Newt Makes It Clear That Ron Paul is Unfit for the Presidency. See the Entire Interview Here

Bookmark and Share    In an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, or as Herman Cain called him “Blitz”, Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich held no punches when it came to his political opinion of rival candidate Ron Paul and it was harsh.

When asked by Blitzer if Newt could vote for Ron Paul, Gingrich replied with an immediate and unequivocal “no”.

As seen in the video provided below this post, Gingrich explained that Ron Paul  was  “totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American”.  The former Speaker of the House expanded on his answer by stating;

“I think it’s very difficult to see how you would engage in dealing with Ron Paul as a nominee,”

and added;

“Given the newsletters, which he has not yet disowned. He would have to go a long way to explain himself and I think it would be very difficult to see today, Ron Paul as the Republican nominee.”

Despite being an interview on the Communist News Network, the entire 30 minute interview was quite insightful and afforded Gingrich an excellent opportunity to defend both the factual blemishes of his record and the false accusations against him and his record.

The most recent damaging and true charge against Gingrich was the revelation of direct quotes from him which in 2006 praised Romneycare.  For his part, Gingrich did not try to back away from his early praise but instead drew a contrast between him and Mitt Romney on the issue by stating that although he did praise it as a promising experiment back in 2006, since then he has seen that the experiment failed and is willing to admit it, while Mitt Romney on the hand, is still not admitting that Romneycare was a failure and even continues to defend it to this day.

Another interesting tidbits coming out of the interview were Newt’s admission that his bipartisan commercial appearance with Nancy Pelosi back in the 90’s regarding the dangers of greenhouse gasses, was the dumbest thing he has ever done.  However he took the opportunity to demonstrate that people still don’t have their facts straight and try to use the commercial to claim that he supported Cap-and-Trade policies.  Newt explained that around the same time that the commercial in question came out, he was offering his opposition to such policies in testimony to Congress.

But it was Newt’s statements regarding Ron Paul and chief rival Mitt Romney that really captured the headlines.

When discussing Romney, Newt threw down the gloves and told Romney that if he wants to run a negative campaign, he should “man up” and stop hiding behind his staff and the attack ads paid for by his millionaire friends.  He also told Romney that if he believes he can beat President Obama in a debate, he should prove it and take Newt up on his challenge to debate him.

The harshest words were reserved for Ron Paul though.

In addition to claiming that it is hard to believe that Ron Paul knew nothing about newsletters which he profited from and that contained racist and antisemitic statements, because he did not read them until 10 years after they were published, Gingrich also made the case that Ron Paul is hardly credible as a presidential candidate.  According to Newt, when it comes to casting a protest vote, Paul is “a very reasonable candidate”, but he adds;

“As a potential President, a person who thinks that the United States was responsible for 9/11, a person who believes,…who wrote in his news letter that the World Trade Center bombing in ’93 might have been a C.I.A. plot,  a person who doesn’t believe that it matters if the Iranians have a nuclear weapon, I’d rather just say, you look at Ron Paul’s record of systemic avoidance of reality, his ads are about as accurate as his newsletter,”.

Newt also balked at the possibility of Paul getting the Republican presidential nomination by stating “he won’t” get it.

What struck me most about the interview was the natural and sincere delivery of Gingrich’s defense of his record and criticism of his opponents and their records.  In addition to being quite comfortable, he presented a case that wassubstantive  and refreshingly honest and blunt. Something which politicians are not often known for.

In my eyes, the interview reinforced my confidence in Newt Gingrich’s candidacy and it deepened my hope to see him eventually become the Republican standard-bearer in 2012.

Bookmark and Share
Advertisements

It is no White Christmas for Herman Cain

The news comes this evening that The Herman Cain campaign is “reassessing” its strategy following the allegation by Ginger White that she and Mr. Cain had been involved in a consensual relationship over a 13-year period.

