• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why is Washington Post going after Herman Cain?

C

Camlon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
2,854
Reaction score
567
Location
Oslo, Norway
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
This is clearly not defined to Washinton Post, but they have been the ones criticizing Cain the most.

Herman Cain and the race card; - The Washington Post
The GOP cynical embrace of Herman Cain - The Washington Post
Herman Cain is Republican flavor of month. Who will be next? - The Washington Post
Herman Cain, the new man in the middle - The Plum Line - The Washington Post
Stand up to Herman Cain's bigotry - The Washington Post

They tell us, he has no chance of winning. Then why do they focus so much time on criticizing Herman Cain? If they are just criticizing candidates they think are bigots, then why not Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum which have come with much worse comments. If they don't think there is any chance he will win, shouldn't they focus on Mitt Romney who they do think are going to win the nomination?

I think they are scared of him, because many liberals have been convinced that the Tea Party is racists. If they nominate a black man, the myth will get crushed.
 
Obvious racism, there can be no other conceivable reason.........at least according to those who have stated reasons why people don't support Obama.
 
Camlon said:
This is clearly not defined to Washinton Post, but they have been the ones criticizing Cain the most.

Herman Cain and the race card; - The Washington Post
The GOP cynical embrace of Herman Cain - The Washington Post
Herman Cain is Republican flavor of month. Who will be next? - The Washington Post
Herman Cain, the new man in the middle - The Plum Line - The Washington Post
Stand up to Herman Cain's bigotry - The Washington Post

They tell us, he has no chance of winning. Then why do they focus so much time on criticizing Herman Cain? If they are just criticizing candidates they think are bigots, then why not Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum which have come with much worse comments. If they don't think there is any chance he will win, shouldn't they focus on Mitt Romney who they do think are going to win the nomination?

I think they are scared of him, because many liberals have been convinced that the Tea Party is racists. If they nominate a black man, the myth will get crushed.
Click to expand...
Herman Cain is a buffoon, I seriously doubt anyone is afraid of his candidacy on either side.
 
1Perry said:
Obvious racism, there can be no other conceivable reason.........at least according to those who have stated reasons why people don't support Obama.
Click to expand...

Are you going to use this straw man in every thread?
 
Redress said:
Are you going to use this straw man in every thread?
Click to expand...

Why not? Why should I be different than others? Why is it so offensive if I do it but others have been doing this for, well, decades and nobody is asking them to stop.
 
tessaesque said:
Can you explain why you feel he's a "buffoon"?
Click to expand...
His 9/9/9 plan, his not liking/trusting Muslims, Blacks are brainwashed for starters. He is doing his radio talk show shtick that's all. He is not Presidential material period.
 
pbrauer said:
His 9/9/9 plan, his not liking/trusting Muslims, Blacks are brainwashed for starters. He is doing his radio talk show shtick that's all. He is not Presidential material period.
Click to expand...

Can you tell me why the last presidential candidate that you voted for in a primary was "presidential", in your opinion?
 
1Perry said:
Why not? Why should I be different than others? Why is it so offensive if I do it but others have been doing this for, well, decades and nobody is asking them to stop.
Click to expand...

Except I criticize those who do it towards conservatives too. Why do you have to be like the others who cry racism?
 
Redress said:
Except I criticize those who do it towards conservatives too. Why do you have to be like the others who cry racism?
Click to expand...

Yes you do and I give you credit for it. My statement was stated in (at least what I thought) obvious sarcasm.

Sorry, there does not seem to be any other rational arguement other than sarcasm. I've supported both the Tea Party and OWS, but we see the same arguements there. Those who slammed the Tea Party are pissed because OWS is getting slammed using the same arguements.

And visa versa. Yes, it's always "but this is different". It's not.

My arguement looked pretty stupid didn't it? (said to those who regularly make the same arguement concerning others)
 
I do not think the establishment has any issue with Herman Cain. However, I am beginning to wonder if they are really considering anyone other than Mitt Romney. Seems to me like they are building up contenders for Romney rather than building up nominees. Perhaps they want to insure there is a contender who does not threaten the establishment.
 
Camlon said:
This is clearly not defined to Washinton Post, but they have been the ones criticizing Cain the most.

