Posted on 06/06/2011 7:25:19 PM PDT by Bigtigermike
So is Cain’s familiarity with any number of issues — not just the fine points of negotiations in the Middle East. What does he think of Bush’s immigration proposals? “I don’t recall what was in it.” How about the free-trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea — negotiated by the Bush administration and possibly going before Congress soon? “I don’t know the details.” Not even on the pact with South Korea which, if approved, would become America’s largest trade deal since the passage of NAFTA? “I can’t say whether I’d vote yes or no.”
There’s a refreshing honesty to some of this — but too much of it begins to appear amateurish. How would Cain have handled the crisis in Libya this spring? “I would have had a plan before it erupted.” What would that plan have looked like? “Not knowing what we knew, it’s difficult to say how I would have reacted.” He means that without access to classified intelligence, he’s reluctant to say more. But knowing what he knows now, would he have dropped bombs? “Don’t quote me saying I would have gone to war. I don’t have enough of the facts.”
He’s similarly elusive on Afghanistan — he won’t say what the United States should do there. “My foreign policy is not an instant-grits policy,” he says. “As a successful businessman, I make decisions based on getting as many of the facts and as much of the advice as I can. Based on the input I receive, I’ll make a decision. Right now, without all of the facts, it’s irresponsible to announce a Cain plan.”
(Excerpt) Read more at heymiller.com ...
She finished college with no debt. First time I have every seen someone be attacked for working her way through college and not taking on debt to pay for it.
Agreed.
But this ticket would have a man at the helm who does -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7RKIpufStQ
Obama promising US loyalty to Islam and it's greatness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBWN2Ch_3Gk&feature=related
Col.West laying it out in PS (Plain Speak) not PC.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgZppLvjvaE&feature=related
on Israel, Islam, Iran,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mY8tVkaDqYw&feature=related
30 second clip - gotta love it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QQz1Wu3pqc&feature=related
Draft West
http://allenwest2012.ning.com/
I like your post.But I have a quibble about language. You say, "smarta$$ is not a journalist," but then you say, "[he is] a liberal propagandist, which means he is simply a very subtle, useful tool of left-wing propagandists, an "advance party" if you will. "
My point is simply that the wire services in general and the Associated Press in particular united journalism around the self-interest of journalism itself. Journalism is just talk, and
the self interest of journalism is that its talk is taken to be more important than the action taken by others to provide food, clothing, shelter, security, energy, and so forth. This explains why journalism is able to maintain the fatuous conceit of its own objectivity, despite the obvious realtity that journalism is at most part of the truth, and "Half the truth is often a great lie." You can print "both sides of the story" without necessarily getting at the truth of the matter, and that happens all the time. Because the perspective of the journalist defines what he thinks the two sides of the story are. Which may be irrelevant to what is actually going on. And the very fact that the journalist claims to be objective (or, what is the same thing, suffers others to claim it for him) proves that the journalist is not even trying to be objective.
Ironically, it is possible to attempt to be objective only by being open about any reasons why you might not be objective. And claiming to be objective is the very opposite of scrupulously examining your own motives and being open about how they (inevitably) influence your perspective. Therefore,
no "objective journalist" is even trying to actually be objective. It would be wonderful if we could count on objective information for the mere price of a newspaper. Alas, it is impossible. There can be no substitute for exercising your own judgement. "Anyone who tells you anything else is selling something."
The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing . . .It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity,
and they very seldom teach it enough. - Adam SmithBecause the wire services unified journalism, journalism speaks with a single voice (I discount the editorial pages as being a peripheral issue, which function primarily to "position" the rest of the newspaper as being objective). Since journalism speaks with a single voice, there are natural propaganda advantages to agreeing with that unified journalistic voice. So if you don't have any principles other than your own self interest, the path of least resistance is to become a politician who promotes whatever the journalistic voice finds convenient. You can then count on that journalistic voice to give you favorable labels and give your opposition consistently unfavorable PR.
So when you say someone is a propagandist rather than a journalist, you give undue credit to journalism as a profession. Journalism is propaganda.
This must be a deliberate strategy on his part. I've heard him speak at length on his radio program about what Bush was doing wrong when it came to illegal immigration, and he has a clear proposal for illegal immigration, so I know he is familiar with it.
It may be an attempt to not let the press sidetrack him from the points he wants to emphasize, which clearly seems to be economics.
It’s okay to defend Palin, but don’t say incorrect things about Herman Cain. Godfather’s Pizza was on the verge of bankruptcy when he took over. I have yet to see where yearly pizza sales fell. As for Sarah Palin, she was a good governor, but it isn’t that hard to run surplusses with the oil money that rolls in.
As part of the restructuring--and prompted by takeover rumors--Pillsbury encouraged a leveraged buyout of Godfather's by a group of senior managers, led by President and CEO Herman Cain and Executive Vice-President and COO Ronald B. Gartlan. The purchase price was not disclosed, but was estimated by some analysts at $100 million. At that point, Godfather's ranked fifth in the pizza segment lineup, having slipped from its third place ranking in 1985. The chain continued to face considerable competitive challenges and reported that although most of the company-owned businesses were profitable, many of its 420 franchisees, which paid royalties to the parent company, were not. Cain told James Scarpa of Restaurant Business Magazine that Godfather's aim over the next several years was to move from fifth to fourth place in the ranking From 1985 until 1988 godfathers went from 3rd to fifth in sales under 2 years of Cain's management. It also took on $10's of millions in leveraged debt. also under Cain's management. I don't make up stuff. Cain "saved" godfather's pizza by cutting stores, decreasing sales and doing a leveraged buyout from Pillsbury. the leveraged debt was still outstanding as late as 1995 and was causing godfather's pizza to not be able to grow...
In Cain's own words:
He stated in a 1995 interview with Teresa Howard of Nation's Restaurant News, "My next goal is for Godfather's to reach its goal of financial independence." He further stated, in reference to the company's heavily leveraged debt, "I want to retire debt in order to allow us to grow the way we want to." as far as Gov Palin she did that budget miracle during the oil crash of $150 /bl down to $40/bl. Of 2008-2009
“I’ve heard him speak at length on his radio program about what Bush was doing wrong when it came to illegal immigration, and he has a clear proposal for illegal immigration, so I know he is familiar with it.”
I’m glad to hear that, but if anyone from his camp sees this, I hope they tell him to address illegal immigration, even if it’s the nutshell version, imho.
Sarah Palin was an excellent governor, but 64% of Americans say they won’t vote for her. Granted, I’m sure the poll is rigged to some degree, but unless 70% of those polled were dems, it’s a very bad sign. Defeating Obama is much more important than any one person getting elected. Although, we can’t vote for someone only because they seem more electable. That kind of thinking got us McCain. The poll I mentioned had Romney as the only Republican who would defeat Obama, and at this exact moment that’s probably true, but we all know how easy it would be to pick Romney apart. Between Romneycare and his flip-flopping, the dems would have a field day with him. Dateline and 20/20 would also do stories on the bizarre goings on in the mormon church.
Romney hasn’t gone through the negative attacks yet. If he can only tie Obama at this stage with 2 years of positive Mitt press he can’t win. Palin is fully vetted, Mitt is not. polls show Palin only need about an 8pt swing to win the election and that is after 3 years of negative attacks. she is teflon now. Mitt is at his high point he doesn’t go higher than he is now.
We can’t afford to allow Obama to win. we can’t send out an untested unvetted candidate like Mitt to face the thug in chief. we need to field are most battle tested, vetted candidate in history whihc would be Palin.
I’m just afraid that Palin is too damaged. I totally agee with you about Mitt. He’d be easy too attack.
IMHO...
Libya in 2013 ? Who knows who the government of Libya will be in 2013 ? Who knows what will have happened in any of the mideast by then ? I would think there’s a rather high probability of war between Israel and muslims by then.
No candidate can really answer what their stance is other than “we don’t know who the revolutionaries are, exactly”.
Egypt I guess is going with the muslim brohood-nazi faction.
I honestly think the only mideast knowledge a President needs is to basically know that Israel is our only friend over there; the rest hate us to varying degrees and virtually always lie to us.
I guess a candidate might not want to phrase it quite that way. /sarc
you see damaged I see vetted.
I see both. People have made up their minds about Sarah Palin and don’t like what they see. Too many people are influenced by Oprah, Katie Couric, David Letterman, and Jon Stewart.
minds change. IF they didn’t Obama would still be at 75% approval.
Maybe. I guess I can’t comprehend people being that fickle. I rarely change my mind about much of anything. I agree that she has nowhere to go but up, I’m just not sure what her ceiling is.
about 60% is her ceiling
How do you know this? Have you ever seen her answer questions like that from a hostile questioner? I haven't.
Really? Reagan didn’t even get 60% over Mondale in ‘84. Heck FDR won 4 landslides and the most he ever got was 60% Personally, I don’t think a true landslide is possible in this era.
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.