Cain initially made the allegation public to Wolf Blitzer in an interview on CNN’s – The Situation Room. Shortly after the announcement, a statement from Cain’s lawyer said, “White’s claims of a consensual affair between two adults is not a legitimate news story.”

It should come as no surprise that Cain is reassessing his campaign as although the allegation does not involve sexual harassment like the previous claims, in many ways Cain’s lawyer’s statement is far from a complete denial or strong rebuttal.

Cain’s campaign team as I expressed in previous articles, totally mismanaged the original allegations from the three previous accusers. I do not believe it was the nature of the allegations that harmed Cain, but the fact, that his team got it so badly wrong in their crisis management of the affair which caused him damage.

Cain had just seemed to put his campaign back on a solid footing when he undertook a disastrous foreign policy question and answer session, which showed him all at sea when trying to answer a question on one of the year’s major foreign policy issues. This clip of his failed interview dominated an entire news cycle and only was also reinforced by his standard and sometimes weak replies during last week’s national security CNN debate.

I believe Cain has brought a considerable amount to this campaign. He has shown America that a black conservative politician can challenge for the GOP’s nomination. He has delivered the catch-phrase and intelligent 9-9-9 plan which had everyone talking on both sides of the political divide and his charisma, humour and common sense has made him a national figure. I believe that the opposition were gravely concerned about a Cain nomination and run off against President Obama, as it would have impacted a lot of their strategy for the 2012 campaign.

Cain would have been able to counter many of the messages which commentators expect the Obama machine to come forward with in the run up to next November’s election. Cain is very much the symbol of the American Dream experiencing southern state segregation, coming from a poor family and rising through hard work and studies to run some of America’s largest and most successful organisations.

Cain’s appeal was largely due to his business expertise and understanding of the economic challenges facing America. Next years election will see the eventual GOP nominee trying to make the election about the economy whereas, Team Obama will try and make it an election based on social and class warfare, as he can’t run on his domestic and economic record.

The revelation surrounding this alleged extramarital affair is sadly, I believe, one straw too many for the Herminator. It is hard to see many social conservatives being able to overlook the cloud hanging over Cain’s personal life and support him in time for Iowa and New Hampshire.

There is also the impact all these personal attacks and allegations are having on Cain’s own family, nobody deserves to be treated in such a fashion and again ability seems destined to be ignored in favour of rumour and innuendo. I feel for the whole Cain family, I really do.

Cain is due to spend tomorrow in Ohio before appearing on Fox News’s Neil Cavuto show for a one to one interview. It is believed a final decision will be made by Cain within a couple days about whether to go on.

A big factor in Cain’s decision will be money. Cain feels an obligation to those who have supported his campaign financially and it is believed he currently holds $9 million in his campaign war chest.

Personally, I would advise Cain to consider his family at this time. I don’t believe the allegations however; other supporters or admirers will prove much harder job to convince then I. Cain has had an excellent run and exceeded many people’s early expectations. Cain has seen what is involved being in the media spotlight of a national campaign. He should thank his supporter’s for all their support and bow out to focus on his family and proving all these allegations as being false. There is a remote chance should he prove the current allegations false, that he may be approached for a Vice President slot, if time and opportunity coincide.

I would like to see Cain respectfully drop out now and throw his support firmly behind one of the other candidates. I am sure Mr. Cain and his team know that after such a dreadful six weeks, winning the party nomination on this occasion is now firmly beyond him. He has raised his profile considerably and even if a V.P. role doesn’t come his way, he can spend the next four years becoming more involved in politics at a national level and prepare the way, all going well, for a stronger and less controversial run in 2016.

Review of the CNN GOP debate from across the Big Pond

Last evenings CNN Republican Candidate debate was moderated by Wolf Blitzer, regular host of the Situation room.  This debate, co-hosted in Washington, D.C., by the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute, focussed on four main issues — national defense, the economy, international relations, and terrorism issues and lasted two hours in total and marked the 11th GOP debate of the election season.

