from campaign operatives.
Posted on 11/27/2011 6:51:43 PM PST by TitansAFC
Herman Cain indicated today that he does not agree with Newt Gingrich’s position on immigration.
“The way I would deal with those that are already here, which has been my stated position: empower the states to deal with the illegals that are already here, not some, big, grandiose, national one size fit-all. I believe that the states should be empowered to deal with the illegals that are already here,” Cain said CNN’s State of the Union this morning.
In response to whether that meant the states could allow illegal immigrants to “be put on a path toward legalization and toward citizenship,” Cain answered, “It would be up to the states as long as they did not break the federal law.”
But when Crowley used the word “amnesty,” inquiring if that it meant it would be “okay” if the states granted “some sort of amnesty to those who are already living here,” Cain vehemently denied he supported amnesty.
“I’m not saying that at all,” he said
“Secure the border for real,” Cain continued, speaking about what his plan regarding illegal immigrants is. “Promote the path to citizenship that’s already there, and the path to citizenship that’s already there doesn’t say anything about amnesty. Thirdly, enforce the laws that are already there, but make it easier for companies to be able to enforce the laws. And fourth, empower the states. Don’t give the states any special things to do, just empower them to do within the law what the federal government is not doing.”
That particular article was notoriously bad at not looking at what Cain actually said. You can’t go by what somebody says ABOUT Cain; you have to go to the original transcripts.
And that’s not just with Cain. It’s with all of them. Anybody who bases their analysis on media reports rather than actual transcripts is handing this nation over to the media, to have them decide our fate.
It takes time. I know I haven’t done it with all the claims like I should either. But we have to change our methodology to only accepting original sources (transcripts), or else we are just like the very sheeple we say are ignorantly destroying the country. We must NOT allow the media to run interference, because that is what they always do. As long as we give them the ability to come between us and what the candidates have actually said, we give them the power to garble the communication and run interference. Given their leftist desires, that will always mean trouble for the country.
Thanks. I like the football game analogy too. I just thought there might be some processes left over from the Reagan amnesty and the other lesser ones that followed, as listed by another freeper a while back. I guess they had a time window and are not applicable anymore.
I’m not going to get embroiled in a pointless arguement with you.
Cain’s plan is clear, his statements here are not at odds with his four point plan which I posted to you, as well as the links I provided to back it up.
If you have reading comprehension issues, that is your problem.
In every sentence Mr. Cain said about the stats having the power to deal with it’s illegal aliens, he included the words, “as long as the Federal law is enforced”.
I would be rather than one enormous Federal committee to oversee the problem, it would be broken up into 50 committees doing a far lesser job.
Of course, the people’s Republics of Washington, Oregon and others would welcome them in with open arms, just as they are today. Federal law or no Federal law!
That is a very good stance. For some, hatred of Cain is so consuming that rational, reasonable discussion is impossible. You can burn up hours and hours of time going back and forth w these people, and all you will get is a firsthand glimpse of what a true conservative circular firing squad/Donner party looks like. Not a sufficient payoff for such a major investment.
from campaign operatives.
Problem is, they might not be answered correctly.
Actually there are several problems with your approach. First, I do not know if that site has the Cain imprimatur. I am told that "selective" quoting of Cain is a mischief. Second, even when I quote Cain, there are problems of interpretation (also known as hermeneutics). He's so vague, people differ on what he means. Seasoned interviewers fall back baffled (Stossel, Crowley, et al.) Third, I have been told by his supporters that his remarks have some sort of shelf life; one of those quotes at the site dates to 2007 and when I mentioned it here -- the one containing the words "propose a reasonable program for the 12 million (and counting) illegal persons..." -- I was rebuked for digging up those old bones, as were several other freepers who did the same. Fourth, you're just plain wrong; there are no specifics there to answer the basic question of what he proposes to do about the 12 million already here. He proposes nothing. And there's a reason he has proposed nothing!
But you refuse to see, and besides, he won't be nominated, so have a wonderful day. :)
See my 404 and:
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/rep_bios.php?rep_id=98516477&category=views&id=20110508174404
I would prefer no stupid ad hominem attacks with pictures, and instead some reasoning why the poster is incorrect.
I suppose it is too much to expect reason and logic, but I am an optimist like that.
Good post. There is only one answer to all those questions.
YOu cannot rely on “this article”. You have to rely on the original transcript. Don’t hand over this country to the leftist media. They will twist everything to their ends. If we trust them and don’t hold them accountable, they will be the ones who decide the fate of this country.
Did you read the original transcript? The link was posted early in this thread.
When the poster spams the thread with the cut and paste talking points it is spam. Check the short posting history and you will see this is campaign operative.
Evil always cringes and and shrinks from Good! Evil is Satan, and Satan is hate! Good is God and God is Love! The Battle Royal is Good against Evil.
The end result will depend on which team is the strongest.
May God have mercy on us.
So standard Newt Cultist SOP. Cannot honestly debate the issues since it reflects poorly on their blessed St Newt, so they engaging in their usual tactics of lies, obfuscation, diversion and personal attack. Really stupid tactics by the Newt Cult to try and spin an attack lie at Cain that is refuted by the very story they post.
Don’t modify the headline with your own opinion. You are intentionally misleading people. It’s pretty pathetic.
I drove distances to hear Cain speak and he was on my radar but he has fallen completely off after his schizo stances on abortion, TARP and gun rights.
Watching this tap dance of Cain's yesterday on CNN regarding his difference between profiling and "targeted identification" was an insult if he thinks we're this stupid.
Amen Brother! Thank you for bringing a little perspective.
I gravitated to this site because I am a conservative and love the information and insight on issues I can get here. I don't always agree with a view and like to flesh out the pros and cons. This process helps me to see if I am standing on solid ground or not. If not I pray I'm smart enough to see my error, or what's lacking in my perspective, and adjust my thinking accordingly.
FWIW, it looks to me like we are down to 2 anti-Romney candidates, Gingrich and Perry. Gingrich has surged in the polls and has been fantastic in the debates. Gingrich lacks the organization and money right now. Perry has the organization and money but stumbled in the debates. We need to figure out which of these 2 will be the best POTUS.
I am with Perry for a couple reasons. Perry has 10 yrs experience as Gov of TX and is a pretty solid conservative. Also, he served in the military which I believe is an important experience for the CIC.
Gingrich has been Speaker of the House. He led the Pubs out of minority status and is a great debater. He is solid on the social issues.
Cain is going to continue to fade because he is all over the place on the issues and we've entered that part of the campaign where substance does matter.
The issue of illegal immigration that is being banged over Perry's and Gingrich's head is playing right into the Rats playbook. Conservatives are portrayed as a bunch of racists (which we're not) and the Rats are portrayed as sensitive to minorities (which they aren't). In a perfect world we would stop the flow of illegals in and those that are here would leave, but that won't happen because the Rats only care about power and most of the children of illegals vote for them. I think the visa program both Perry and Gingrich have proposed makes the best of a bad situation if the border is secured first. Otherwise, we will continue down this same path and the demographics that are against us will become our destiny.
I posted videos of Cain saying these very things. He is a great tap dancer. http://theiowarepublican.com/2011/do-we-really-know-who-herman-cain-is/
Amen and well said. Much prayer is needed during this primary. I have read things said about good conservative nominees on this, a conservative site, that repel and sicken me. Yes, it should be hard fought and should result in everything being laid out in the open. But hatred, mockery and flat out lies should be no part of it. We need a strong conservative to put up against Obama. Let us pray the haters on our side don’t torpedo the best candidate/s we have.
There is no need to get hostile and/or aggressive. My only point was that you can’t ‘lose’ what you never had. If Cain once had your support, some evidence of that should exist. I.e.: if he ‘had’ you before he ‘lost’ you, then surely you said something positive about him prior to the loss. Asking to see such evidence is not a hostile request. I just want to know what kind of support Cain squandered in the act of ‘losing’ you.
Thanks.
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.