Herman Cain

[Snowboarder Bo]

I thought maybe it would be a good idea to have threads for individual POTUS 2012 candidates, so their positions, pledges, promises and gaffes could be easily tracked, and since a story on Herman Cain popped up today, I noticed we don't have a thread about him.

Today he was talking about the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro (TN) after a speech he gave there, and he indicated he did not approve of the mosque (and by extension, I believe, he indicates he does not believe in religious freedom, YMMV).

Originally Posted by Herman Cain

It is another example of why I believe in American laws and American courts. This is just another way to try to gradually sneak Shariah law into our laws, and I absolutely object to that.

Previously he made the bold statement that he would not want a Muslim bent on killing Americans in his administration (no word on whether a Christian wanting to kill Americans would be okay, tho). Speculation is that he also thinks kittens are cute and that he would not want to be eaten by zombies, both of which are also bold policy positions.

Personally, I've seen the guy speak once (and even recorded part of it because I couldn't believe some of what I was hearing) and I don't think he has a snowball's chance in hell of even getting the nomination, but then again Sharron Angle made similar statements and came close to being elected here in Nevada. And like her, Cain does get media attention, so who knows how much of what he says will make it into regular political discourse between now and November 2012?

[Boyo Jim]

Yet another graduate of Republican Clown College. He wouldn't allow any bills longer than 3 pages. He doesn't know the difference between the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

He may be right though, about churches leading the way to religious-based law. Certainly there are plenty of Christian ministers who advocate for that.

[Simplicio]

Meh, he won't break fourth place in any primary. For a while it seemed he could've been the "anti-moderate" candidate against Pawlenty and Romney, but Bachman seems to have cornered that market.

Also, I think he may have trouble getting the Muslim vote.

[Merijeek]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

Yet another graduate of Republican Clown College.

But he didn't meeeeean it. He only means it when it's something that turns out to not be idiotic, dontcha know?

-Joe

[Marley23]

The small bills thing was really all I needed to hear. Understandable legislation is fine but the idea that the problem with the government is that the laws are too long is the most putrid proposal I've ever heard from anybody claiming to be a serious presidential candidate. Apparently Cain's plan is to set up a government of the morons, for the morons, by the morons. Everybody wants the idiot vote, but that's a bridge too far.

[Chimera]

Given that the Republicans have become the party of the Ignorant and the Insane, I don't see a problem with anything he has said.

[miss elizabeth]

Well, I have heard it explained that Obama is only half black, but Cain is 100% black, and therefore will get all the black votes, and also guilty white people votes. So... yeah. There's that.

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by Marley23

The small bills thing was really all I needed to hear. Understandable legislation is fine but the idea that the problem with the government is that the laws are too long is the most putrid proposal I've ever heard from anybody claiming to be a serious presidential candidate.

Shades of

Originally Posted by The Simpsons

Dear Mr President,

There are too many states. Please remove three.

Abe Simpson

P.S. I am not a crank.

When I first heard Cain speak I was intrigued enough to want to learn more. I soon wished I hadn't. He occasionally gets a good soundbite across but the man is out of his depth in the campaign and would drown in office. He may know business but he doesn't understand politics at all.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Marley23

The small bills thing was really all I needed to hear. Understandable legislation is fine but the idea that the problem with the government is that the laws are too long is the most putrid proposal I've ever heard from anybody claiming to be a serious presidential candidate. Apparently Cain's plan is to set up a government of the morons, for the morons, by the morons. Everybody wants the idiot vote, but that's a bridge too far.

So your repsonse is 1600 page Health Care Reform bills that no one has read, and a Speaker who blurts out, "We have to pass it to know what's in it."

My niece's husband works for the IRS. Even he admits the tax laws are so complex that even the IRS doesn't understand them.

"Anyone who likes laws or sausages shouldn't watch either being made"-Otto von Bismarck.

[George Kaplin]

Originally Posted by RR

So your repsonse is 1600 page Health Care Reform bills that no one has read, and a Speaker who blurts out, "We have to pass it to know what's in it."

That 1600 page health care bill distils down to about 150 pages once you shrink the font to Ariel 10 and get rid of the double spacing and the extra wide margins. That's about 30 seconds hard graft. You could read it in a day if you really cared.

Of course, 150 pages still makes for a large bill, and it's largely written in legalese, but when what else would a health care reform bill look like? By necessity, it was always going to be large and wordy, with reference to precedent and existing laws and regulations with which the layman wouldn't be familiar. But that's why we have executive summaries. Whining about the word count of the bill is just an excuse not to even bother trying to understand it. The PPACA is one of the most discussed and debated bills in American history, and there are countless free and impartial websites devoted to breaking it down into laymans terms. Anyone with an internet connection, half a brain, and a free Saturday can learn everything they need to about the bill's contents, as well as how and when they will be affected.

Tell me, what bill worth passing could possibly be squeezed onto three measly pages? Shit, you couldn't fit the Godfather's Pizza employee code of conduct onto three pages.

[Chronos]

So your repsonse is 1600 page Health Care Reform bills that no one has read,

Correction: That the Republicans didn't read. They themselves admitted that much. My Senator read it, though, since that's his job, and I assume many others did, too.

Why would you trust someone who not only admits that they don't do their job, but then goes on to complain to you that they're not doing it?

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Correction: That the Republicans didn't read. They themselves admitted that much. My Senator read it, though, since that's his job, and I assume many others did, too.

Why would you trust someone who not only admits that they don't do their job, but then goes on to complain to you that they're not doing it?

Did you miss the part where Pelosi said we had to pass it before we knew what was in it?

And if the bill is so well crafted, why has "the One" had to grant 1372 exemptions from it?

Now, you see, here's a subject I would agree with him over. I was essentially let go from my last job because I ran up too many medical bills in 2007 and their policy was to "shoot the wounded" when things started to go south. So, yeah, I see the problems with employee insurance and why real reform was needed.

But instead of coming up with a clearly written plan anyone could understand and advocating for it, he simply let the process get away from him, and then jammed a deformed version down everyone's throat when voters in MASSACHUSETTS rebelled and put Scott Brown in Ted Kennedy's seat. Backroom deals, kickbacks for Senators who were forced to step down when their own voters started egging them.

[BobLibDem]

So Cain thinks American communities are within their rights to ban mosques. He's living proof that minorities can be just as ignorant and bigoted as Strom Thurmond. What an asshole.

[Johnny L.A.]

Herman Cain? You know who else was named 'Herman'? Hermann Göring!

And you know who he was best buds with? Hitler!

[fumster]

I think religion has no place in the law. It says so right in the 10 Commandments posted on the wall of the courthouse.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

So your repsonse is 1600 page Health Care Reform bills[/quote that no one has read, and a Speaker who blurts out, "We have to pass it to know what's in it."

I'm shocked, shocked at this off-topic, irrelevant effort to shoehorn a partisan objection to the health care bill into this thread.



EDIT: OK, I'm not.

[Procrustus]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Did you miss the part where Pelosi said we had to pass it before we knew what was in it?

And if the bill is so well crafted, why has "the One" had to grant 1372 exemptions from it?

Now, you see, here's a subject I would agree with him over. I was essentially let go from my last job because I ran up too many medical bills in 2007 and their policy was to "shoot the wounded" when things started to go south. So, yeah, I see the problems with employee insurance and why real reform was needed.

But instead of coming up with a clearly written plan anyone could understand and advocating for it, he simply let the process get away from him, and then jammed a deformed version down everyone's throat when voters in MASSACHUSETTS rebelled and put Scott Brown in Ted Kennedy's seat. Backroom deals, kickbacks for Senators who were forced to step down when their own voters started egging them.

Medicare for all probably could be done in three pages.

[antonio107]

IANAL or Lawmaker, and my knowledge how bills like healthcare reform is limited. But could the 1600 pages (or 150 "distilled pages," as someone called it), be further reduced? Perhaps healthcare reform could be passed in 20 smaller, seperate pieces of legislation, rather than one large one. It's not like they're working at high speeds as it is (of course, in saying that I realize that it would open you up to the possiblity of, say, twenty seperate filibusters...)

But any rate, I thought that was the most intriguing idea Herman Cain has. Ineloquently phrased, perhaps, and maybe not three pages. But what about 50? or 75? Or a word count? I seem to recall reading that some government agencies use the Flesch-Kincaid readability test for documents they publish. Why not use that? Jon Stewart can snicker about Herman Cain not liking to read all he wants, but I think imposing some sort of restraint on the language or wording of bills is a good idea.

[fumster]

Originally Posted by antonio107

IANAL or Lawmaker, and my knowledge how bills like healthcare reform is limited. But could the 1600 pages (or 150 "distilled pages," as someone called it), be further reduced? Perhaps healthcare reform could be passed in 20 smaller, seperate pieces of legislation, rather than one large one. It's not like they're working at high speeds as it is (of course, in saying that I realize that it would open you up to the possiblity of, say, twenty seperate filibusters...)

But any rate, I thought that was the most intriguing idea Herman Cain has. Ineloquently phrased, perhaps, and maybe not three pages. But what about 50? or 75? Or a word count? I seem to recall reading that some government agencies use the Flesch-Kincaid readability test for documents they publish. Why not use that? Jon Stewart can snicker about Herman Cain not liking to read all he wants, but I think imposing some sort of restraint on the language or wording of bills is a good idea.

How about a graphic novel (we can tell Conservatives it's a Chick Tract)? But seriously, shorter is not better. I'd rather see them restricted to a single topic: no tacking on an anti-abortion amendment on to a defense appropriations bill for example.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Procrustus

Medicare for all probably could be done in three pages.

You're absolutely right, it could have been.

So why didn't he do that?

Hey, I'll give the devil it's due, Medicare is actually better run that most private insurance. There are abuses, and you could tighten up a few things, but why not just say, "If you don't have insurance from your employer, you can apply for medicare."

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Marley23

I'm shocked, shocked at this off-topic, irrelevant effort to shoehorn a partisan objection to the health care bill into this thread.



EDIT: OK, I'm not.

You guys argued that three page bills are silly. I just pointed out the evils of the alternative.

[whitetho]

A 1,600 page bill subdivided in three-page bills would end up being 533 three-page bills -- which I am sure is what would happen if a three page limit was enforced.

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

You guys argued that three page bills are silly. I just pointed out the evils of the alternative.

No, you didn't.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Hey, I'll give the devil it's due, Medicare is actually better run that most private insurance. There are abuses, and you could tighten up a few things, but why not just say, "If you don't have insurance from your employer, you can apply for medicare."

Because insurance companies would reject anyone with any preexisting conditions, and they end up draining Medicare. Privatize the profits, socialize the risk; it is what conservatives have been pushing for decades.

[Chimera]

Originally Posted by whitetho

A 1,600 page bill subdivided in three-page bills would end up being 533 three-page bills -- which I am sure is what would happen if a three page limit was enforced.

Actually, it would have to be "In accordance with instructions and conditions found in document XYZ12345" or some such nonsense, because you cannot lay out detailed laws, treaties and regulations in three pages.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Chimera

Actually, it would have to be "In accordance with instructions and conditions found in document XYZ12345" or some such nonsense, because you cannot lay out detailed laws, treaties and regulations in three pages.

Right. Judging a bill by its length is a poor solution that's intended to appeal to the terminally stupid. An incomplete, unclear three-page bill is not inherently better than a long, hard-to-understand bill.

[AbloyProtec]

I think you guys are reading what he said a bit too literally.

Take, for example, Cain's support for the Fair Tax. Compared to the current tax code and IRS regulations, The Fair Tax Act is roughly 1/5th the physical size. Is it 3 pages long? No, but Cain's praised it's simplicity compared to the current system.

Did any of you actually take the time to view the video where he made the comment? If not, do so. If you still consider his comment as humorless after viewing it in the context it actually occurred in, well, then I'll entertain your nitpicks.

It's easy to read what he said literally and spin it to fit your argument. Anyone with half a brain that saw the speech knows it was an obvious joke, however. The context is clear as day.

In before the liberal s**t storm.

[Chronos]

You're absolutely right, it could have been.

So why didn't he do that?

You know damned well why he didn't do that. Because despite claiming to prefer simple bills, the Republicans would have filibustered something so "socialist" (translation: "efficient").

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by AbloyProtec

Take, for example, Cain's support for the Fair Tax. Compared to the current tax code and IRS regulations, The Fair Tax Act is roughly 1/5th the physical size. Is it 3 pages long? No, but Cain's praised it's simplicity compared to the current system.

Because if the bill is shorter it must be better.

[Jas09]

Here's an even shorter one:

"All income, from any source, above the national median for the prior year, is taxed at 35%".

Wow, that's short... I must be a genius.

[AbloyProtec]

Originally Posted by Marley23

Because if the bill is shorter it must be better.

The parallels drawn were to clarity rather than quality in reference to pending or existing legislation.

[Marley23]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN5AZsfpH40

Originally Posted by Cain

Don't try to pass a 2,700-page bill- and even they didn't read it? You and I didn't have time to read [the PPACA]- we're too busy trying to live, send our kids to school. That's why I am only going to allow small bills — three pages. [smiles, crowd applauds] You would have time to read that over the dinner table.

I can see how such a vague statement would be misinterpreted, what with the fact that it included a specific number, his reasoning [snort] and a counterexample. But isn't kind of ironic that Cain was arguing in favor of clear legislation and somehow accidentally made it sound like his obvious metaphor was a specific proposal? I think he actually had to disavow the three-page limit a few days later.

[AbloyProtec]

Haha, too good. Spin more. So long SD.

[Marley23]

I looked around for longer portions of that particular speech, but I didn't see any. It does seem clear he meant that comment to be taken literally. That he later retracted the comment and said it was a metaphor that nobody understood is very standard spin.

[VarlosZ]

Originally Posted by Marley23

It does seem clear he meant that comment to be taken literally.

I hardly think that's clear. It is one reasonable interpretation, but it kinda depends on your already believing Herman Cain to be a profound ignoramus. OTOH, if we take it as given that a 3-page limit to the length of bills before Congress would be preposterous, and we look at Cain's breaking into a huge grin as he says "three pages," another reasonable interpretation would be that he was using hyperbole.

And even if we do think that Herman Cain is a profound ignoramus, that doesn't exactly make the latter option less likely than the former.

[Jas09]

Hm... OK, so let's be generous and say "3 pages" was hyperbole.

How do we wave away this one:

In an exchange on "Fox News Sunday," the Republican presidential contender said that he sided with some in a town near Nashville who were trying to prevent Muslims from worshiping in their community.

"Our Constitution guarantees the separation of church and state," he said. "Islam combines church and state. They're using the church part of our First Amendment to infuse their morals in that community, and the people of that community do not like it. They disagree with it."

Asked by host Chris Wallace if any community could ban a mosque if it wanted to, Cain said: "They have a right to do that."

[VarlosZ]

Well that's just fucking vile, of course.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by VarlosZ

I hardly think that's clear. It is one reasonable interpretation, but it kinda depends on your already believing Herman Cain to be a profound ignoramus.

Or that he believed he was speaking to an audience of profound ignoramuses. I wasn't Cain a fan before this particular comment because public, but I didn't believe him to be a profound ignoramus until I heard the above. Like I said, I'm open to changing my opinion of that comment if somebody can provide more context. (In which case I'd hang the "profound ignoramus" comment on the comment Jas09 quoted.)

if we take it as given that a 3-page limit to the length of bills before Congress would be preposterous

If only we could assume that politicians would never deliberately say something preposterous.

[Jas09]

Oh, see, I was solidly in the "profound ignoramus" camp after his Constitution/DoI quote:

"We don’t need to rewrite the Constitution of the United States," Cain said. "We need to reread the Constitution and enforce the Constitution."

"And I know that there’s some people that are not going to do that. So, for the benefit for those that are not going to read it because they don’t want us to go by the Constitution, there’s a little section in there that talks about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

"You know, those ideals that we live by, we believe in, your parents believe in, they instilled in you. When you get to the part about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, don’t stop right there, keep reading.

"’Cause that’s when it says that when any form of government becomes destructive of those ideals, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. We’ve got some altering and some abolishing to do."

[brocks]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

Yet another graduate of Republican Clown College. He wouldn't allow any bills longer than 3 pages. He doesn't know the difference between the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

The guy is unbelievably ignorant. A couple weeks ago he was holding forth on Middle Eastern policy, and the host asked him about the Right of Return. Cain had no idea what he was talking about.

Another damn "Gotcha!" question. And from a Fox News host, no less.

[brocks]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Did you miss the part where Pelosi said we had to pass it before we knew what was in it?

That is not what she said. That is the Fox/Rush version of what she said.

Here is the quote, more or less in context, from a right wing site.

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/pel...ut_whats_in_i/

After talking about how some people were grossly distorting the bill, she said, "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."

She wasn't saying nobody knew what was in it; she was saying that once it's passed, the public will see that Fox/Rush was lying about death panels, jail time for people who didn't get insurance, etc.

Of course the moronic right wing blogs, including the one I linked to, were outraged. "I want to know what's in the bill BEFORE we pass it!!!"

Wrong on at least two levels.

First, the bill was freely available to read, so if they didn't know what was in it, it was their own fault.

Second, either you follow the Constitution or you don't. The Constitution says we elect people to Congress to pass laws. It's their job, not ours. And the fact that those bloggers can't read a simple sentence without distorting it, or know that the bill they are so outraged about is freely available to read, shows that the Founding Fathers had the right idea.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Chronos

You know damned well why he didn't do that. (propose Medicare for all) Because despite claiming to prefer simple bills, the Republicans would have filibustered something so "socialist" (translation: "efficient").

1) Democrats had a 60 vote Majority in the Senate at that point, so Filibustering wasn't an option. He couldn't even get a medicare buy-in past Joe Lieberman.

2) The real problem was, Obama had already sold out to big Pharma and big Insurance before negotiations started.

Hell, I thought the irony of the whole ObamaCare debate was the Republicans were able to campaign on "saving medicare".

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

1) Democrats had a 60 vote Majority in the Senate at that point

You know that was never the case.

brocks, you might have also pointed out that the bill had fewer words in it than Sarah Palin's "auto"biography, so anyone who didn't read it in the year and a half it was being debated has no excuse.

[brocks]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

1) Democrats had a 60 vote Majority in the Senate at that point, so Filibustering wasn't an option. He couldn't even get a medicare buy-in past Joe Lieberman.

Lieberman was a DINO. Apart from that, the fact that one party has 60 members doesn't mean that filibusters won't work, unless that party votes as one.

But I do share, with many liberals, the frustration with the fact that the Dems didn't even try. I simply can't understand why, time after time, they begin negotiations with pretty much the absolute least that most liberals would accept, and then let their position erode from there, rather than beginning with what liberals actually want, and meeting conservatives somewhere in the middle.

[ElvisL1ves]

Lieberman isn't even INO. He's officially from the Connecticut for Lieberman Party, but his suffix should be (R-Aetna). Doesn't keep Fox from putting him on camera all the time as an example of a "responsible Democrat', though.

The other problems with the "They had 60 votes" falsehood are that Franken didn't get seated until June, when Pawlenty and the MN GOP ran out of stalling tactics, and that Kennedy was out on sick leave the entire time.

The problem is that the Dem leadership (and not all of it) is still operating from a pre-Gingrich view of how politics work - by compromise and negotiation, not by shrill partisan denunciations. They still see compromise as necessary and responsible, not as inconceivable treason.

[brocks]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

The problem is that the Dem leadership (and not all of it) is still operating from a pre-Gingrich view of how politics work - by compromise and negotiation, not by shrill partisan denunciations. They still see compromise as necessary and responsible, not as inconceivable treason.

But you should compromise somewhere between what you want and what they want. The Dems lately have been the equivalent of a guy who is buying a car, and his first offer is the sticker price, and he gets talked up from there.

[ElvisL1ves]

But the Republicans have yet to see why they ever need to compromise at all. Their experience has been that if they throw a big enough tantrum, they'll get exactly what they want. It's useless to tell them to act like grownups when they don't get treated in turn the way a grownup would treat them - by ignoring the tantrums and letting them get nothing as a result.

[twickster]

The issue is Cain, not health care reform. Please drop the hijack.

Thanks,

twickster, Elections moderator

[ElvisL1ves]

Cain is one of the leading GOP candidates who wants it repealed outright. The way politics has evolved so that such a position can be held without near-unanimous derision is pretty relevant to that subject.

[gonzomax]

Many programs deal with very complicated issues. Medicare has to deal with doctors, insurance companies, those who provide medical appliances, hospitals and a hell of a lot more. to suggest than all bills should be 3 pages shows how little Cain knows. He can not be taken seriously.
He will soon be a trivia question answer.