The evening was introduced with an introduction highlighting National Security to any president as being the most important and daunting responsibility. CNN showed some footage of major security issues from previous presidencies which put the evening and topic very much into context.

The questions varied on content and context but consisted of the following:

Question1 – Focussed on there being 42 attempted terrorist attacks on the USA since 9/11.

Question 2 – The use of drones and efforts in Pakistan to defeat Al-Qaeda.

Question 3 – The cost to the US for its involvement in Afghanistan and was US involvement to prevent a terror safe haven worth it.

Question 4 – Should Israel be attacked by Iran, would the candidates support/help Israel in their efforts.

Question 5 – Focussed on the effect of sanctions in stopping Iran getting a nuclear bomb.

Question 6 – Focussed on development assistance for poor countries and economic development.

Question 7 – Focussed on spending and cuts to the military budget.

Question 8 – Focussed on the failure of the Super Committee and the $600 billion cuts.

Question 9 – The issue of the massive deficit the nation is facing and entitlement reform.

Question 10 – Focussed on the Mexico border and on how to stop the Mexican drug cartels.

Question 11 – Focussed on the need for High Skill immigration and immigration assistance for high skilled workers

Question 12 – Focussed on the violence of Syria and the impact on US allies in the region.

Question 13 – How to deal with Al-Shabab (Al-Qaeda)

Question 14 – The last question focussed on the one unexpected thing that could happen as president and what issue do the candidates worry about.

I’ve summarised the candidate’s responses and ranked them in order of how I believe they performed on the night.

1 – Newt Gingrich

Gingrich had the first question directed at him and drew the distinction between homeland terrorism and foreign threats and stated, he would not change the Patriot Act but would in fact enhance its powers. Gingrich responded citing the example of Timothy McVeigh as to why, he wanted powers to protect Americans in his response to Ron Paul’s view.

On the issue of Afghanistan, Newt put the questions into context stating,” We should start with Pakistan”. He used the killing of Osama Bin Laden as a reason why the US should be furious with Pakistan. He suggested some alterations and to pursue the fight intensively.

On Iran, Gingrich said the first efforts in dealing with Iran should be made at home in building US energy resources to reduce the impact of any sanctions against Iran. He called for a much strategic approach in dealing with Iran.

On the issue of spending and military cuts, Gingrich replied that there were things we could be better and invoked the memory of American efforts to win previous wars, and said the US could open up oil reserves within a year, and just get the job done and make the Millennium challenge work.

Gingrich commenting on the massive structural deficit referenced his own proposals and used Chile as an example of a model, which, he would use for the US to bring down the entitlement spending.

On the immigration issue, Gingrich called for the issuance of visa’s for highly qualified students to encourage them to stay in the US. He called for a comprehensive approach starting with border control, a visa program and a review of current illegals. Gingrich provided an excellent answer saying the party of the family should not force or break up long established families.

Gingrich said the three biggest threats were a dirty bomb in a major city, an electro magnetic pulse and cyber attacks in the unexpected area.

Assessment

Gingrich won the night again despite sticking his neck out on the Immigration issue which he managed to do in a very eloquent manner. He is realistic and practical on the issue, there is no chance the estimated 11 million illegal’s in the United States will ever be deported. It needs to be dealt with as part of a big package of measures. His assessment for future unexpected threats though was also brilliant.

2-      Jon Huntsman

Huntsman said the Homeland couldn’t be secured out of Washington D.C. but required a collaborative and national approach.

Huntsman opened the account on the second question, saying Washington needs to be fixed before the US turns its attention to foreign nations, but called Pakistan a nation waiting to fail and the US should not be nation building in Afghanistan.

Huntsman disagreed with Romney’s viewpoint and called for an honest conversation and called for a reduction in the 100,000 troops and focus on special-forces presence and the use of drones in Afghanistan.

