here. Are you saying Obama has significant moral failings? If so, what are they. I can’t think of any significant moral failings on his part, at least while in office. On the other hand, Bush was roundly criticized on moral grounds for his stand on torture, and Clinton was roundly criticized for his standing blow job. And Cain has been roundly criticized for his (alleged) sexual harassment.
November 21, 2011, 4:19 pmyguy says:
There are no revelations that are problematic for Cain, only unsubstantiated accusations. Moreover, what I just said is not debatable, so don’t expect me to be stupid enough to debate it. TIA.
November 21, 2011, 4:22 pmyguy says:
If ever there was an example of praise by faint damnation...
Then brother, you don’t think too good.
November 21, 2011, 4:25 pmB-Rob says:
I think if Obama had any moral failings, they would be easy to catalog. Your failure to identify any speaks volumes.
November 21, 2011, 4:46 pmAnon says:
Anyone who criticizes Herman Cain is a racist!
November 21, 2011, 4:56 pmloki13 says:
*sigh* What, why do I have to be the one defending him? You think that I am the one all hellbent on getting rid of the DoE?
This is the argument–
Perry has long believed in getting rid of federal government programs and departments. He has given lots of speeches about this. He might even have some stuff in a book about it. He has thought about it (I don’t agree with his thoughts, but whatever). From his frame of reference, the DoE was always in that list.
For purposes of having a nice, soundbited claim, the powers that be had him tailor it to “three departments.” Just like “9–9-9″ is easier to say than going through the real vagaries of Cain’s BS tax plan.
So the error was that what he had thought about, and what he had long cared about, included more than those three, and he briefly froze. But I don’t think anyone doubts that Perry either knows about the DoE or kinda sorta wants to get rid of it.
So attacking him on the flub is an example of stupid gotcha politics. If you want to get to the substance of his proposal (you know– getting rid of the DoE, which is what you seem to be doing in your latest post)- that’s fine. Heck, I’d support you. Like I wrote– I don’t like Perry. Think he’d be an awful President. But it has nothing to do with momentarily misspeaking.
November 21, 2011, 4:57 pmdht says:
Moral failings are not the same as political positions. You are free to oppose Obama on any number of his political positions. Moral failings, however, are different. They tend to involve things like marital infidelity, cruelty to others, lying to the people on subsantive matters, etc. While Obama has probably not been 100% honest with the American people on every little thing, I don’t think he has been more dishonest than any other President in that regard. As B-Rob said, you need to catalog what you think are his moral, as opposed to political, failings.
November 21, 2011, 5:01 pmrpt says:
Monetary settlements are not unsubstantiated.
November 21, 2011, 5:09 pmgooners says:
Evidently to some they are. Like Barb. And Rick Santorum, who shares Barb’s weird belief that laws are for teaching people how to live morally.
November 21, 2011, 5:10 pmgooners says:
Evidently to some they are. Like Barb. And Rick Santorum, who shares Barb’s weird belief that laws are for teaching people how to live morally.
November 21, 2011, 5:10 pmragebot says:
Do you have a cite for Obama graduating at the top of his class. I thought one of the big beefs about Obama was he did not release his high school, under grad, or LS transcript.
My problem is not that I think Obama is dumb, rather that he will not take responsibility. He was famous for voting present a lot instead of taking a position. Lots of libs griped that he did not take the lead in getting single payer in Obama care; in fact he got flack for basically letting congress write it.
I have seen him multiple times get asked a direct question which if answered honestly would embarrass him (e.g. why didn’t you close down Gitmo) and he basically went into a stall game and ran out the clock. One of Cain’s strengths IMHO (not that I think he is the best choice) is that he is a straight shooter, when he is asked a question he makes a good faith attempt to answer it instead of trying to point in a different direction and say look at the bright shiny object over there.
November 21, 2011, 5:35 pmTatil says:
Dude, you are behind the times. :) The running tally on the (stolen/lost) pot of money has already hit $1.2 billion:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011–11-21/mf-global-shortfall-may-be-up-to-1-2b-trustee.html
November 21, 2011, 5:46 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Maybe, Loki. Not utterly convinced, though. Maybe he should have done a Palin, and inked a few terse keywords on his hand.
November 21, 2011, 5:48 pmSarcastro says:
[Not so weird from a lay-person.
Before I attended law school, I’d bought into the narrative that were it not for Brown v. Board of Education and subsequent enforcement forcing the country to see that integration wasn’t so bad, we’d have a much more racist country.
Used the same thing to justify laws against drugs.]
November 21, 2011, 6:17 pmOwen H. says:
Sure they can. Now they are demanding that he release the original micro-fiche.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/02/joe-arpaio-obama-birth-certificate_n_1072177.html
As a side note, I think this might be Sheriff Arpaio’s “jump the shark” moment.
November 21, 2011, 6:48 pmOwen H. says:
I’m trying to remember when it became standard to release any of those. I don’t know where the President stood in the rankings, but I’m pretty sure you don’t get to be the president of the Harvard Law Review by being a poor student, or because of affirmative action.
November 21, 2011, 6:51 pmjukeboxgrad says:
ragebot:
Link, link.
“… in traditional academic terms, Obama did better in school than any president in the last 40 years.” You’ll never guess who said that.
Yes, it’s been “one of the big beefs about Obama” even though no other president or candidate has done that. How odd that different standards would apply to him. I can’t imagine why.
November 21, 2011, 6:55 pmOwen H. says:
Exactly! Why, there are thousands of women that haven’t accused Cain of sexual harassment!
November 21, 2011, 6:58 pmrpt says:
November 21, 2011, 7:02 pmChristopher Taylor says:
Are you seriously contending that no previous presidential candidate or winner has given up their scholastic records and transcripts?
November 21, 2011, 7:16 pmjukeboxgrad says:
The ones we have (e.g., Bush, Perry) were leaked, not released voluntarily. If you have a counterexample, tell us about it.
Kerry did release his, but only after he was no longer a candidate.
By the way, Obama was the first president to release his birth certificate. (Reagan’s became public after he left office.)
November 21, 2011, 7:20 pmyguy says:
Yer a riot, dude. :)
To be sure, but any American over the age of majority who needs that service is too stupid to mess with.
Believe me, I have absolute faith in your ability to transmute anything I say or don’t say into a justification for your prejudices.
November 21, 2011, 7:42 pmDave N. says:
It is different because that statement is actually true. You CAN see Russian controlled islands from a point in the Aleutian Islands that is part of Alaska. Was it the smartest thing for her to say? No. But criticizing her for making a factually true statement is pretty dumb. Ascribing a Tina Fey impersonation to Sarah Palin herself is even dumber.
November 21, 2011, 7:42 pmyguy says:
Then you’re a fool.
Their relevance to the accusations against Cain is.
November 21, 2011, 7:48 pmWayne says:
I think Sala was actually providing the alleged Sarah Palin quote as an example of people believing that a parody was an actual quote, similar to the example provided earlier that people thought Gerald Ford was clumsy based on the Chevy Chase “impersonation”.
November 21, 2011, 7:54 pmTatil says:
Dude, give it up. Somebody has already pointed out the minute differences between what she said, what Fey said in a skit. That line ended up in the skip, because she made that “factually true” statement to show her familiarity with foreign policy. I’d say it was not the dumbest thing she could say, but hey she gave us a funny anecdote, lifting the morale of the country a bit. Maybe, you are right, she should applauded for that.
November 21, 2011, 8:01 pmzuch says:
Must be doing something right; he’s driving all you RW foamers bat-sh*te deranged.
Cheers,
November 21, 2011, 8:01 pmOwen H. says:
If you’re going to claim it, you have to show it. It isn’t my job to do yours.
November 21, 2011, 8:20 pmOwen H. says:
How is the fact of settlements in the accusations not relevant to the accusations?
November 21, 2011, 8:23 pmOwen H. says:
A truly cynical person might start to wonder if Taitz is being paid by the Obama campaign...
November 21, 2011, 8:36 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Tatil, it’s not minute.
It’s not true that you can see Russia from Palin’s porch, which is what TF said.
It is true that you can see Russia from Alaskan land, which is what Palin said.
What she should have done, though, was ask Couric how the hell a governor of a state is going to get foreign policy experience. It was a dumb question.
November 21, 2011, 8:41 pmjukeboxgrad says:
This is a dumb accusation, because the statement that’s being discussed (“you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska”) was not made in an interview with Couric. It was made in an interview with Gibson. And the question he had asked was perfectly reasonable, given the statement Palin made just before he asked the question. Link.
November 21, 2011, 8:57 pmyguy says:
Nonsense. If I don’t show it, a reasonable person may reasonably doubt it; but I don’t see any reasonable people raising objections, so I’d be a fool to try to show anything to those who are allergic to reason.
Who the Hell asked you to do anything?
Because we have no way of knowing whether NRA agreed to the settlement based on purely monetary concerns, obviously.
November 21, 2011, 9:00 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Well hell, JBG, having read your link to an actual news article with actual context I am now having a very hard time understanding the problem with what she said.
But I’m sure you will tell me. At length.
November 21, 2011, 9:04 pmjukeboxgrad says:
Alaska is a vast place, and so is Russia. Yes, there is a remote, desolate part of Alaska, inhabited by almost no one, and with no strategic importance, from where it’s possible to see a part of Russia that has the same characteristics. This fact has no relevance in any discussion of US foreign policy, and it was stupid for her to bring it up.
Now you can explain how your accusation (“it was a dumb question”) applies to what Gibson asked.
November 21, 2011, 9:11 pmjosh says:
Respectfully disagree (and not because I think Palin is a moron). Of course governors of states aren’t going to have Pakistan-intel level experience, but governors do foreign trips to market state business all the time. Presumably, a state like Alaska itself contracts with Canada frequently (maybe even Russia!). Hopefully, those experiences would be applicable to the presidency, even if on a lesser scale than what I assume you’re alluding to.
November 21, 2011, 9:18 pmisland says:
It was not a slip of the tongue.
Unfortunately Oba obviously thought about it, he counted, and added and said he was not allowed to go to Hawaii or Alaska. And then he proudly announced the wrong number.
No presidential candidate should Ever have to think about how many states. In this instance he really didn’t know how many states we have. He didn’t sound tired. He just didn’t know.
If you take the time to look at the clip,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws
he had to think really, really, long and hard to come up with the wrong number. And when you actually total up the states he claims we have it adds up to 60. And he is smug about it.
There is NO Excuse for a man, born in the last state to join the Union to Ever make a mistake like that.
There is NO Excuse for a person running for the President of the United States to EVER misspeak on the number of states.
He should have been booted off right then except as Biden says: “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” Biden said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”
It shows an appalling ignorance and disrespect for our country.
Palin told the truth about Paul Revere and she was attacked for being stupid and wrong.
If the guy were white he would have been pilloried.
The left does not like Cain because Cain IS black. Cain is conservative. He is not clean and nice looking.
They are extremely racist and can’t accept a real black man. they need a homogenized half white half black good looking but ignorant tool they can use.
November 21, 2011, 9:19 pmjosh says:
yguy, are you really Anonymouse (or similar spelling) posting under a different name? You have the same eviscerating logic.
