Herman Cain: Liberals Want to Destroy America

[Falvlun]

So, I was watching Meet the Press this morning, and was quite shocked to learn that Herman Cain believes that the objective of liberals is to destroy this country.

Really, Mr. Cain?

I mean, I completely understand if you believe that the policies that liberals pursue will destroy this country, or are destroying this country. But it is a different thing all together to claim that the destruction of this country is their purpose.

So much for civil discourse and attempt at understanding.

 

[Copernicus]

Politicians like Cain thrive on outrageous statements. When called out on them, that gives them another opportunity to use the press as a soap box. All one has to do is claim that the offending statement was a joke, a poor choice of words, or some other euphemism for the gaffe. Those who like him will find his gaffes endearing and/or charming. Those who don't will take it as confirmation of their low opinion of him. Less politically aware voters will probably just forgive and forget the remark as the news focus shifts on to new topics.

Cain is just the latest Republican to slip into the Palin/Bachmann/Perry slot as the wise-cracking, gaffe-prone scourge of liberalism. He appears to have even less substance than Bachmann, but he does have strong ties to the Koch brothers. Hence, he is likely to have unlimited funds and a strong political base within the modern GOP. It is hard to see how he can possibly win the nomination, but stranger things have happened. When people expect a politician to say goofy things, they sometimes tend to dismiss those things as part of the "schtick" of that politician. Romney could not get away with those kinds of outrageous gaffes.

I fully expect Romney to beat any of the current crop of rivals, including Cain. However, given Cain's backing by the Koch brothers, he may be in line for a vice presidential slot. That would help Romney to put together a Republican coalition that has a very good shot at beating Obama.

 

[Riverwolf]

...why would an American political party want to destroy the country to which they belong?

 

[Copernicus]

...why would an American political party want to destroy the country to which they belong?

Cain never bothered to give a reason, even when asked repeatedly. What he really said was that their policies would destroy the economy of the US. Gregory asked if that were "mismanagement", and Cain replied "No". Cain is very much a part of the right-wing propaganda machine, which makes every effort to smear and vilify anything associated with Democrats. To concede that liberals were merely incompetent or deluded would have been to cede the possibility that they might not be as blameworthy. Cain is pretty good at divisive rhetoric--much better than people give him credit for. Democrats aren't just bumbling their way to a worse economy. They are doing it on purpose. So they deserve our anger and resentment.

 

[Falvlun]

Cain never bothered to give a reason, even when asked repeatedly. What he really said was that their policies would destroy the economy of the US. Gregory asked if that were "mismanagement", and Cain replied "No". Cain is very much a part of the right-wing propaganda machine, which makes every effort to smear and vilify anything associated with Democrats. To concede that liberals were merely incompetent or deluded would have been to cede the possibility that they might not be as blameworthy. Cain is pretty good at divisive rhetoric--much better than people give him credit for. Democrats aren't just bumbling their way to a worse economy. They are doing it on purpose. So they deserve our anger and resentment.

This is just mind-boggling to me. Why would a politician say something so outlandish, so divisive, and so untrue? Is this seriously what voters want to hear? And worse, what does that mean if a politician actually believes it? Cain would have absolutely no incentive to work with liberals. It would actually be wrong to attempt bipartisanship, since he would be incoorporating policies with express purpose to destroy the US. Is that what we want in a president?

 

[Shermana]

If I said to a dog "You want to ruin my Persian rug??", he doesn't necessarily want to ruin it, it's just that he will.

Likewise with the economy. Liberals may not want to economically ruin America ("economically destroy" he said), but the "want to" can in fact and did mean "consequences of intent". As well, there are in fact some "Liberals" who want to weaken America's strength and economic health (and "economically ruin" can be interpreted so many ways ) so as to make it more ripe for radical change.

If anything, the fact that the key word "economically" was omitted is notable.

 

[Riverwolf]

Cain never bothered to give a reason, even when asked repeatedly. What he really said was that their policies would destroy the economy of the US. Gregory asked if that were "mismanagement", and Cain replied "No". Cain is very much a part of the right-wing propaganda machine, which makes every effort to smear and vilify anything associated with Democrats. To concede that liberals were merely incompetent or deluded would have been to cede the possibility that they might not be as blameworthy. Cain is pretty good at divisive rhetoric--much better than people give him credit for. Democrats aren't just bumbling their way to a worse economy. They are doing it on purpose. So they deserve our anger and resentment.

Sad thing is, a lot of people are gullible enough to believe this nonsense.

 

[YmirGF]

Sad thing is, a lot of people are gullible enough to believe this nonsense.

Well, to be fair, they believed Obama would deliver on "hope'n'change". Yeah, he has been stellar... not.

The way I see, I do not see how Cain or Romney could possibly be worse than Obama. As bad as, perhaps... Worse? Unlikely.

 

[Splarnst]

..

As well, there are in fact some "Liberals" who want to weaken America's strength and economic health (and "economically ruin" can be interpreted so many ways ) so as to make it more ripe for radical change.

Who?

 

[YmirGF]

..Who?

OWS ring any bells?

 

[Splarnst]

OWS ring any bells?

I don't agree with your characterization of them, but at least now I know who you're referring to.

 

[YmirGF]

I don't agree with your characterization of them, but at least now I know who you're referring to.

*giggle* *snort*
No, I don't expect you would agree.
That much IS rather telling.

 

[Splarnst]

*giggle* *snort*
No, I don't expect you would agree.
That much IS rather telling.

A random person on the internet pigeonholes me based on almost nothing and finds it amusing. Noted.

 

[YmirGF]

A random person on the internet pigeonholes me based on almost nothing and finds it amusing. Noted.

Take heart, Sweet Pea, I find quite a lot amusing.
That said, I said, "That IS telling." I'm not sure how that as pigeonholing you. What I meant was that your comment was informative.

 

[Skwim]

This is just mind-boggling to me. Why would a politician say something so outlandish, so divisive, and so untrue?

Agreed. And it will certainly put Republicans in shunning mode. No one of either side would abide a potential candidate with such asinine thinking.

 

[Shermana]

So yeah, it's really great how they totally omitted the word "Economically".

 

[Kathryn]

Cain is just the latest Republican to slip into the Palin/Bachmann/Perry slot as the wise-cracking, gaffe-prone scourge of liberalism. He appears to have even less substance than Bachmann, but he does have strong ties to the Koch brothers. Hence, he is likely to have unlimited funds and a strong political base within the modern GOP. It is hard to see how he can possibly win the nomination, but stranger things have happened. When people expect a politician to say goofy things, they sometimes tend to dismiss those things as part of the "schtick" of that politician.

Like the loveable Joe Biden, I guess.

I fully expect Romney to beat any of the current crop of rivals, including Cain. However, given Cain's backing by the Koch brothers, he may be in line for a vice presidential slot. That would help Romney to put together a Republican coalition that has a very good shot at beating Obama.

New campaign finance reports offer the first detailed look at the haves and the have-nots among the Republican presidential candidates, with just over a year left in the race for the White House.

In the reports released Saturday, two of the top Republican contenders, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Texas Gov. Rick Perry, brought in more than $30 million combined. Meanwhile, businessman Herman Cain, who surged into the top tier of candidates in recent polls, raised significantly less.

The financial reports show how flush some Republican candidates are with cash — and how nearly broke others are — as campaigns increasingly need money to pay for TV ads and staff in the final weeks before contests in key primary and caucus states. Reports on two of the biggest money-raisers so far — Romney and President Obama — reveal millions in contributions from party devotees and small donors alike.

Reports showed that Obama raised more than $70 million between his campaign and the Democratic Party. At the same time, Republican candidates raised a combined $52.6 million, more than the $42 million Obama brought in through his campaign alone.

The Obama fundraising effort is easily outstripping any of his prospective Republican rivals. The Obama campaign's quarterly filing shows that it's holding spending down, and as of Sept. 30, it had $61.4 million cash on hand.

Money Gap Widens In GOP Presidential Field : NPR

 

[Stevicus]

Likewise with the economy. Liberals may not want to economically ruin America ("economically destroy" he said), but the "want to" can in fact and did mean "consequences of intent". As well, there are in fact some "Liberals" who want to weaken America's strength and economic health (and "economically ruin" can be interpreted so many ways ) so as to make it more ripe for radical change.

I'm no great fan of liberals, but I can never understand why conservatives are so quick to blame them instead of looking at their own policies and the consequences of implementing them.

Also, I think it's a mistake to blame any current or recent Administration for the state of the economy. You can't blame Obama, Bush Jr., the Tea Party, or the Wall Street Protesters for anything going on today. You have to go back 20-30 years and look who was in power back then, since it's those policies which have had the greatest effect on America's economic well-being.

The conservative obsession over privatization, deregulation, and globalization has allowed the inmates to take over the asylum, which is the main reason why we're in such sorry economic shape nowadays. The liberals haven't been much better, as they've been nothing but followers of conservative economists ever since Clinton was elected in 1992. Clinton and Bush were identical twins when it came to issues like NAFTA, GATT, and continued MFN status for China.

Ross Perot was right. He warned of impending disaster, yet the mainstreamers ridiculed him and made jokes. Now, we're in the economic pickle that he warned about, and everyone is acting like they don't know what went wrong.

 

[Splarnst]

That said, I said, "That IS telling." I'm not sure how that as pigeonholing you. What I meant was that your comment was informative.

Then I believe I misunderstood what you said. But how is it telling if most people don't believe the OWS folks intend to destroy the economy?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

...why would an American political party want to destroy the country to which they belong?

Money.