Cain Reassessing Candidacy Amid New Allegations

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

On the flip side, what do you guys think about the DNC getting someone to run against BHO or getting him to step down? Enter HRC

There are more and more news stories regarding this (from the left). What do you think?

When was the last time a party decided not to endorse their incumbent when the incumbent wanted to run?

Has it ever happened?

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Platapus

When was the last time a party decided not to endorse their incumbent when the incumbent wanted to run?

Has it ever happened?

Happens frequently at the house and senate level. I am not aware of it in presidential races, certainly not since WW2.

Reagan ran against Ford in 76, but Ford still got the nod, same with Carter vs Kennedy in 80.

Probably the only close example would be when LBJ decided not to run for re-election in 68 after a strong showing by opponents in Dem primaries.

This year however, the Democratic Party is incredibly disciplined compared to previous cycles, something they are not usually known for. I dont see any credible Democratic challenge for Obama.

[Gerald]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15969378




Note: Update record,30 November 2011 Last updated at 19:42 GMT

[Skybird]

Latest news: Bachmann threatens to close US embassy in Teheran.



What did Der Spiegel title yesterday about the Republican lineup of candidates? "A club of liars, demagogues and ignoramuses".

The current crop of candidates have shown such a basic lack of knowledge that they make George W. Bush look like Einstein. The Grand Old Party is ruining the entire country's reputation.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...800850,00.html

I have the solution to the mess: Paris Hilton for president! She has more wits - no joke - than all those republican forerunners alltogether, I bet!

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

What did Der Spiegel title yesterday about the Republican lineup of candidates? "A club of liars, demagogues and ignoramuses".

Not very accurate to claim that Romney and Gingrich are not knowledgeable. You still taking Der Spie3el as gospel?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

You still taking Der Spie3el as gospel?

Never did, as I have so often explained to you. I take it as the only major German newspaper/magazione of the popular formats publishing a big international edition in English. For some months, two or three years ago, Die Welt also did that, but stopped to do so.

Would you appreciate the many headline threads by Vendor - if they all would be in original Gaelic language only?

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Never did, as I have so often explained to you.

Well no offense Skybird but when you quote something without indicating that you disagree with it the reasonable assumption is that you do agree with it. All I was trying to point out that Gingrich and Romney do not fit Speigels stereotype. Would you agree?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

Well no offense Skybird but when you quote something without indicating that you disagree with it the reasonable assumption is that you do agree with it. All I was trying to point out that Gingrich and Romney do not fit Speigels stereotype. Would you agree?

Actually when leaving a link pretty much uncommented, I either agree with a Spiegel - or other source - comment I post, or I think it is speaking for itself. It makes no sense to write long essays if the article I link to imo is correct or says most of the important things. I tend to add comments when I think more specifications or explanations on where I disagree are needed.

In this case, I think all the Republican candidates on display are representative for the best of the best of idiots the Republican party has to offer. The article has all laughs at their costs - and they deserve them.

Your gospel remark was a statement of a more general direction than just the context you now claim.

[mookiemookie]

I think Spiegal's right on in their assessment, however they leave something out:

They lie. They cheat. They exaggerate. They bluster. They say one idiotic, ignorant, outrageous thing after another. They've shown such stark lack of knowledge -- political, economic, geographic, historical -- that they make George W. Bush look like Einstein and even cause their fellow Republicans to cringe.

That's every politician, R or D. They're all circus clowns.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Actually when leaving a link pretty much uncommented, I either agree with a Spiegel - or other source - comment I post, or I think it is speaking for itself. It makes no sense to write long essays if the article I link to imo is correct or says most of the important things. I tend to add comments when I think more specifications or explanations on where I disagree are needed.

In this case, I think all the Republican candidates on display are representative for the best of the best of idiots the Republican party has to offer. The article has all laughs at their costs - and they deserve them.

So in other words you do agree with the article. Was that so hard to say?

Your gospel remark was a statement of a more general direction than just the context you now claim.

In the 6 or 7 years i've known you not once have I seen you disagree with Speigel. Not saying you haven't but that I have never seen it. To me that justifies the gospel quote. Sorry if my use of religious terms offends you.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

So in other words you do agree with the article. Was that so hard to say?

Was it so hard to see in the first?

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Was it so hard to see in the first?

Well yes because I figured you were smarter than to actually believe that!

No way could anyone accurately describe either Romney or Gingrich as "displaying a basic lack of knowledge" or "Ignoramuses". Both of them are very intelligent people with many accomplishments. There is plenty to dislike about either of them for without having to resort to falsehoods.

Speigel is doing what foreign news always does when it reports on my countries politics. Misrepresent, over-simplify, stereotype and generally leave the reader with a completely inaccurate impression of the subject or situation. I am not claiming that our media reports Europeans any more accurately though which is why I generally refrain from using domestic media when talking about your side of the pond. You might consider doing the same.

[vienna]

Back on to the topic...

...And the hits just keep on coming:


Herman Cain says wife didn't know about payments to Ginger White

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...tory?track=rss


It's is going to be interesting to see what happens when Cain meets his wife face-to-face at the end of the week...

[Skybird]

Then there's Newt Gingrich, the current favorite. He's a political dinosaur, dishonored and discredited. Or so we thought. Yet just because he studied history and speaks in more complex sentences than his rivals, the US media now reflexively hails him as a "Man of Ideas" (The Washington Post) -- even though most of these ideas are lousy if not downright offensive, such as firing unionized school janitors, so poor children could do their jobs.
Pompous and blustering, Gingrich gets away with this humdinger as well as with selling himself as a Washington outsider -- despite having made millions of dollars as a lobbyist in Washington. At least the man's got chutzpah.
The hypocrisy doesn't end here. Gingrich claims moral authority on issues such as the "sanctity of marriage," yet he's been divorced twice. He sprang the divorce on his first wife while she was sick with cancer. (His supporters' excuse: It's been 31 years, and she's still alive.) He cheated on his second wife just as he was pressing ahead with Bill Clinton's impeachment during the Monica Lewinsky affair, unaware of the irony. The woman he cheated with, by the way, was one of his House aides and 23 years his junior -- and is now his perpetually smiling third wife.
Americans have a short memory. They forget, too, that Gingrich was driven out of Congress in disgrace, the first speaker of the house to be disciplined for ethical wrongdoing. Or that he consistently flirts with racism when he speaks of Barack Obama. Or that he enjoyed a $500,000 credit line at Tiffany's just as his campaign was financially in the toilet and he ranted about the national debt. Chutzpah, indeed.
Yet the US media rewards him with a daily kowtow. And the Republicans reward him too, by having put him on top in the latest polls. Mr. Hypocrisy, the bearer of his party's hope.
"I think he's doing well just because he's thinking," former President Clinton told the conservative online magazine NewsMax. "People are hungry for ideas that make some sense." Sense? Apparently it's not just the Republicans who have lost their minds here.

Which leaves Mitt Romney, the eternal flip-flopper and runner-up, who by now is almost guaranteed to clinch the nomination, even though no one in his party seems to like or want him. He stiffly delivers his talking points, which may or may not contradict his previous positions. After all, he's been practicing this since 2008, when he failed to snag the nomination from John McCain. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
As an investor, Romney once raked in millions and, like Cain, killed jobs along the way. So now he says he's the economy's savior. To prove that, he has presented an economic plan that the usually quite conservative business magazine Forbes has labeled "dangerous," asking incredulously, "About Mitt Romney, the Republicans can't be serious." Apparently they're not, but he is, running TV spots against Obama already, teeming with falsehoods.

Well. That'S just that. I am not their biography writer and so forgot so many quotes of theirs and news references that made them look like stupids. But I remember that they left me so often just shaking my head, wide grin on my face. So I have no intention to see them being excluded from the flattery list of adjectives Der Spiegel used on the Reps' candidates. That has little to do with anti-americanism or stereotypes, but with lack of integrity in the candidates, lack of ethics, lack of scruples and also a lack of reasonable ammount of intelligence.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by vienna

It's is going to be interesting to see what happens when Cain meets his wife face-to-face at the end of the week...

It maybe meeting his ex-wife if all (or even most of) these stories about Mr. Cain's loyalty prove to be correct...

Originally Posted by vienna

Is that your girlfriend Vienna?