November 21, 2011, 9:21 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Go to your link and back up a page.
Now that we’ve cleared up your first point, why did she bring it up, we’ll move to the second.
I made an error, JBG, in putting those two interviews together in my mind, with the passage of time making my memory fuzzy, without looking it up.
Now you can bookmark this comment and bring it up repeatedly in future to show that I admitted how stupid I am. Knock yourself out.
November 21, 2011, 9:23 pmjukeboxgrad says:
You’ve “cleared up” nothing. She had no reason to bring it up.
The problem is not that you confused the two interviews. The problem is that you said “it was a dumb question” even though you can’t show us where either Couric or Gibson asked “a dumb question.”
November 21, 2011, 9:27 pmjukeboxgrad says:
island:
What happened on that clip is explained here. Basically the same thing as what a couple of people have mentioned, but with a little more detail.
November 21, 2011, 9:31 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
JBG, Gibson brought up Alaska’s proximity to Russia first. Can you not even read?
Whenever I regrettably find that I have come to your attention, I feel like I am being pecked to death by woodpeckers.
November 21, 2011, 9:34 pmRicardo says:
You just discovered this tendency among politicians now, did you?
“MSM” journalists in the U.S. are lazy more than anything else. How many hard-hitting interviews did Bush or Cheney do while they were in office? The best illustration of this phenomenon, and of one journalist not accepting non-answers, is Jeremy Paxman’s interviews of some British politicians. He will ask the same question 10 times in a row if he’s not satisfied with the answer — search around on Youtube to see some genuinely awkward exchanges.
November 21, 2011, 9:41 pmjukeboxgrad says:
He brought it up for the purpose of making a transition in the interview. He wasn’t claiming that the proximity had any foreign policy relevance, or that the fact of visibility had any foreign policy relevance. It was Palin’s idea to raise the subject of visibility, and to suggest that this subject had some foreign policy relevance. Gibson did neither of those things. And even if he had, it wouldn’t matter. Him saying something dumb (if he had done so) is not an excuse for her to follow his lead.
Still waiting for you to explain who asked “a dumb question.”
November 21, 2011, 9:41 pmgooners says:
Heh. Who is they? Talk radio has really taught you guys how to play the victim. This is the Republican primary going on. It is Republican voters being polled. This has nothing to do with liberals. If you all like Cain then nominate him. If he isn’t nominated that will be Republican voters’ choice. But these “it’s all the liberals fault ’cause they’re racist” rants have lost their entertainment value and now they’re just sad.
Oh, and by the way, it kind of sounds like you’re saying a real black man is dirty and ugly. This is probably not going to attract anyone to your cause.
Oh, and he’s not a presidential candidate. He’s the president.
November 21, 2011, 9:55 pmOwen H. says:
Site rules forbid the response you deserve.
November 21, 2011, 10:01 pmgooners says:
Well, we probably would. I think there are plenty of laws that it can be argued, “once this is implemented people will see it isn’t so bad”. But I don’t think the purpose is to teach a behavior. The purpose is to compel a behavior. You will integrate whether you like it or not. You will drive 55. You will wear your seat-belt. You don’t ever have to accept these things as moral, but you will do them or be punished.
Yeah, that’s where Barb brings it up and the first place I ever saw such a thing. Although I have seen it argued that legalizing a drug is tantamount to endorsing its use, so I guess that’s the same idea. It also comes up with birth control — as if availability is a societal endorsement of sex without procreation (horrors!). It’s a twisted bit of logic. But common, I guess.
November 21, 2011, 10:04 pmChristopher Taylor says:
You CAN see Russian controlled islands from a point in the Aleutian Islands that is part of Alaska. Was it the smartest thing for her to say? No
I don’t grasp how this is a dumb thing to say, its factually valid and was as reasonable a statement as the interviewer’s question was. Is a governor instantly unqualified from being president because they allegedly lack international experience? Then most of the presidents the US ever has had were unqualified, because only 4 were directly from congress.
They were desperate to paint Palin as unqualified because that was the biggest strike against President Obama (and McCain’s poll numbers jumped past Obama when she was added to the ticket).
November 21, 2011, 10:08 pmgooners says:
Yeah, that’s what happens in a campaign. You try to paint your opponent in the worst light possible. And Palin couldn’t convince voters otherwise. So here we are.
November 21, 2011, 10:10 pmyguy says:
I’ve been posting under this handle exclusively for several years.
November 21, 2011, 10:15 pmjukeboxgrad says:
taylor:
Hopefully you can explain the foreign policy relevance of the statement she made (“you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska”).
This was the question: “What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?” There’s nothing stupid about that question. It was prompted by what she had just said. It’s the answer that was stupid.
Palin’s lack of international experience was among her smaller problems.
Still waiting for you explain why you said this:
The question implies that you were prepared to show us some examples. So where are they?
November 21, 2011, 10:20 pmChrisTS says:
@Loki:
You and Laura may be tired of your discussion, but I think she has a point (which would relieve you of the uncomfortable burden of defending Governor Good Hair).
Perry tried to wisk away his memory freeze in an interview by saying that he was about “substance, not style.” That was when I realized what was so problematic about the whole painful episode.
If you have worked out a considered position and want to present it in a debate, you do not forget a crucial part of it: one of only three agencies you have supposedly carefully selected for elimination. If you do, this indicates that you were not the person who developed the position. That is not substance; it is posturing.
You can say that all pols do this to an extent, but it does suggest a lack of substantive engagement with what are supposed to be one’s own views, particularly when they are purportedly central to one’s outlook.
November 21, 2011, 10:47 pmChrisTS says:
Josh says:
Geesh; that has to be one of the most generous bits of irony I have encountered.
November 21, 2011, 10:50 pmleo marvin says:
Either that or he just had a brain freeze.
With the possible exception of Santorum, no Republican presidential candidate repels or frightens me more than Perry, and I could expound at length on all the reasons why, so the last thing I’d want to do is side against you with a notorious Red Sox fan (loki) in Perry’s defense. But the reality is that anyone can have an “innocent” memory lapse, as opposed to the kind you described, so I have to give him the same benefit of the doubt I’d give anyone else in his place. If he starts piling up incidents like this, it’s another matter, but for now I say he gets a pass.
November 22, 2011, 1:08 amAndrew J. Lazarus says:
How many states abut the Canadian or Mexican border? Literal proximity is obviously not a guarantee of the slightest knowledge of foreign policy. Palin was presumably invoking a synecdoche that was invalidated by her inability to articulate any other basis for competence in foreign affairs. I suggest that reading a newspaper and the Internet would have been more than enough. She wasn’t being asked for State Department esoterica, just as USA Today is a good-enough source for Cain if he really wants to know about Libya.
November 22, 2011, 1:22 amzuch says:
Being a football player (even a very good one) doesn’t necessarily make you “quick on your feet” from the neck up.
“Self admitted hard drug user”? FWIW, did you know that alcohol is one of the most debilitating drugs around?
And if you think that bowlers are Gawd’s Chosen Athletes, you haven’t seen too many of them.
More ODS, I’d say.
Cheers,
November 22, 2011, 2:56 amzuch says:
Which explains why they keep bringing it up over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. Long past when any amusement might have passed into oblivion. See, e.g., this thread. If they had something else, you’d think they’d rotate the stock a bit.
Cheers,
November 22, 2011, 3:02 amzuch says:
Maybe you’ve banished from your memory Jindal’s — uhhhh, “memorable” — Republican response speech. A kind of self-imposed fugue to avoid a very unpleasant event.
Cheers,
November 22, 2011, 3:11 amzuch says:
Well, that and the big payoffs accompanied by “no tell” provisions, to make sure these “unsubstantiated accusations” never saw the light of day. And the people who will report contemporaneous accounts by these accusers (and a couple of other people too).
[Trzcinski]: “I believe it, I believe it....“
Cheers,
November 22, 2011, 3:25 amzuch says:
And here’s for the LS record (which is what B-Rob was talking about). Fairly clear that you didn’t graduate MCL from Hahvahd, Ragebot.
Cheers,
November 22, 2011, 3:34 amjukeboxgrad says:
This is what The Economist said on 2/19/09:
A few days later Rush said this:
That was the day before Jindal’s dismal performance that you mentioned, and since then he has become remarkably invisible. The GOP has been searching desperately for Mr. Not Romney, someone who can be “the redeemer of their hard-pressed party,” and Jindal is rarely mentioned. But I don’t think that one event is the whole explanation. Something else that happened is the rise of birtherism. Jindal is a target. “The birthers eat their own.” Link.
The Palinization of the GOP also means that being a Rhodes Scholar is now a bug, not a feature. So there are several reasons why Rush is no longer describing him as “the next Ronald Reagan.”
November 22, 2011, 6:04 amwolfefan says:
Hello JBG —
An unrelated question. A few days ago you posted a link to a review of Mr. Cain’s record at Godfather’s. I’ve looked at two or three threads and been unable to find it — could you repost it?
Thanks...
November 22, 2011, 8:09 amDave N. says:
Are you actually so shallow as to think one speech is the end all and be all. Wait. I forgot. That was Barack Obama’s one major accomplishment prior to 2008.
November 22, 2011, 9:10 amDave N. says:
And JBG, I think you are being more than a little disingenuous in claim that the “Birthers” somehow control the Republican Party. Your linked Dana Milbank column hardly suggests that.
November 22, 2011, 9:14 amDave N. says:
I would note that Jindal was just re-elected Governor with 65% of the vote in a “jungle” primary. No prominent Democrat even bothered to run. The Democrat who came in second won a whopping 18% of the vote.
November 22, 2011, 9:19 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
Seems to me that if people are going to bring up lackluster speeches by political hopefuls, they ought to remember that this didn’t amount to a permanent setback for President Clinton.
November 22, 2011, 9:26 amloki13 says:
Well, I appreciate the defense, even if it comes from... a Yankees fan. Although I wonder if leo would be happier with Bachmann than Perry. ;) (Which in my mind says more about the GOP field than Perry, but I digress)
Building on my earlier point, the main thrust from both Laura and ChrisTS is a substantive one– that eliminating the DoE is either a bad idea, or so serious, that no lapses of memory are forgivable. But that goes to the substance of the idea, not the memory lapse. Personally, I think the idea is *stupid*. But you can attack him on the susbstance of that, and his overall desire to eliminate so many federal programs without fully thinking through the ramifications.
Which is the problem that I have. People use the memory lapse as a proxy to argue for the substance of their point. You can attack him because his ideas are poor, or ill-conceived. Instead, you use a memory lapse, which happens to all of us on even serious, important issues, at bad times, to say, “He hasn’t thought this through *because* he momentarily forgot it.” That’s wrong.
Instead, he hasn’t thought it through because, well, he hasn’t thought it through. There’s more than enough substance to attack.
November 22, 2011, 9:28 amzuch says:
No. But it showed he is definitely missing something. But I have to thank JBG for putting it in perspective as well:
Cheers,
November 22, 2011, 9:41 amzuch says:
Missed my link, didja? [read the whole thing]
And then there’s this.
<*cue 70’s music*> “It’s your party and you can do what you want....”
;-)
Cheers,
November 22, 2011, 9:45 amDave N. says:
No.But it showed he is definitely missing something.But I have to thank JBG for putting it in perspective as well:
Cheers,
But tou can’t say what what the “something” is, can you? You certainly haven’t so far. JBG actually, didn’t other than to claim that Limbaugh is no longer talking Jindal up (which I don’t know, I don’t listen to Limbaugh and I suspect JBG doesn’t either) and apparently trying to smear all Republicans as birthers and anti-intellectuals.
So, please, dear Zuch. Be specific — and I don’t mean ad hominem attacks on a political party you disagree with. Let’s see a substantive attack on Bobby Jindal.
November 22, 2011, 9:48 amDave N. says:
No, Zuch, I didn’t miss your link. Frankly, it wasn’t worth a comment. But then again, engaging with you typically isn’t worth my time, either.
November 22, 2011, 9:53 amOwen H. says:
I’m concerned about the ignorance needed for Cain to think communities should be able to block religious buildings they don’t approve of. That seems to be common among Republicans.
November 22, 2011, 11:43 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
Owen, is that a concern about Cain particularly and just a little gratuitous sidekick at Republicans, or is that a concern about Republicans in general but inexplicably you expect a Republican front-runner not to share it?
November 22, 2011, 12:13 pmGiant Frog says:
To be fair, most American citizens probably don’t know the number of states in Kenya.
November 22, 2011, 12:24 pmzuch says:
Why? It’s not me that has to like him.
In a year with Randi Rhodes’s “table full of stupid”, why didn’t your party draft Jindal?
Cheers,
November 22, 2011, 12:44 pmzuch says:
Are you saying that Republican in general share this — uhhhh, “interesting” — take on our Constitution? You may well be right ... but the honesty surprises me.
Cheers,
November 22, 2011, 12:47 pmjab says:
Wow... does it matter which way he meant it, because either way, it makes your side like bad. (Incidentally, do you EVER address the substance of the post? All you seam to do is troll the VC and whine whenever you think someone is being unfair to Republicans.)
November 22, 2011, 12:50 pmWill says:
It’s amusing to watch the neocon PNAC creep (Lowry) trash the neocon Fed chairman puppet (Cain) because the puppet couldn’t recall the memorized talking points from his neocon Rockefeller minion advisor (Kissinger).
November 22, 2011, 12:53 pmragebot says:
I did graduate. I also was employed in several positions by both the FL and GA state agencies. One of the requirements to apply for those jobs was to attach a copy of my transcript to the application; something not uncommon especially for govt jobs.
November 22, 2011, 1:03 pmJohn Skookum says:
As long as you’re willing to give the same benefit of the doubt to Sarah Palin and the issue of Russia’s proximity to Alaska. She was quite correct that you can see Russia’s Big Diomede Island from five or ten miles away on Alaska’s Little Diomede Island in the Bering Sea.
Palin was addressing concerns about her foreign policy experience by pointing out that she was the Governor of the only state that bordered two foreign countries, and had dealt with them on state-level concerns like fisheries management and the trans-Canada pipeline. All governors of border states play this card when it’s to their advantage, especially in Presidential contests where junketeering Senators like Biden hold a supposed foreign policy advantage over almost any Governor.
By the time she made this perfectly correct and innocuous comment about Russia’s proximity to Alaska, she had spent hundreds of hours traveling around the state on official business. Anyone who thinks she really believed it was in her own backyard is as big a drooling idiot as the anti-Obama crowd who think he thinks there are 57 states.
Yet one stupid crack from SNL may have cost the election, and with it the country’s prosperity and stability for the next thirty years. Half of the people in this country now think that she made Tina Fey’s inane comment. Still chaps my ass.
November 22, 2011, 1:03 pmJohn Skookum says:
As long as you’re willing to give the same benefit of the doubt to Sarah Palin and the issue of Russia’s proximity to Alaska. She was quite correct that you can see Russia’s Big Diomede Island from five or ten miles away on Alaska’s Little Diomede Island in the Bering Sea.
Palin was addressing concerns about her foreign policy experience by pointing out that she was the Governor of the only state that bordered two foreign countries, and had dealt with them on state-level concerns like fisheries management and the trans-Canada pipeline. All governors of border states play this card when it’s to their advantage, especially in Presidential contests where junketeering Senators like Biden hold a supposed foreign policy advantage over almost any Governor.
By the time she made this perfectly correct and innocuous comment about Russia’s proximity to Alaska, she had spent hundreds of hours traveling around the state on official business. Anyone who thinks she really believed it was in her own backyard is as big a drooling idiot as the anti-Obama crowd who think he thinks there are 57 states.
Yet one stupid crack from SNL may have cost the election, and with it the country’s prosperity and stability for the next thirty years. Half of the people in this country now think that she made Tina Fey’s inane comment. Still chaps my ass.
November 22, 2011, 1:03 pmJohn Skookum says:
As long as you’re willing to give the same benefit of the doubt to Sarah Palin and the issue of Russia’s proximity to Alaska. She was quite correct that you can see Russia’s Big Diomede Island from five or ten miles away on Alaska’s Little Diomede Island in the Bering Sea.
Palin was addressing concerns about her foreign policy experience by pointing out that she was the Governor of the only state that bordered two foreign countries, and had dealt with them on state-level concerns like fisheries management and the trans-Canada pipeline. All governors of border states play this card when it’s to their advantage, especially in Presidential contests where junketeering Senators like Biden hold a supposed foreign policy advantage over almost any Governor.
By the time she made this perfectly correct and innocuous comment about Russia’s proximity to Alaska, she had spent hundreds of hours traveling around the state on official business. Anyone who thinks she really believed it was in her own backyard is as big a drooling idiot as the anti-Obama crowd who think he thinks there are 57 states.
Yet one stupid crack from SNL may have cost the election, and with it the country’s prosperity and stability for the next thirty years. Half of the people in this country now think that she made Tina Fey’s inane comment. Still chaps my ass.
November 22, 2011, 1:04 pmjukeboxgrad says:
wolfefan:
Sure, I’m glad you’re interested. See here. That was a few weeks ago, but I think it’s the comment you’re talking about. Scroll down to the bottom of the comment.
=============
dave:
I think you’re blaming the messenger, and forgetting about the negative reaction from conservatives. Weekly Standard: “It is the overwhelming consensus that Bobby Jindal’s delivery of the response to the President’s address last night was not good.” More here: “Conservatives pan Jindal delivery.” More here.
The issue isn’t whether anyone outside the GOP thinks that “one speech is the end all and be all.” The issue is that the GOP seems to have reacted to the speech that way. Then again, maybe you have a better explanation for how he has become so remarkably invisible, after being described less than a week before that speech as “a contender for the White House.” That was less than three years ago. What happened? How did we end up with a situation where clowns like Trump, Bachmann, Perry and Cain all get a moment as frontrunners, and Jindal is never mentioned? You mentioned him as VP, but aside from you hardly anyone even does that.
It”s not that “Limbaugh is no longer talking Jindal up.” It’s that the entire GOP “is no longer talking Jindal up.” If you need to see evidence supporting this claim, start here.
I guess he’s popular in LA, but that only deepens the mystery: why did he become invisible outside of LA?
Nice job with the straw man. “You are being more than a little disingenuous in claim that” I claimed that birthers control the GOP. Where did I say that? I didn’t. What I said is that Jindal is a target of birtherism, and this is probably a factor in why he has become invisible.
I don’t need the linked article to indicate that birthers “somehow control the Republican Party,” because I didn’t make that claim. Oddly enough, the article does support the claim I actually made.
Also, you’re ignoring this:
That was after Obama released the long-form BC. So birtherism is still rampant in the GOP.
Another straw man. Where did I suggest that “all Republicans” are birthers? That’s not a defensible claim. However, this is a defensible claim: many or most Republicans are birthers.
November 22, 2011, 1:05 pmjab says:
On a tangent, check out the graph of support for each of the GOP candidates on RealClear Politics:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html
You just gotta feel bad for poor Mitt Romney... his support is flat in the low to mid 20s... in the graph, you see Bachmann bounce then bomb, Perry progress then plummet, Cain climb then crater... and now Gingrich grows (then gutter?) Through it all, Mitt doesn’t get a single vote, even from default.
Romney clearly is the only sane & intelligent won running (well, there are Huntsman and Johnson... but are they really trying? I mean clearly you have to go all out stupid and crazy to win the primary and their hearts are just not in it.)
But no matter how much Romney tries to dumb himself down and sound crazy, the base just doesn’t believe his heart is really in it.
November 22, 2011, 1:09 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Jab, that must be why I’ve been severely critical of Perry right here.
Zuch, if you will actually go back and read Owen’s and my comments, I bet you can answer your own question. If you want to. If you just want to score cheap political points, no need to read any damn thing.
November 22, 2011, 1:16 pmthe_observer says:
Don’t forget Obama talking about the Austrian language:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr7zhnctF4c
Navy corpse-man, Austrian language...let’s hope this isn’t the typical Harvard graduate level of brilliance.
November 22, 2011, 1:39 pmToby says:
The implicit assumptions are interesting. So you are saying that Republican candidates are the opponent of the press...
November 22, 2011, 1:45 pmjukeboxgrad says:
ragebot:
Then hopefully you can show an example of a president releasing his transcript.
=============
skookum:
How does that compare with the number of people who think Gore said he invented the internet?
November 22, 2011, 1:46 pmgooners says:
No, I didn’t say that at all. Was the comment I responded to another “woe is me the press is so mean to conservatives” whine? If so I didn’t realize. I thought we were talking about the Obama campaign.
November 22, 2011, 1:59 pmcampanile says:
The GOP’s field of Presidential candidates couldn’t be weaker– last week it was the Cain mutiny, before it was Perryalysis, currently it’s GingRich’s lobbying, and it’s never not a Chairman of the Cardboard Romney.
This is why the cleverest AND principled Republicans would forget the WH this go around and focus attention and monies, instead, on massive ad coverage contrasting Obama’s and Congressional Dems’ Progressive T. Burtonesque nightmare and concomitant systemic corruption, scarcely concealed and of an astonishing degree, with the restorative vision and constitutional imperative of smaller, contained government of classic liberalism and conservatism. The country needs to take back the Senate and beef up the House to frustrate any and all command economy and “just society” urges and lurches by Prezes Obama or Romney.
Btw, Palin’s a rocket scientist and Nobel econ laureate compared to the “The sky is falling, renounce fossil fuel!” global warmingists aspiring to the Stone Age and “Let’s go the way of nanny state Europe and green Spain” current events-challenged leftist lemmings, and “Wall St. is greed and banks are bad” 99%er poseur geniuses in the administration, Congress and media who benefit from insider trading and sweetheart deals, loan guarantees and bailouts, and extensive corporate campaign donations (funneled back subsidies and naked quid pro quo.)
November 22, 2011, 2:08 pmzuch says:
Bitter much?
Yes, Palin’s been very unfairly treated, with “Gotcha!” questions from that nasty *itch Couric and all. We should have afforded Palin a lot of leeway; it’s not like second in line for Leader Of The Free World is ever a demanding job....
Thought so. There’s lotion for that. And for your other ... uhhh, “problems” here.
Cheers,
November 22, 2011, 2:28 pmB-Rob says:
Let me remind you of the dynamic we faced in 2008: A neophyte Black presidential candidate for the majority Dem party vs. and experienced seventy something year old senator for the minority GOPers. The way to hammer the neophyte was to ask whether he was qualified to answer the phone at 2 a.m. (Note — this argument NEVER works!) But the grizzled vet had his own issues, including his age and his health. It was important to many voters that he have an able, qualified backstop in his Veep. This because even more important when Obama selected his own grizzled beltway vet as his Veep and rolled out a list of foreign policy dons as long as my leg. Instead, McCain chose a very young, very inexperienced small state governor who had not served a full term and who had never really traveled outside her own small state. This was an error of monumental proportions that could only be rectified if that selectee showed some serious chops . . . it was equivalent to calling up a pitcher from the minors and penciling them in as the starter in the playoffs. If they do well, your gamble pays off and you are not hurt; if they get shelled, you are a moron.
Palin did not know the Bush Doctrine . . . which McCain was seeking to continue if he got elected. Hell,I knew what the Bush Doctrine was . . . why didn’t a GOPer governor who is running for the second highest position in the US? Well she did not know what the Bush Doctrine was, apparently, because she did not read much. No one could ever make fun of George H.W. Bush no knowing things; or Al Gore. But your parody is always rooted in your weaknesses. SNL slams Obama as being a friggin wimp; George W. was a rube; Clinton a lecherous dirtbag. Palin got tagged as an idiot because . . . well, she was simply not knowledgeable about things she should have known if she was going to ask us to make her the vice president. And remember, the best part of the whole Tina Faye skit was when she repeated, verbatim, Palin’s nonsense about “it’s all about jobs.” Palin was utterly unprepared for the job and she was exposed as such when the lights went on and the cameras started rolling.
Lastly, I only ask one thing . . . would we have a President McCain if he had chosen Kaye Bailey Hutchinson? I think he would have won . . . .
November 22, 2011, 2:44 pmB-Rob says:
See, here is the problem: the entire bumbling thing came about because Ford kept bumbling . . . hitting his head on the doorway of Air Force One being the most memorable on, and falling as he went up the stairs in another situation. Chevy Chase took events that really happened and embellished them.
November 22, 2011, 2:48 pmcampanile says:
B-Rob,
McCain got more votes because of Palin, not the other way around. But the country was intent upon electing a charismatic “black” “smart” (with virtually no experience and good speechwriters) “moderate” (despite an overwhelmingly scant liberal to “Present” voting record) to usher in a cleansing 21 century post-racial America, after 9–11 and Bush’s unsophisticated war-making.
Instead, what we got in Obama the Constitutional attorney/ professor and the ‘Crats was a journey back to the New Deal and Sixties and a fulfillment of the half-baked ideas from back then– expanded statism, exacerbated racial tensions, stoked class resentments, and further subversion of our founding charter. IOW, we got that old-timey religion of progressivism.
If you catch up you’ll know that Palin’s been plussing up to build upon her good political, ideological instincts: (WSJ) Congress Occupying Wall St.
November 22, 2011, 3:09 pmjab says:
Seriously, you are delusional if you think an SNL skit is what cost McCain/Palin the election.
November 22, 2011, 3:15 pmdht says:
This is just too funny. I just finished reading a posting on another blog by a liberal who is furious with Obama because he has not done all the things you say he has, i.e. Single payer health care, repeal the Patriot Act, close Gitmo, etc. That old time progressive religion sure looks different to some folks. It’s fun to just sit back and watch the two extremes continue in their factless assertions.
November 22, 2011, 3:21 pmjab says:
More Cain appalling behavior:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/21/herman-cain-holy-land-experience_n_1105725.html
At the Holy Land Experience, a Christian-themed amusement park, Cain admitted that he was concerned that his doctor, who treated him for cancer, had a “too foreign” sounding name, Dr. Abdallah, and that heaven forbid, not only was he scared the doctor was “too foreign”, but perhaps even had a different religion! Oh noes!!!!!
But the physician assistant, seeing that Cain was distressed, reassured him that although the doctor was original from Lebanon, he was a Christian! Cain’s response: “Hallelujah!” said Cain. “Thank God!”
This sounds more like the Onion, but alas... Cain has to prove to the rest of the GOP base that he can be just as bigoted, no, even more bigoted than they are!
Well, at least it looks like his 15 minutes of fame are up...
November 22, 2011, 3:22 pmSyd Henderson says:
Fey’s joke was funny; that’s why it had resonance. But if you think a joke at the expense of a VP candidate “may have cost the election” that was lost by 192 electoral votes and 9.5 million votes, you are really overestimating the influence of the choice of VP candidate.
November 22, 2011, 3:25 pmcampanile says:
What cost the Mccain/Palin election was a media and a squishy middle electorate that had a dream.
Turned out this dream wasn’t color-blind a la MLK or pro American exceptionalism, unlike what many voters had been led to believe.
November 22, 2011, 3:26 pmOwen H. says:
Both, actually. Cain said the people of Murfreesboro,TN should be able to block a mosque if they wanted to.
November 22, 2011, 3:27 pmjab says:
Seriously... you need to reconnect with Earth... your absurd caricature of Obama is untethered from reality. Obama, to the consternation of progressives, has not closed Guantanamo, escalated the war in Afghanistan and accelerated the use of drones to take out terrorist targets... on the domestic front, his apparent “socialism” is revealed by the fact that he wants to merely return taxation levels back to levels under Clinton, and only for the wealthy. As for health care... he passed the conservative Republican plan from the 1990’s...
Seriously, I think you can make a case that Obama is as conservative as Bush, the elder, or Nixon.
November 22, 2011, 3:32 pmzuch says:
Perhaps so. Perhaps not. But if indeed so, and to that extent, maybe with a little help from His Emanence Rushbutt and the “witchdoctor”/“watermelon” creeps in the Republican party. No surprise there, though.
Cheers,
November 22, 2011, 3:47 pmsilverpie says:
And true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diomede_Islands
November 22, 2011, 3:52 pmzuch says:
MLKII wasn’t colour-blind. He wasn’t going to ‘unilaterally disarm’.
He was waiting for you folks to come around. Which still hasn’t happened.
Well, yes, everyone in the world needs to be taught ... and acknowledge ... that Amur’kah’s the greatest things since sliced bread, and that not only did it invent Constitutions, but that it’s got the freakin’ patent on democracy, and they should all bow down and prostrate themselves in awe of our greatness .... or we’ll “put a boot in your ass, it’s the American way”, to quote from the country song that that Great American™ Sean Hannity always plays....
And you’re just the guy to teach them. Here’s your gun. Good luck and happy hunting.
Cheers,
November 22, 2011, 4:00 pmcampanile says:
dhl/jab/zuch,
Seriously, are you the only bright one who doesn’t think the ACA isn’t the first step to instituting universal healthcare? Liberals have even openly said that this unprecedented legislation would discourage private insurers and competition to such an extent that government would “have” to take over the market.
Sure, Obama wanted to close Gitmo down, but once in office was unwilling to face the domestic blowback from terror acts that could be committed by released incarcerees.
As for taxes, gosh, Obama and the Dems would levy all they politically could get away with– and without spending cuts except to Defense. Gosh darn that Tea Party, now there’s institutional resistance to tax and spend, as usual. That doesn’t keep Obama & Co from raising the specter of class warfare, racial hyper-to-the-point-of-in– justice, and environmental fascism. though. He supports unions through thuggish NLRB actions, public employee bloated pensions, rich Wall St. Democratic donors, and the OWS 99%ers who are actually more like the 9%.
Also, let’s not overlook the redistributive efforts of this administration in sharing our guns with Mexican drug cartels.
If you don’t like the socialist tag, there’s always corporatist, cronyist, Dem machine operator, and Divider-in-Chief.
November 22, 2011, 4:05 pmcampanile says:
Holder, is that you?
November 22, 2011, 4:09 pmdht says:
I would accept any of these over socialist.
November 22, 2011, 4:12 pmleo marvin says:
No, I assume life under Santorum, Perry and Bachmann administrations would be too similarly dystopian to be worth distinguishing among them. But the Bachmann administration would at least be marginally redeemed by a deep vein of comedy potential lacking in the other two.
November 22, 2011, 4:19 pmjab says:
campanile... with respect to ACA, I don’t know, why don’t you ask YOUR likely nominee Mitt Romney... or heck, even Newt Gingrich, who supported healthcare mandates. You know, come to think of it, the conservative Heritage Foundation supported national mandates, as did Republicans Dole, Grassley, Hatch, Lugar, Lamar Alexander, Pawlenty. Oh wait, that was BEFORE Obama supported mandates.
Taxes... oh right, I forgot, you can read minds! You know those silly liberals, they REALLY want 95% tax rates, but only for the fact that the Teabaggers blocked them, they couldn’t get away with their dastardly plan!
As for racial and environmental “facism”? Riiiiight. LOL... Obama has delayed numerous environmental regulations to support big business during the recession.
But I do think its rich that Obama gets blames for the racism bubbling to the surface among SOME (not all) segments of the Republican base. Damnit Obama! It’s your fault you’re black! If you weren’t black, then the racist underbelly of the GOP wouldn’t froth at the mouth like rabid dogs.
November 22, 2011, 4:22 pmcampanile says:
jab, You’re rude and nasty. Your strawmen and ad hominem insult only underline my points above.
November 22, 2011, 4:35 pmjab says:
Hey Pot. Meet Kettle.
November 22, 2011, 4:39 pmcampanile says:
Pot?
November 22, 2011, 4:52 pmjab says:
You mad, bro? LOL
November 22, 2011, 5:02 pmcampanile says:
I don’t believe in getting mad, jab.
November 22, 2011, 5:10 pmSarcastro says:
Capt at that divisive Obama, but then Obama has forced him to be mad by being so divisive.
Divisive.
November 22, 2011, 6:05 pmJohn D says:
Hey, all this and no one seems to have mentioned Cain’s comment that if the Supreme Court overruled DOMA, he’d overrule the Supreme Court.
I never knew a President could do that.
November 24, 2011, 4:55 amwolfefan says:
Hi jukebograd —
That’s the link I was looking for. Thank you! I’ve been surprised that more people haven’t spent some time looking at this, but I guess nobody really took Cain seriously for a long time and by the time they did there were enough issues to look at that were easier to understand and explain.
Thank you again!
November 24, 2011, 11:19 amyguy says:
Had Taney denied Merryman’s petition, and had SCOTUS overturned that denial, do you think Lincoln would not have “overruled” SCOTUS just as he did the Circuit Court?
November 24, 2011, 12:48 pmjukeboxgrad says:
You’re welcome, and I agree with your explanation of what happened.
November 24, 2011, 1:30 pmKanageloa says:
I think maybe the real question here is, do we really need a politician in the White House? Do we need a politician with an attitude of politics as usual in the White House? Maybe we need to try something else. I’m convinced it can’t hurt and maybe a business man with no political experience can be a HUGE improvement over the past 10 years.
November 25, 2011, 3:01 am