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.
You prove my tagline.
Your post reflects my opinion exactly. I don’t dislike Perry. He’s been a pretty good governor. And with a couple of well-known apaostacies, I think he’s a reliable conservative. He’d be a much better president than Filth Obama.
But his presentation is a nightmare. I don’t want to spend six months trying to convince people our candidate REALLY is smart...he just hides it very well. Been there, done that (see: Bush The Younger).
Hank
CharlesWayneCT, this is what I was referring to in my earlier post to you:
It has to do with the difference between gross sales and net profit. When Cain took over Godfathers, it was bleeding 8 million dollars/year in net losses. After Cain turned it around, it was showing a 2 million dollar/year net profit.
One of the things he did was to close about half the stores that were responsible for most of the losses. So, yes, it was the 5th largest in gross sales, and it went to the 11th largest; while going from an 8 million dollar loss to a 2 million dollar profit.
(Just as a side note, he managed to close half the stores while cutting staff by only 20%. Quite remarkable, really.) He turned a bloated, dying corporation into a lean mean fighting machine.
1,247 posted on Saturday, November 05, 2011 10:40:45 PM by lonevoice
I thought they were both great, but Newt did occasionally show his tendency to do “old school think,” which really has to be exploded at this point in history.
Newt looked like the sloppy professor and Cain looked like a CEO.
It was a great night for the GOP.
I think Cain is more inspirational and that’s needed right now. I could go for a Cain/Gingrich ticket!
(Can you imagine the mood in the Romney and Perry households tonight?)
“...he has “daddy issues” like no one i’ve ever seen.”
Ain’t that the truth? You could almost feel sorry for him if he weren’t working to make the rest of us pay for his poor childhood by trying to destroy the country as we’ve known it. For our own good, of course, as elitists would have it.
The roar of mylife could be mylife’s breath. (with perry lipstick on it).
I wish Cain and Newt the best of luck. I’m just happy that, per this debate, we are all on the same page, just support different authors of the same book.
We’re unified and just don’t know it :)
I like Cain, but he speaks in platitudes. Newt has a remarkable ability to recall names, dates and places without the need of notes or friendly reminders from a Moderator. If you listen closely, Newt doesn't hesitate before responding to a point of discussion.
I am aware of the baggage Newt brings with him, but he is far and away the sharpest tool in the shed. When a Liberal starts mouthing off about the “Clinton” Budget Surplus, I remind them that the only reason that happened was because of Newt Gingrich and the Republican House holding Clinton's feet to the fire.
Whether you agree with him or not on every issue, when he enters the room he is the smartest person there. I have seen him speak in person four or five times. I have no recollection of him ever using notes and he certainly never used an ObamaPrompter.
I have some Texas friends who love Perry and they know him personally. They refuse to see that his “debating” skills are less than adequate, and the Presidential Debates between Obama and our Nominee may well seal the fate of the Election Results.
If it was Newt versus Obama in a Debate, you could sell it on Pay Per View. There would be no tense moments that we have all experienced in the past with G.W. Bush and McCain. We all had that little voice in our heads when our Candidate was responding to a question saying to ourselves “don't blow it”.
The Liberal Moderators ALWAYS slant the questions and responses to the Democrat Candidate. Newt would embarrass both Obama and the Sycophant Moderator with his explanation of the facts surrounding every issue being discussed.
Well sure, but Newt doesn't slur his words or dribble down his chin when he says it.
Aw Geez! Did you really expect him to say POTUS when the question was "What would you do if you were VICE PRESIDENT OF THE US"?
In my fourteen years here no one has ever posted a picture as a come back post. I’m honored.
Yes, there were details that we’d need to jump on. Gingrich just still occasionally lets the policy wonk of 20 years ago surface.
I don’t think this is something that can’t be fixed.
Both men were fantastic in being able to articulate big ideas and, more importantly, identify the principles guiding them.
Cain had more of a presence than Gingrich, but they made quite a team, I can say that. I love the potential here.
very witty! LoL
Gingrich could very well provide a strong presidential WHIP on the Senate and drive the change that POTUS Cain is proposing.
It seems that I heard they were FROM the same state, but they don’t both live there anymore.
I am glad you consider it an honor, I thought it was just a satirical pic.
I was thinking about Karl Rove and the gang tonight as I watched this. I bet there are a lot of frantic discussions going on right now, to the effect of: this cannot be stopped; we’ve either got to get behind a Cain/Gingrich or Gingrich/Cain ticket or we’re going to get drummed out of the party.
Romney is probably still crying right now.
You believe that Cain will not pick up any “black votes” yet traditional “black” Christians are definitely re-thinking their party support in the next election. They will go to a person they can trust, a person who has lived an admirable life and that is Herman Cain.
I'm going to take a wild guess that you have no clue about the actual Lincoln-Douglas debates.
In the Lincoln-Douglass "debates", there were just the two candidates, with no moderator, nobody asking questions.
At each debate, one candidate spoke for a full hour. The second candidate then got to respond and also speak for 90 minutes. Finally, the first candidate made a 30-minute response.
So this event was NOT a Lincoln-Douglass-style debate. But was it a "debate"?
In a real debate, one side takes a position on an issue, and then the other side argues against that position, using facts and rhetoric to dissuade the audience, while the first person uses facts and rhetoric to bolster his position. Of course, political debates are rarely like this, and we actually get upset when candidates address each other. And debates in primaries are often odd because the candidates agree about many things, and would really like to attack the opposition.
But this event tonight had none of the signatures of either a classical debate, or a political debate. It was a side-by-side press conference. Occasionally, Cain or Gingrich would address something the other said, but mostly they stuck with their own points in answer to the questions.
There were a couple of times they got close to "debating", like on Social Security, but they never really did it in a way that sounded like "I disagree with your plan, and here is why" that would be a "debate" style.
So, to answer your ignorant question -- my comment was JUST A COMMENT. Tonight was very interesting, it wasn't a debate. My comment had NOTHING to do with the L-D debate, of which this was NOT an example. And the very idea that some random comment could "impugn" a debate series from the past is laughable.
Snarky comments rarely work when you have no idea what you are talking about. You should study some.
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.