On the issue of spending and military spending, Huntsman said the first issue needing attention was a deficit in trust among the people in the nation. He called for spending for defence to follow a determined strategy and must be driven by economic policy.

Huntsman responded to a Twitter question regarding the Arab Spring saying, history will tell going on to say the US missed the Persian Spring and reminded all that Israel is a friendly ally. He said sanctions won’t work because China and Russia won’t co-operate.

Huntsman said the biggest unexpected threat was joblessness in America and it needed to be dealt with.

Assessment

The best debate performance by Huntsman to date and I have him tied with Gingrich on the night. He nearly dealt Romney a fatal blow in their heated exchange and Romney was saved by Wolf Blitzer as there is no doubt, had the exchange continued, Huntsman would’ve exposed Romney.

3 – Ron Paul

Rep.Paul disagreed with Gingrich and put forward the view that the Patriot Act is unpatriotic. He asserted his view that you do not have to give up liberty to secure your environment. Santorum’s stance on the use of profiling was attacked by Rep.Paul and said liberties should not be sacrificed because people are suspects.

Unsurprisingly, Rep. Paul said he would not support Israel in any attack on Iran. He said Israeli interests are not US interests and they are capable of looking after themselves. He said the US should be very careful in the nation’s willingness to go to war abroad.

Rep.Paul said he didn’t support financial assistance for foreign development saying it was taking money from the poor in America and giving it to the rich in those countries.

On the Mexico border issue, he called for a cancellation on the war on drugs. Paul went on about eliminating benefits which attracts illegal immigrants.

Rep.Paul in response to the Al-Qaeda threat in the Middle East region he put forward the friendly state policy of non-intervention/retaliation.

Paul said the biggest unexpected threat was an over reaction on the part of the US.

Assessment

Rep.Paul had a very good night and was afforded a lot of time most likely due to his many different views on the issues. As always, Paul talked a lot of sense but his exchange with Gingrich on the Timothy McVeigh exchange damaged him along with his stance on how to deal with Iran. A good night overall though for Paul, ignoring his differing views from the other candidates.

4 – Mitt Romney

The TSA systems was the first question directed towards him which he responded to quickly before shifting back to the terrorist threat and agreed with Speaker Gingrich saying the US needed tools to fight threat both domestic and foreign. He asserted that US involvement should continue and withdrawal gradual based on military advice on the ground.

Romney got engaged with Huntsman in his criticism of Romney’s statement on Afghanistan. He was firm that US involvement in Afghanistan should not be a case of cut and run, the cost was too high.

Romney on the issue of development funding and security and drew the comparison between the trillion dollar cuts from the military as being exactly the amount President Obama needs to fund healthcare. He said Obama was cutting the capacity for America to defend itself. He said Pres. Obama was friendly to America’s foes and disrespectful to its friends and promised Israel would be his first foreign trip.

Romney on the immigration issue called amnesty a magnate and said the US needed to attract highly qualified people. He said the country needed to stop the causes of illegal immigration and for the securing of the border.

On the Al-Qaeda issue and the Middle East again Romney cited Pres. Obama’s appeasement and policy of apology in the region and called for the use of covert action and sanctions in dealing with Syria.

On the threats to the US is Iran, China and the unexpected one is Latin America.

5 – Michele Bachmann

Michele Bachmann opened her night on the role of Commander in Chief and the technological aspects of the new threats and attacked President Obama on giving up protection for interrogators fighting the threat.

Bachmann called Pakistan the epi-centre of Al-Qaeda and raised the threat about the vulnerability of access to their nuclear facilities. Bachmann said on the issue of cutting funding to Pakistan that she would continue it but demand more for the present time. Bachmann called Perry’s view naïve and said people needed to consider the realities of the nuclear threat on the ground.

Bachmann echoed the other candidate’s views on the Iranian issue and again went after President Obama on his failure to pursue energy independence and reminded the audience that it was Iran threatening Israel back in August not the other way around, calling Obama’s approach in dealing with Iran a doctrine of appeasement.

Bachmann on the issue of deficit reduction went back to her stance from earlier in the year and the raising of the debt ceiling. Bachmann said she would first look to balance the budget then look at paying down the deficit.

Bachmann didn’t agree with Gingrich’s approach on immigration and she then went on to reference Steve Jobs. She said America needed to offer visa’s to worker which the nation needed.

Bachmann said domestic home grown terrorism was the biggest potential threat.

Assessment

Overall, a more assured performance from Bachmann on the night and her insight on intelligence and security issues came to the fore. She did her wavering chances no harm.

6 – Rick Santorum

Santorum opened his account by reasserting his stance on the use of passenger profiling. Santorum also supported the use of the Patriot Act and called for the balancing of interests.

On Afghanistan, Santorum said he agreed with Ron Paul and gave an insight into what Radical Muslim leaders teach their recruits. Santorum said radical Muslim’s tell their members that they only need to out wait American involvement.

Santorum responded first on the issue of development assistance calling it absolutely essential and a key component in national security and called for more efforts and the promotion of key values.

Answering a question on a Ronald Reagan quote of getting 75-80% of what you want, you should accept it and move on. Santorum said it depends on what you get, but you should not undermine the ability of the country to grow for the sake of partisan politics.

Santorum answered the question on high skill immigration and praised the innovation that has been produced in the US by immigrants and said America should continue to be the beacon for such immigrants.

Santorum said he was concerned about Central and South America and the spread of socialism.

Assessment

Santorum always presents himself as very capable and competent. He struggles to get time during any debate, and his exchange with Ron Paul on the profiling of Muslim’s was not authoritative.

7 – Rick Perry

Rick Perry opened his account saying he would privatise the TSA and get rid of the Trade Unions. He returned to the issue of the Patriot Act saying it needed strengthening and cited the current administration a failure in their efforts to develop and gather intelligence around the world.

Governor Perry on the Pakistan issue reasserted his previous viewpoint of not sending any funding to the nation until they demonstrate themselves to be willing partners and not representing American interests.

Perry on the Iran sanctions issue called them the first measure in any fight against Iran and would include Syria in the equation and criticised President Obama for inaction.

On the issue of the super committee failure Perry said it is no surprise to anyone that it failed and said President Obama has been a complete failure on the entire budget process. He said Pres. Obama’s threat of the veto puts American lives at risk and said Leon Panetta should resign in protest. Perry referenced his ten years of bi-partisan working in Texas as proof that both sides can work together.

Perry called for a 21s century Monroe Doctrine to deal with the infiltration of the United States through the Mexican border. He said border security with Mexico was paramount to the security of the Western world and he would put boots on the ground. Perry said the whole issue of the border and immigration could not begin to be tackled until the border is secured, it is a must.

Perry said he supported a No-Fly zone over Syria but it was only one of a number of measures to deal with the problem and if implemented it might encourage others in the military to cross over.

Perry cited China as the biggest oncoming threat to the US national security.

Assessment

Perry had a decent debate but when Michele Bachmann called him naïve, the clip was played on all the major networks following the debate and his call for Leon Panetta to resign in protest was not a good strategic move. It is very hard to see Perry coming back from here.

8 – Herman Cain

Cain when asked on his stance on profiling as proposed by Santorum said he called it target profiling. He said terrorists want to kill all of us and every means possible should be used to prevent attacks. He slipped up calling Wolf “Blitz”, but quickly corrected himself.

Herman Cain answered the Iran/Israel question first and stayed on safe ground referring to the content of any plan as the basis of any decision. Cain responding to Paul said he would support Israel because Iran poses a threat in the region.

On development assistance Cain said it depended on priorities and the success of programmes and said he wanted to see the results before making a decision.

Herman Cain said yes the Mexican border was a threat and outlined reasons why it was a threat. He called for securing the border, enforcing the current laws and promotes the path to citizenship and empowers the states to do what the government can’t deal with themselves.

Cain said he would not support a No-Fly zone over Syria and said he would work with US allies to stop buying oil from Syria.

Cain said Cyber attacks were the biggest area of unexpected concern.

Assessment

Cain was sadly very exposed last night for his lack of comprehension of the major international events and security issues required of a Commander in Chief. He constantly adopts a default position reply of assessing the issue, seek advice from the General’s or experts and then plan or act. While on the face of it appears fine, you cannot use such a response when replying to nearly every question. As I mentioned before, the damage to Cain’s campaign was done in his team’s management and handling of the recent allegations, not the allegations themselves. There have been too many missteps on Foreign affairs and security issues for Cain to win the nomination but he is above all else, a gentleman and has added much to the GOP race. Last night unfortunately, only confirmed what many people suspected, he lacks the knowledge and grasp of the major issues to be President and Commander in Chief.

Foreign Policy Reveals Different Strengths

Whether or not you think the GOP has a strong field, one thing is for sure.  Any of these candidates would be better than Obama when it comes to foreign policy.  That came across clearly from more moderate voices like Jon Huntsman in addition to the two front runners.  Overall it was a great performance by all the candidates.  The contrast between the GOP field, including Ron Paul, and Barack Obama was clear.  So, here are the winners and losers:

Mitt Romney won the debate because of his smooth ability to introduce ambiguity on some issues to give all Conservatives a cushion of comfort.  See Newt’s performance below.  Mitt also took on Ron Paul and I think Mitt won that debate.  It seems pretty clear that Al Qaida terrorists and Timothy McVeigh do not represent the same sort of threat.  In fact, I would argue that lumping McVeigh, a disgruntled anti-American government citizen attacking the system, in with the 9/11 hijackers, foreign terrorists attacking and targeting United States civilians, is a very dangerous way of looking at foreign and domestic terrorism.  I sure hope we would treat a foreign terrorist crossing our border illegally differently than a citizen radical trying to build a bomb in their basement because the IRS just sent them another tax notice.

Jon Huntsman demonstrated his firm control of foreign policy issues.  I think he overcame some fears when he affirmed our strong relationship with Israel.  Huntsman also expressed sentiments on Afghanistan that have been felt by many Conservatives who were mislabeled as “neo-cons” over the last decade.  Many Conservatives supported both wars, but do not support something for nothing nation building in nations that don’t respect us and don’t appreciate the sacrifices we have made.  Huntsman turned again and again to the economy and the failures of Obama and Congress to solve the problem.  Huntsman’s point on how we leave North Korea alone because they have a nuke, but invaded Libya after they gave up their nuclear ambitions is a great diagnosis of the inconsistency in America’s position towards nuclear ambitious countries.

Newt had a great, issue free performance.  Here is the problem.  Newt comes across hawkish, and he is far too honest.  In the end, Mitt agreed with him on long-time illegal immigrants, but Mitt said it in such a way that will be taken better by anti-illegal alien Conservatives.  Newt also hurt himself by endorsing and calling for an expansion of the Patriot act.  This could help guarantee that Ron Paulites stay home and let Obama get re-elected in 2012.  What Newt should have said was that he supported the Patriot Act, but recommends examining it for things that could be eliminated or added.  I think Newt is too straight forward on a subject that honestly Americans would prefer some ambiguity on.  Same with covert operations.  His answer regarding opening our oil resources is not new, but continues to be a very strong point for him.

Ron Paul continued to solidify his base and add some fringe Conservatives who are weary enough of the wars to want to radically change America’s relationship with the world.  For these people, Paul’s angry old man persona, scoffing and reacting to opponents’ answers, and idea that if we leave terrorists alone, they will realize the error of their ways and leave us alone, will not affect his support.  Still, Paul would make a better foreign policy President than Obama.  At least his disengagement would be total, not mixed with war hawkishness like Obama’s.

Rick Perry’s substance earned him a higher spot after this debate.  I still think his idea of zero based budgeting for foreign aid resonates with Americans.  His refusal to dabble in hypotheticals about illegals who have been here more than a quarter century is going to help him as people weed out Romney and Gingrich’s immigration comments and discover the softness there.

Herman Cain did well not to hurt himself in this debate.  He has come across as unknowledgeable on foreign policy.  In this debate he showed he has a recognizable set of foreign policy principles, although he kept things pretty vague.  He didn’t hurt himself and that is a victory for him on foreign policy.

Rick Santorum comes across as a neo-con.   This debate didn’t really change that, and only a change in that perception would cause his status to change as a result of this debate.  No mistakes, but also no movement for him after this debate.  He continues to maintain that we should be paying Pakistan for friendship.

Michele Bachmann is either a career politician or has issues with comprehension.  On multiple occasions she seemed to not be able to grasp her opponent’s position.  A glaring example was when she interpreted Newt’s soft approach to long-time established illegals as some sort of call for general amnesty to 11 million illegal aliens.  She played the same role in Rick Perry’s demise, but now it seems more like a desperate cry for relevance.  Rising and falling as the Social Conservative choice at this point will require superiority on the issues, not loud misunderstanding of opponents, even though that usually produces success with the general electorate.

No matter who the nominee is, what is clear from last night is that we cannot afford four more years of Obama’s foreign policy.

Cain Not Catering to Sissies

It has been a busy news day for Herman Cain.  First, he said he’s been to 57 states so far, then it came out he’s been in a church with a racist pastor for 20 years, then he gave a speech and kept confusing Iraq and Afghani….oops, sorry, that was all Obama.

Cain screwed up on his Libya answer.  It took Cain more time to think of if he agreed with Obama’s decision to invade our Libyan allies than it took Obama to think about doing it in the first place.  I’m sure you’ve seen the video by now, and it’s pretty painful.  Not quite Perry painful, but still painful.  You can see the video here.

Darn it!  That was Obama again.  My bad.

Cain is in trouble though for something pretty legitimate.  Something that will cost him the Liberal female vegan vote.  Apparently, Cain said he likes a lot of meat on his pizza.  Of course, with his recent sex scandals, we all know what he really meant.

Do you think I’m joking?  Apparently Donna Brazille, Democrat strategist, read into Cain saying he wanted more toppings on his pizza in light of his “woman troubles”.

If disrespecting women by saying he likes more toppings on his pizza wasn’t bad enough, Cain made it even worse by insinuating that “manly men” like more meaty toppings on their pizza and that wanting vegetables on your pizza makes you a “sissy”.  We have not received the official response from PETA yet.

If the left thinks that loving meat on his pizza is going to make Republicans decide to not support Cain, they have another thing coming.  If they think attacking Cain for saying veggie pizza is for sissies is going to do anything other than infuriate Republicans who are sick and tired of obvious media bias, they really haven’t been paying attention.

On a personal note: I don’t like Cain’s 9-9-9 plan and I do think he lacks foreign policy smarts (not quite as bad as Obama, but pretty close).  But if the media keeps attacking him for stupid stuff like this, I’m gonna have to support him purely out of spite.

Herman Cain Claims that African-American Voting Habits are a Result of Brainwashing

Bookmark and Share In a recent interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer [see interview below this post], Herman Cain offers an honest personal assessment of the voting habits of African-Americans and by claiming that many African-Americans have been brainwashed.  In the same interview, he provides an opinion of the two men who Cain now shares frontrunner status with …………………. Mitt Romney and Rick Perry.

In the first question thrown at Cain by Wolf Blitzer, the CNN political host asked Cain why the G.O.P. is poison to so many African-Americans.  Never one to mince words, Cain told Blitzer that such a view is held by many fellow African-Americans because they “have been brainwashed into not being open minded and not even considering a conservative point of view”.

Cain goes on to explain that he has had experienced this first hand.  Reacting to the claim, Wolf Blitzer pretended to be shocked and gave Cain an opportunity to walk his statement back after telling Cain that “brainwashed” is a strong word to use in reference to fellow members of the black community.  Yet Herman Cain held firm and reinforced his charge by stating that as many as 2/3 of the blacks are brainwashed.  But Cain did say that the good news was that 1/3 to 1/2 of them are beginning to think for themselves and to think that all African-Americans will simply keep voting for Democrats is untrue.   He added that he is convinced that he would able to garner as much as a third of the black vote and not because he is black, but because of his policies and their belief in his ability to fix the economy.

While true, Cain’s words are sure to get some flack from the African-American community.  Many have already aired their disdain for Cain’s remarks.  This reaction came from AngryBlackLady.com:

“Ho boy.  Yeah, see…some free political campaign advice there, Herman.  When you’re trying to convince a voting bloc to back you, it’s best not to insult them as “brain-washed” and “not open minded”.  In fact, I believe that’s the chief complaint I hear from the Tea Party about how liberals supposedly feel about them.  Given this evidence, I’m going to say that particular complaint is projection, plain and simple.”

Committed socialist and racist anti-TEA movement leader Maxine Waters had this to say about Cain’s opinion;

“Not only are we not brainwashed, we know how to act in our own best interest.  That`s why most of us are Democrats.  Who in their right mind, African-American, would belong to a Party that is as mean-spirited as we see coming out of the Republican Party.

They don`t care about poor people.  They don`t care even about working class people.  They don`t care about senior citizens.”

She added;

“And blacks are not going to vote for him either — not simply because he`s disrespected us so in these statements about us being brainwashed but because, again, we act in our own best interest.  We know what is best for us.  We all have to fight very hard to make sure that we get the most that we can get in terms of good public policy for everybody and for African-Americans.”

What Mrs. Waters left out was that through the application of the close-minded liberal policies of her and her Party, the African-American community is suffering the most. Under the Obama Administration and Mrs. Waters’ leadership in Congress, in addition to a disproportionate amount of African-Americans living at or below the poverty level, the overall poverty level in the nation has risen to its highest levels in decades.  And when it comes to unemployment in America, in the month of September, Mrs. Waters’ policies have helped to achieve a disparity between Caucasian and African-American unemployment rates that is more than 50% higher for blacks than whites.

The unemployment rate for blacks surged to 16.7% in August, its highest rate since 1984, the Labor Department reported Friday.

Congresswoman Waters also neglects to mention that the when she discusses “fighting very hard to make sure that we get the most that
we can get in terms of good public policy for everybody and for African-Americans” what she is actually saying is that good public policy is more expensive government spending programs that perpetuate a culture of dependency.

And therein lies the Democrat Party’s problem.

Government can no longer afford to be run like a charity with endless financial resources. Charities can’t even pretend to have endless financial resources.  Government can no longer afford to maintain expensive charitable legislative policies that are designed to keep minorities voting for Democrats by making them dependent on Democrat sponsored taxpayer handouts.

This is something that many minorities are waking up to.  And while they may not necessarily be flocking to the G.O.P., they are beginning to understand that liberal Democrats are probably acting more in their own interests than an in the interests of the African-American Community.

As for Herman Cain, there are many people of all colors who through his candidacy, are beginning to understand that big government is not a prerequisite for success.  In Herman Cain, they see a self-made man, who has not allowed himself to use racism as an excuse or reason to believe that the government owes him anything.  People see that Herman Cain is a man who said he will control his destiny and did so.  In Herman Cain, many voters are seeing a man who can create an America that will get government under control and allow the people to control their own destiny’s too.  That has become a novel concept these days, but the obvious failures of government due to big government liberal policies, has people of all colors understanding that they should probably stopt trying to rely on a bankrupt government andstart trying to rely more on their own ingenuity and abilities.

Bookmark and Share 

%d bloggers like this: