Herman Cain makes another great joke(/ends his campaign)

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.....it's over.   He has to retract this TONIGHT at the debate....but, even if he does, it's still over

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

now we know what 999 stands for:  the number of terrorists Cain would exchange for one US soldier...even though it cost the lives of many US soldiers to bring those 999 terrorists to justice...not to mention the potential harm to US citizens these terrorists would pose.


it's over

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

another softball question ends the political career of a Republican.  His answer regarding Israel's policy was acceptable cause it's Israel's policy...but his answer to the follow-up question was the "wrong answer"

did the guy not ever read a newspaper, esp during the 80's?

See Reps, this is why you need to nominate jmfcst.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

God this is hilarious to me.  That photo of Cain from jmfcst's sig looks like Cain just finished a great show and is saying thank you, good night.  Ironic for Republicans to have bashed Obama as all flashy talk then fall in love at first sight with Cain, Perry, Bachmann, Trump, Palin...

hey, I never fell in love with Perry Bachmann or Trump...but, holy cow, I do expect someone to know basic GeoPolitics101

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

...and jmfcst is showing us why the Republicans can't find a nominee. It's like survivor, once you say something "wrong" (to the Republican base) you're out.

"wrong" = just about the worst foreign policy answer given by any US candidate for POTUS in the history of the United States

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

...and jmfcst is showing us why the Republicans can't find a nominee. It's like survivor, once you say something "wrong" (to the Republican base) you're out.

"wrong" = just about the worst foreign policy answer given by any US candidate for POTUS in the history of the United States

You cant be serious? The life on an innocent Israeli soldier is not worth letting 1000 worthless Palestinian petty criminals go? Are these guys proven terrorist? Is it even our own business?
[/quote

]Israel's policy was the first question...I didn't have a problem with the first answer....but the 2nd question was a specific hypothetical involving a US soldier held by al
Qaeda demanding the release of all prisoners in Gitmo

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

all he had to say is that "the Israeli government has made a promise with the people of their country that they will pay whatever price for the safe return of any Israeli soldier, including 1000:1 terrorists for one soldier swap....so, the Israeli decision is according to their promise to their people..but if you ask me what I would do as POTUS, I don't make the deal on the simple principle that the United States has lost thousands of soldiers to bring these terrorists to justice and I don't want to dishonor the sacrifice of thousands of soldiers lives to save a single American soldiers life...not to mention the harm to the American people, maybe millions, that releasing their terrorists would place the United States in....If the Israelis want to do terrorists for single Israeli soldier, then that is their choice according to the promises made to their people, but the policy of the US is that we don't negiotiate with terrorists. Period."

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I'm one of the most pro-Israeli posters on this board, but that doesn't mean I wont contrast Israeli policy with American policy.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You might not have done that, but Blitzer forced the comparison.

I meant that I'm not afraid to make the comparison

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Well that's political suicide.

it is not political suicide to say "that is the Israeli policy, they may believe it works for them...we in the US don't believe it works for us."

trust me, I have enough of Israel's back to make that comparison and get away with it....but, at the very least, Cain should have rejected the follow up question on the basis that it was a hypothetical.


I don't carry water for Cain or any other candidate.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

So who is your favored candidate now?

not sure yet...but someone who has read the paper

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I've heard Huntsman is seeking the jmfcst endorsement.

Gingrich might be next, in all seriousness. What does that stand for, anyway?

look, if Obama had given Cain's answer to the followup question, I'd be calling for Obama's head on a platter...so I am not going to go easy on Cain just because he is a Republican

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

for those who know presidential debate history, if this had happened during a debate with Obama, it would have been at least as bad as Ford's gaffe, and would have cost the GOP the election.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8rg9c4pUrg

I understand Cain was simply trying to give a standard, "well, I'll look at all the facts" answer.  But the answer to follow up question, according to America policy since the Iran-Contra Affair, is black and white: we don't negotiate with terrorists, esp not terrorists we have brought to justice at a cost of thousands of US soldiers' lives.

You could tell during the debate tonight (gone was Cain's swagger) that this gaffe was weighing heavily on Cain and that his advisors told him before stepping on stage that he MUST retract it during the debate or else his campaign was over.  The only possible saving grace for Cain is that the vast majority of Americans heard his retraction before they knew about the gaffe.

At the very least, Cain just lost the favor of talk radio...because I can guarantee this will spread like wildfire across the AM dial....in fact, on the way home tonight, both 700 and 1070 Houston stations were already playing the sound recording of Cain's response to Blitzer.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Also realize this will have no actual bearing on the campaign.

it already had a bearing - just look at Cain's performance tonight.  I could tell the moment he walked on stage that he was vexed, knowing that he had just screwed himself two short hours before the debate.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

jmfcst should have the caption in his sig:

well, what really chaps me was this wasnt a gotta question like "Define the Bush Doctrine"...rather it was a softball junior high question that had a clear cut answer and he attempted to give a generic non committal answer.

Blitzer:  "Herman Cain, would you sell your mother and send her C.O.D."

Cain:  "I can see myself doing that, but I would want to examine all the facts first, and then make the tough decision a POTUS has to make."