Posted on 11/05/2011 3:16:26 PM PDT by blueyon
Republican 2012 presidential candidates Republican 2012 presidential candidates Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich met in a Lincoln-Douglas style debate on current economic and social issues facing the U.S.
good tagline.
Perry didn’t ORIGINATE those ideas.
I smoked one and have plenty. Too bad I couldn’t send you one at that moment.
Thanks, but I’ve been a bit objectionable lately, as I’ve gotten very frustrated trying to strip through all the opinions and hysterics and trying to find facts we could agree on. So I’ve been terse with some people, and rude to others.
I haven’t given up on Cain, although I’m not a fan of the “we need amateurs” concept, and I haven’t seen any really good responses from his supporters when I bring it up.
Part of the problem is that while I see attacks on a candidate as an opportunity to educate where those attacks are not valid, most people here see attacks as just “attacks”, and respond by belittling the attacker rather than dealing with the issues.
I watch Cain in an event like tonight, and I really like him. I watch him in the debates (and I know others love him there), and I see a 2nd-tier tagalong. And I see him in short interviews, and through his campaign, making mistake after mistake, making false charges based in insufficient evidence, having to clarify his positions time and again, and I can’t believe ANYBODY thinks he is presidential material.
So it’s a real mixed bag. And you know, I wish Perry would be able to do a one-on-one like this with Cain, but I can’t imagine it would be pleasant like this was.
Of course, I agree that Rush is right about Obama. that doesn’t mean that another neophyte candidate, although better than Obama, would have the stature, experience, and depth of knowledge to be the best POTUS.
This forum really sucks.
It’s amazing, Cain an Gingrich are touting Perrys line of reason while kissing each others ***
I like Cain from the beginning, don't like newt because I remember him from the Clinton years and his stand on G W also backing a liberal female judge to SC that Bush tried to put on, He also backed scuzzyfuzzy for office and she turned democrat as soon as she lost...He talks a good game, but his actions are not trustworthy...Would be good in a cabinet position, but not for president or VP. (still open to him being a VP, just very cautious about him... Cain has what it takes, defends his integrity and talks conservative on issues..
IF that’s really the case then you need to move ....even if just yourself...locate family or friends in areas that have work and stay with them while you look, with the idea once you’ve secured it you’ll work and set money aside to do just that.
I know of a gal who needed to move...sold everything but what she could fit in her car to make that move. You gotta do what ya gotta do.
It wasn't funny, and no one laughed. It was a nasty, snarling comment, and you know it.
I'll make sure to watch and see if you laugh the next time someone says something snarky about Rick Perry. I hope you won't take it personally. It's only humor, after all.
I agree. Newt is impressive to those of use who know something about many policy questions. To the every day Jane, Herman Cain is Reagan-like. He will hire good Newts. :)
I’ll tell ya flat out in front of God and everybody that you perrwinkles are doing definite harm to your candidate. Keep it up.
This forum sucks? Then get the hell outta here.
IMO, learning on the job in six months cannot substitute for knowledge accumulated and leadership excecised over many years.
Our Nation is in great danger, from within and without needs someone who has presidential ability. Given the choice that we have, there aren’t many who fit the jib description.
Your view on polls is based, it seems, on the theory that going from a high poll number to a lower one is worse than going months with a low one. Because Perry has never dropped as low in the polls as Cain was for months, and Perry has been at the lower end for a much shorter period of time than Cain was, and three months after Cain entered the race, he was much lower in the polls than Perry is 3 months after HE entered the race.
If Perry had entered the race as an unknown, and therefore started at 4%, and was now at 10%, would that be better than what actually happened? I don’t know. I know that in 2008, McCain was near the lead, then he dropped to single digits and everybody said he had no chance and should drop out.
I certainly don’t care that Perry-haters say Perry is toast. Either he is, or he isn’t. Either he will re-connect with voters, or he won’t. I’m not paying attention to polls. I didn’t when I was hoping Palin would enter the race, and I’m not now. January is when I’ll care.
We will. You can count on it!
I’m out celebrating my 19th wedding anniversary and am sneaking a freep under the table. Can anyone give me quick summary? Are they amicable or adversarial? Issues driven debate or sound bytes? Who’s “winning?”
Thanks,
Tex
How is pointing out that your candidate and our candidate have the same intentions harming a candidate?
You might want to walk back that comment. Just an idea..
AP was wrong. They only invited these two people for this one-on-one debate, they have an open invitation for other candidates to do similar one-on-ones.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.