Herman Cain and the race card; - The Washington Post
The GOP cynical embrace of Herman Cain - The Washington Post
Herman Cain is Republican flavor of month. Who will be next? - The Washington Post
Herman Cain, the new man in the middle - The Plum Line - The Washington Post
Stand up to Herman Cain's bigotry - The Washington Post

They tell us, he has no chance of winning. Then why do they focus so much time on criticizing Herman Cain? If they are just criticizing candidates they think are bigots, then why not Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum which have come with much worse comments. If they don't think there is any chance he will win, shouldn't they focus on Mitt Romney who they do think are going to win the nomination?

I think they are scared of him, because many liberals have been convinced that the Tea Party is racists. If they nominate a black man, the myth will get crushed.
Click to expand...

Rightwingers can't handle the heat, so they whine about the press.
 
tessaesque said:
Can you tell me why the last presidential candidate that you voted for in a primary was "presidential", in your opinion?
Click to expand...

He was a senator, was the former president of the Harvard Law review, never proposed anything as ridiculous as the 9-9-9 plan (no major candidate from either party has in my lifetime), and never said anything as absurd as claiming he would not appoint a Muslim to his cabinet.

The problem is that the religious right, of which Caine is a darling of, is as far outside of the mainstream of American anymore as a communist is. They are extremists in every way.
 
pbrauer said:
His 9/9/9 plan, his not liking/trusting Muslims, Blacks are brainwashed for starters. He is doing his radio talk show shtick that's all. He is not Presidential material period.
Click to expand...
His 9/9/9 plan is good. Or are you in favour of crony capitalism? I would prefer an addition of a higher tax bracket for the rich, but it is way better than today's tax system. He never said blacks were brainwashed. He said black democrats who do not consider another view are brainwashed. I agree, and I think most conservatives do. The Muslim issue is minor.

However, if they just think he is a buffoon, then why the need to criticize him, and tell us over and over again that they think he has no chance. They should be promoting him. If he is a funny, ridiculous person, then that provides for many comedy articles. Also, consider that when Michelle Bachmann was surging Washington Post was promoting her . I think the agenda is pretty obvious. I don't really mind, because who reads Washingron Post anyway. I just think it's funny they are scared for him.

Michele Bachmann steals the show at GOP debate - The Washington Post
Why Michele Bachmann is no Sarah Palin - The Washington Post
Michele Bachmann’s leadership IQ - The Washington Post
 
Camlon said:
However, if they just think he is a buffoon, then why the need to criticize him,
Click to expand...

Umm, they need to sell papers. It's how they make money.

Suddenly, the right doesn't like it when corporation tries to make money
 
sangha said:
Umm, they need to sell papers. It's how they make money.

Suddenly, the right doesn't like it when corporation tries to make money
Click to expand...
Sorry, your argument makes no sense. If they all agreed he is a buffoon, then they can make comedy articles about him like they do with Sarah Palin and Donald Trump. Or they could be promoting him in the hope of getting him nominated.

I don't mind, because who reads Washington Post anyway. They are fighting a desperate uphill battle.
 
Camlon said:
Sorry, your argument makes no sense. If they all agreed he is a buffoon, then they can make comedy articles about him like they do with Sarah Palin and Donald Trump. Or they could be promoting him in the hope of getting him nominated.

I don't mind, because who reads Washington Post anyway. They are fighting a desperate uphill battle.
Click to expand...

It's a free country. They can decide for themselves. If you want to make the decisions for them, apply for the editors job
 
sangha said:
It's a free country. They can decide for themselves. If you want to make the decisions for them, apply for the editors job
Click to expand...
Come on! Of course they can criticize who ever they want. Do you think I'm in favor of censorship?!

But since it is a free country, I am allowed to point out their obvious agenda.
 
Camlon said:
Come on! Of course they can criticize who ever they want. Do you think I'm in favor of censorship?!

But since it is a free country, I am allowed to point out their obvious agenda.
Click to expand...

Of course you are free to make up fictions as often as you like
 
Camlon said:
Come on! Of course they can criticize who ever they want. Do you think I'm in favor of censorship?!

But since it is a free country, I am allowed to point out their obvious agenda.
Click to expand...

There is no agenda other than responsible journalism. Herman Caine was a 3rd tier candidate until the last couple of weeks. His sudden rise in the polls brought on press scrutiny of his past statements and policy positions. As he seems to put his foot in his mouth a lot, he gives the press a lot to work with. For example, despite being a total nutjob, Rick Santorum gets very little press scrutiny. However, if he were to all of a sudden rise in the polls, then the press would be all over him being he is a total nutjob.

That is not to say that the press does not have its media darlings. The press seems to like covering Huntsman a lot more than Republican primary voters seem to like him.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
He was a senator, was the former president of the Harvard Law review, never proposed anything as ridiculous as the 9-9-9 plan (no major candidate from either party has in my lifetime), and never said anything as absurd as claiming he would not appoint a Muslim to his cabinet.

The problem is that the religious right, of which Caine is a darling of, is as far outside of the mainstream of American anymore as a communist is. They are extremists in every way.
Click to expand...

You know what I'm bored to tears with? Somebody being labeled as the "candidate of extremists" simply because they aren't a candidate that you would vote for. The only candidate recently who hasn't been pegged as such was Romney, whose stance has changed so much and so often in the past 8 years it's hard to know what he actually, legitimately supports. And this isn't just a "damned leftists and their labels" thing. The right does it, too.

But I think it's important to remember that consistent adherence to ideology and personal beliefs =/= extremism. The inability to recognize any other ideology certainly would, as would the willingness to violate the limitations on your authority, break the law, or circumvent standing rules and procedures....but even that "ridiculous" 9-9-9 plan of Cain's shows he's willing to compromise between two opposing principles to create a working system, and by utilizing the existing legislative process, without expanding/diminishing the role of any other branch of government.
 
Caine is described as an "extremist" because his positions on the issues are extreme. Romneys positions are not extreme. Flexible, but not extreme.
 
Why are the Post and other media outlets going after Cain? Because he is rising in the ranks of the GOP nominees. Had he been in the top four when they were barbequing Perry and Bachmann, he would have been on the grill next to them.

Before anyone says the Post is treating GOPs different that Obama - go check some of the negative pieces they have done about Obama.
 
sangha said:
Caine is described as an "extremist" because his positions on the issues are extreme. Romneys positions are not extreme. Flexible, but not extreme.
Click to expand...

Okay. Here's his published position on national security. Would you mind explaining why it is extreme?

The primary duty of the President of the United States is to protect our people. In fact, it is the principal duty of a limited federal government. They must ensure that our military and all of our security agencies are strong and capable.

Unfortunately, national security has become far too politicized with our elected officials using the issue as a means to polarize our country as the “war hawks” and the “peace doves.” In response, the safety and morale of our brave men and women in uniform are often at risk for political gain. The judgment of our military experts on the ground is often underutilized in exchange for political purposes. National security isn’t about politics. It’s about defending America.

While diplomacy is a critical tool in solving the complex security issues we face, it must never compromise military might. Because we are such a free and prosperous people, we are the envy of the world. Many regimes seek to destroy us because they are threatened by our ideals, and they resent our prosperity. We must acknowledge the real and present danger that terrorist nations and organizations pose to our country’s future.

Further, we must stand by our friends and we must not be fooled by our enemies. We should never be deceived by terrorists. They only have one objective, namely, to kill all of us. We must always remain vigilant in dealing with adversaries.

We must support our military with the best training, equipment, technology and infrastructure necessary to keep them in a position to win. We must also provide our men and women in uniform, our veterans and their families with the benefits they deserve for their tremendous sacrifice. These heroes have served us. We must never forget to serve them.
Click to expand...

I'll post his stance on education after I see your response.
 
Last edited:
SouthernDemocrat said:
There is no agenda other than responsible journalism. Herman Caine was a 3rd tier candidate until the last couple of weeks. His sudden rise in the polls brought on press scrutiny of his past statements and policy positions. As he seems to put his foot in his mouth a lot, he gives the press a lot to work with. For example, despite being a total nutjob, Rick Santorum gets very little press scrutiny. However, if he were to all of a sudden rise in the polls, then the press would be all over him being he is a total nutjob.

That is not to say that the press does not have its media darlings. The press seems to like covering Huntsman a lot more than Republican primary voters seem to like him.
Click to expand...
This is not a criticism of the press. This is clearly directed at Washington Post, and a few other liberal media. Most media outlets are not going after Herman Cain.

But, Michelle Bachmann did in fact rise in the polls, and she got promoted by Washington Post. How do you explain that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom