And now Cain’s brain freeze

I’m not a Cain fan, and I would argue this video is far more damaging to him in many ways than the harassment issue(s). However, in regards to foreign policy, most of our elected politicians also cannot articulate a clear, coherent foreign policy. They speak only vaguely about “interests” which are in our best or worst, but rarely do they actually say why we these interests are ours, how those interests may change or develop, or how to even best address these interests. Most of our articulated foreign policy is artifice and boilerplate, cleverly hiding behind a fuzzy curtain the fact that the emperor has no clothes. Our politicians mouth crudely crafted mantras and slogans regarding foreign policy – “Israel!” “Democracy!” “Red Menace!” “Yellow Peril!” “WMD!” “Empire!” – without understanding or formulating the implications, the long-term consequences, the different options, or even why certain courses of action are always on or off the table. So, when blowback occurs (as it regularly does) we don’t reexamine why, we don’t recalculate our course, we yell louder “Israel!” “Democracy!” “Red Menace!” “Yellow Peril!” “WMD!” “Empire!”. Which is basically the depth of the foreign policy stances of Romney, Gingrich, Perry and Bachmann.

So, what can Herman Cain say? “Uh, Libya. Yeah, sure.” Why? Because we don’t have any idea what to do, or how to be involved, in Libya, but we have all sorts of “experts” telling us we better be involved, or HISTORY will pass us by and we’ll no longer be leaders. And what marks foreign policy and global leadership? Involving oneself in every corner of the planet, and justifying it by yelling ever more loudly, “Israel!” “Democracy!” “Red Menace!” “Yellow Peril!” “WMD!” “Empire!”

Or, if you’re Obama and the Democrats, you add “Environment!” “Palestine!” “U.N.!”.

Sloganeering and repeating the mantras saves a person a lot of time not having to think about foreign policy, interests, and consequences which frees up more time to be out kissing babies, shaking hands, and soliciting donor dollars.

Contrast Cain, Perry, or Palin with someone like Newt Gingrich, who even if you don’t like him, one has to concede Gingrich is a bright guy.

@SK

This is true, but I think the issue at hand is that Cain had trouble even articulating what was going on in Libya. He seemed completely at a loss for what Libya was and what our involvement was. He could have given a simple answer and come off fine, but the whole “Libya is…. no, that’s the other one…” demonstrates not only his lack of FP experience but a complete failure to have watched the news within the past six months. Cain’s lack of experience should be a huge concern, but I think this video shows a distinct lack of capacity to retain and synthesize information. I don’t mean that the man is an idiot, I just don’t think he’s got the chops to be president. It takes a special person.

Kirk – I agree, but I’m also pointing out that finding out someone is incoherent or confused about agreeing or disagreeing with an incoherent and confused policy stance is nothing special. Even more so when the other candidates (Gingrich maybe excepted, but I’m not convinced) simply hew to the foreign policy status quo as a means of disguising their own lack of foreign policy coherence. We have come to this – modern presidential candidates in the United States can no longer articulate a specific vision of the role the U.S. should play in the world, how that defines and shapes our interests, how that conceived role differs from previous visions, how it might change in the future and what that means for our foreign policies and our diplomatic initiatives. They are all captive to a prevailing dialectic of oversimplification and what I can only describe as tautological imperial inertia – we do what we do because it’s what we do, and we’ll continue to do what we do because we have interests in continuing to do what we do, so that’s what we will continue to do; and don’t confuse us with facts or alternatives to the meta-narrative that might make us stop continuing to do what we will continue to do.

SK @ 4, sounds like a lot of do do.

SKPeterson@4:

I understand your point. One could imagine a cheeky reporter asking a candidate to explain his position on upcoming elections in Kyrgyzstan (Cain loves those ‘stans, after all). No candidate should be expected to have a coherent foreign policy articulated for Kyrgyzstan.

But you’re being far too generous. First, even I–a perfectly average voter–could articulate the problems (or prospects) of our action in Libya better than Cain. Furthermore, it was an entirely executive-driven action (even violating the constitution in its execution). And he has no opinion on the matter? He has no idea what’s going on? Does he even know who was in charge of Libya before the invasion and why that matters? In my opinion, however, the most grievous flaw in this clip is not that Cain was utterly devoid of knowledge and coherence with respect to an important matter of foreign policy but that his rubric appears to have been rejected Obama’s position. After all the dithering, his answer seems to have been simply, “Whatever Obama did, I wouldn’t have done. Obama’s position was wrong”–presumably just because it is/was Obama’s.

Not that I’m surprised by this. He’s probably just a less polished version of the other Republicans in that respect (though Bush probably would have done the same). But it’s a shoddy way to do foreign policy.

to have been rejecting*

I’m just being personally offended on Cain’s behalf. 😉

Actually, I’m just trying to put an 8th Commandment spin on Cain’s answer (basically by trashing the others, so maybe not a very good 8th Commandment defense in toto).

Maybe I’m wrong, but Kane has had a really tough 2 weeks. Can’t you cut him a little slack? He probably had an opinion about Libya and knew exactly what happened there. He just had a brain freeze as he is trying to deal with character assinination.

@9

Because that definitely will never happen if he’s in office.

Tom @5 – We keep spreading it knee deep and then are shocked when we keep stepping in it.

But shouldn’t our president have at least some experience that relates to his office? Shouldn’t he show at least some knowledge of foreign affairs and other matters that he’ll need to deal with?

Carter had nothing, President Obama has less than zero experience.

As much as I’d like to, I don’t think I can really give Cain a pass on this one. For the most part I like Ron Paul, but I won’t vote for him because his foreign policy would be a disaster, for the world and for the U.S. I feel the same way about Cain.
It’s crazy. I mean I think I live under a rock. I rarely watch the news. Infact, I get most of it in two half hour segments on Sunday afternoon watching the McLaughlin Group and Washington Weekly. I know what’s going on in Libya. I could tell you why even as a conservative, I agreed with much of what Obama did, and why Obama was pushed to do it.

But shouldn’t our president have at least some experience that relates to his office? Shouldn’t he show at least some knowledge of foreign affairs and other matters that he’ll need to deal with?

Answers: Yes and yes. Too bad a majority of the American voters didn’t consider seriously these questions in 2008, however. As SKP said above, it would be a heck of a lot easier to explain your thoughts about Obama’s Libya policy if it had been conducted in a cogent manner.

It is pretty obvious that both Perry and Cain have disqualified themselves from serious consideration as candidates for president, at least this election cycle. Preparation and crisis response are major attributes required of our president, and they have both failed these tests. Of course, this is why many in the “anyone but Romney or Paul” camp are now giving Gingrich another look. Who would have seen that coming 3-6 months ago when his campaign staff left en masse?

“… President Obama has less than zero experience.” – michael henry @ 12.

I’m guessing you meant “had.” Here’s Wikipedia on Senator Obama:

Obama held assignments on the Senate Committees for Foreign Relations, Environment and Public Works and Veterans’ Affairs through December 2006. In January 2007, he left the Environment and Public Works committee and took additional assignments with Health, Education, Labor and Pensions and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. He also became Chairman of the Senate’s subcommittee on European Affairs. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Obama made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa. He met with Mahmoud Abbas before Abbas became President of the Palestinian Authority, and gave a speech at the University of Nairobi condemning corruption within the Kenyan government.

He met Mahmoud Abbas? The Mahmoud Abbas? And made a speech at the University of Nairobi?! Egads! The man is a giant bestriding the world!

He should have just repeated: “OOZE Beckistan” over and over. That would have looked better than his non-response.

Another toilet flush, and there goes another not-ready-for-primetime Repub. presidential candidate.

Cain has little or no experience in foreign affairs. He not only stumbed over his words, he couldn’t understand the question, and then forgot what it was.

Newt and Perry are the front runners.

DonS wrote: “It is pretty obvious that both Perry and Cain have disqualified themselves from serious consideration as candidates for president, at least this election cycle. “

There is no comparison Don, it’s a poor attempt when trying to put both men on the same playing field. Cain is an inexperienced candidate, in more ways then one, Perry is not – Cain couldn’t focus, he didn’t know what was being asked.

Grace, I wanted Perry to do well. I want a viable alternative to Romney. But we definitely need a strong communicator to help people understand conservative principles and how vital they are to our national well being and continued freedoms. The media won’t articulate them, and will actively oppose them, so it is important for the candidate to articulate them directly to the voters. Perry is clearly not that man. For whatever reason, he has been unwilling or unable to properly prepare for any of the debates in which he has participated this year, and that is unacceptable, particularly for a candidate facing a president the media will actively assist.

Cain’s big selling point has been that he’s a genuine conservative. But in the same interview as his Lybia Blunder, he said public sector unions should have collective bargaining rights, even at the federal level. Whatever one thinks of unions and collective bargaining, the position he took was not conservative. Then came Lybia…egads!

Now I simply will not vote for him in the primary. We need a president who is prepared for the unexpected; or, rather, is so prepared that there is no unexpected. In the scandal and this interview, Cain has proven himself unprepared. We also need a president who thinks strategically. Cain knew he was not versed on all topics, yet he set up an open-ended interview. That was simply foolish, not strategic. Were he a lawyer, I wouldn’t hire him to represent my interests; I certainly wouldn’t want him to be president.

@SKPeterson #1,

Stop making sense! How can you call yourself a Republican?! Not much of a team player! You’re supposed to be an Israel-firster, not an America-firster. “Undeclared wars without congressional approval”, you say? “What about the Constitution” you ask? Everyone knows we are just to pay lip-service to it while on the campaign trail. Heck, we haven’t really heeded that dusty old document on foreign/domestic policy since at least 1913. You must be one of those chaps who actually reads the founding fathers, you know, those “isolationist” dead presidents like Washington and Jefferson who crazily warned us not to try to fix foreign entanglements lest we get tangled up in the process (and get a deficit “blowback” to the sum of 15 trillion dollars and counting.)

In fact, you’re starting to sound ‘kooky’ like that Republican candidate whose name the corporate-run media dare not speak! 😉

Me@20 — “Lybia”. Ha, that’s really funny. Good thing I’m not running for president…or vice president! I might be asked to spell potato(e).
🙂

No, “we” do not like him. Some people do – the people who have turned the Republican Party into, first, the Party of Crazy, and now the Party of Stupid.

Believe me, I cannot understand even in the slightest, what attraction anyone has to Cain. I’ve worked around guys like this in the military and he wreaks of B.S. He has been fudging his way thru this the whole time, but now finally people are starting to notice.
As far as the sexual harassment stuff, the way he has handled it has been terrible. If he was a democrat, the reps would be going thru the roof, but instead reps are turning a blind eye to the whole thing.

No appeal for me at all. Sorry. Considering the fact that he still has a shot at actually being our president, I have truly lost all hope for our political system…
But then again, maybe this will increase Ron Paul’s actual chances at rivaling Romney when the primaries really start… we shall see..

Hey Martin! I can see your passionate about not liking Cain!:)
It really was hard to watch the video with him commenting on Libya.

I think that conservatives just really, really want a geniune person to represent them; and for conservatives, Romney is too liberal and Paul is not the full package (as someone mentioned above, his foreign policy would be a disaster – I agree.)

So what about Gingrich? I’m still sticking to my story; that he’s got the best shot at VP at this point… Not seeing him in the top spot at this point..

But does anyone think that a Gingrich VP pairing with Romney would make the ticket work for conservatives??

Not to derail the conversation, but why exactly would Paul’s foreign policy be a “disaster”? It is an assumption that floats around in all discussions of Paul–“haha, yeah, Paul’s views on foreign policy are totally insane!”–without being explained or defended. One could just as well argue that decades of neoconservative foreign policy have produced the real disaster. He provides an alternative that is, in fact, conservative, historically speaking (neoconservatism, interventionism, soft imperialism, globalization, democracy promotion, etc., are all highly progressive ideas). Are you suggesting/conceding that a conservative foreign policy is dangerous and/or impossible?

And, no, by the way, Paul is not an isolationist, so he can’t simply be discarded by that route. I’m a bit of an isolationist, but this isn’t about me…

Hold on, everyone! My son has informed me that Patrick Star is running for President.

He’ll take our country’s problems… and push them somewhere else.

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

Absolutely brilliant.

It’s quite scary that people like this are running for President of the United States. Yes, the issues involved in American politics are vast,
but these are the people who are going to be running the world’s greatest military-among other things.

Lou @ 24

“But does anyone think that a Gingrich VP pairing with Romney would make the ticket work for conservatives??”

Romney’s background as a cultist is not going anywhere –

Newt and Perry are the men for the job.

Lou @ 24

First Romney believes it’s the right of women to ‘choose’ to abort, then changes his mind to, anti-abortion, then in June, REFUSES to sign an anti-abortion pledge. DEBATE STYLE QUICK! But they guy won’t sign!

POLITICO

Mitt Romney’s abortion pledge

By ALEXANDER BURNS | 6/18/11 2:12 PM EDT
Mitt Romney takes to the (electronic) pages of National Review to outline his position on abortion, after tempting a backlash by refusing to sign

Blockquote The Susan B. Anthony List’s anti-abortion pledge:

“As much as I share the goals of the Susan B. Anthony List, its well-meaning pledge is overly broad and would have unintended consequences. That is why I could not sign it. It is one thing to end federal funding for an organization like Planned Parenthood; it is entirely another to end all federal funding for thousands of hospitals across America. That is precisely what the pledge would demand and require of a president who signed it.

The pledge also unduly burdens a president’s ability to appoint the most qualified individuals to a broad array of key positions in the federal government. I would expect every one of my appointees to carry out my policies on abortion and every other issue, irrespective of their personal views.”

If I have the opportunity to serve as our nation’s next president, I commit to doing everything in my power to cultivate, promote, and support a culture of life in America.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57269.html

This is reminiscent of SLICK WILLY – How cleverly the phrases are turned!

Cincinnatus,
pulling our troops out of all foreign countries, and maintaining a noninterventionist position, defending our borders and ours alone, is what I think of when I think of Isolationist. But I could be wrong on that. In any case that is what Ron Paul wants to do.
I think that would be disastrous. To do so would jeopardize the well being of Europe, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and a host of other areas, inviting invasion, and genocide.
Now perhaps one thinks that these other countries should be able to defend themselves. But in most cases this is not something these countries can do, not by themselves, not for very long.
The reality is in this world, either you dominate, or you are dominated. So America has a choice to make do we want to be dominated, or do we want to enjoy our freedoms. Do we want to enjoy free trade with the western world or not? Even the united states as large and powerful as we are cannot remain as an island. Should we let Russia and China dominate world trade, we would soon feel the pain. So it is in our best interest, and in the best interest of many of the nations with whom we do trade, that we do not let China and Russia, or for that matter nations like Iran, expand their influence. It is in our best interest to keep our trade routs stable. That’s the way I see it. But I admit its been a while since I have been able to venture past our domestic borders, I just very much doubt man or the world has changed a whole lot out there, because it hasn’t changed here.

Bror, non-interventionism is probably a fitting generic description for Paul’s foreign policy. He favors only defensive wars (as should, I tend to think, any thoughtful Christian–but that’s just my opinion).

In any case, there is a severe flaw in your reasoning–the same flaw that has “got us into this mess,” as it were. Apparently, non-interventionism would jeopardize various interests of Europe, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc. Quite. Not once do you mention the interests and well-being of the United States. Indeed, our 500+ billion annual defense budget does allow Europe, for instance, to maintain a massive welfare state while we subsidize its defense; it does afford Japan the luxury of calling itself pacifistic while waving at its neighbor China; it allows Taiwan to be unduly blustery to China as well.

Meanwhile, we’re stuck with the bill–and, as Paul claims, the “blowback.” Of course, his arguments for non-intervention relate most specifically to our interminable (and deadly) involvements in the Middle East, Africa, and Central Asia. I highly doubt that Japan and Europe would descend into genocide and barbarism were we to withdraw our troops, and I am 100% certain that, if given the choice, Paul would rather we wrap up our quagmires in Iraq than drag our troops home from Okinawa. In fact, regardless of whatever he might have said about Japan specifically, if anything, it would be perfectly consistent with Paul’s position to argue that troops in South Korea and/or Japan might, in fact, be directly relevant to our defense interests.

In any case, China already dominates world trade to an extent, and will continue to do so increasingly no matter how many troops we station nearby, as a sheer function of demographics. What are you suggesting, that we invade China to keep them from pegging the yuan to the dollar? The United States wasn’t founded as the world’s policeman, the dominant player in world trade, or the richest nation on earth.

But, for the record, you’re wrong on this point. Paul is in favor of “free trade” and open borders across the globe with respect to commerce–this, for the record, is where Paul and I part ways. He would be in favor of military action to ensure the free commerce of goods if necessary. Like I said, he’s no isolationist. He’s just not an interventionist, and thank God for that. Would that more conservatives remembered their roots in non-interventionism instead of discarding the whole thing as an eccentric anachronism. Would that they would abandon the notion that a ‘true conservative’ must be in favor of world domination and excessive military budgets.

Cincinnatus,
That is just it, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. At leas this is the way I see it. So Ron Paul wanting free trade, and yet going for a non interventionist policy around the world are two things that are just not going to work. If we want free trade with south Korea, if we want free trade with Japan and Taiwan, if we want free trade with Europe, if we want just plain trade in the middle east, we need to keep those places, well, free.
We don’t have to invade China to keep their influence in check. Where did I even hint at such a thing. But keeping our troops stationed where they are, does keep China’s domination in that area of the world in check.
Now, I don’t think our current foreign policy, if we even have one any more, is the most stellar thing in the world. I think it could be reformed. I just don’t think Ron Paul’s reforms would put anyone in a better position if carried through.
and the idea that we rely on the option of nuking anyone, and use that as our one and only military option should our borders or interests, well I’m all for nuclear power, but that though a”pauls” me.

Actually, if any two nations actually have capable enough militaries to replace U.S. forces it is South Korea and Japan. Japan has actually begun to upgrade its naval and air forces in the past year. Also, if any nation could go nuclear overnight as a strategic defensive ploy it would be Japan. Nothing would bring the Chinese to bear harder on their little client in North Korea to come to heel than the prospect of a nuclear Japan. But, while we sit there providing Japan and S. Korea with an implicit nuclear guarantee, we’re actually undermining their security and ours.

Never mind the fact that the Okinawans would just plain like us gone.

And as to China, I’m fairly optimistic. There is growing middle class discontent and resentment against the state-owned businesses coupled with a rapidly growing Christian population in that same middle class and in the upwardly mobile lower classes. Together, these developments may signal a shifting Chinese political situation that leads to freer and more open markets and a moderation of the overtly repressive state apparatus as more and more of the population embraces Christianity. I expect hiccups, but medium and long term there is much to be encouraged by.

Bror@32: Since the thread has been successfully redirected, I’ll go ahead and, first, agree with most of what SKPeterson says (though I tend to believe China is, in the medium term, a bubble waiting to burst), and, second, point out that you’re the one arguing to have your cake and eat it too. Or rather, you actually want a far bigger cake than the one you purport to desire. No one–absolutely no one, Ron Paul and my isolationist self included–believes that essential trade routes should be left essentially undefended. Essential trade routes are, presumably, a valid national interest that pertains directly to national security. But stationing unnecessary troops in Japan, South Korea, Europe, and elsewhere is not even tangentially related or necessary to defending trade routes. As SK points out, all of these nations are 100% able to defend themselves, and they would be our strong allies if they did (i.e., there is no reason that we need to defend all trade routes in the world all by ourselves). They are simply unwilling to do so. And why should they be willing? We’ve been more than willing to pick up the (very expensive) tab…for some reason.

This isn’t even to mention the disastrous consequences of our continued intervention in the Middle East and other chronically unstable parts of the globe. Indeed, they are chronically unstable in large part because of our intervention.

In the meantime, you sound more like Thrasymachus–“Justice, Socrates, is no more than the interest of the stronger”–than any conservative should sound. Other than Ron Paul, there are exactly zero Republican presidential candidates espousing an authentically conservative foreign policy.

@Cincinnatus #35,

“This isn’t even to mention the disastrous consequences of our continued intervention in the Middle East and other chronically unstable parts of the globe. Indeed, they are chronically unstable in large part because of our intervention….Other than Ron Paul, there are exactly zero Republican presidential candidates espousing an authentically conservative foreign policy.”
—————————–

Exactly. Well said.

Cincinnatus @ 35

“Other than Ron Paul, there are exactly zero Republican presidential candidates espousing an authentically conservative foreign policy.”

Here is Ron Paul’s NO vote on the AMBER alert system for missing kids

Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids.
Vote to adopt the conference report on the bill that would assign a national coordinator for AMBER alerts. AMBER alerts is an alert system for missing children, make available additional protections for children and set stricter punishments for sex offenders. Two-time child sex offenders would be subjected to mandatory life sentence. The measure would make it a crime to pander visual illustrations of children as child pornography. It would increase maximum sentences for a number of specified crimes against children. It would also make it a crime to take a trip to foreign countries and engage in illicit sexual conduct with a minor. It also would enlarge law enforcement’s wiretap and electronic surveillance abilities in investigations of child pornography.
Reference: Child Abduction Prevention Act; Bill S 151 ; vote number 2003-127 on Apr 10, 2003

How many children have been saved by this bill?

What do y’all think about Huntsman?

Grace @ 37 – You’re confusing one good intention with a good law. The devil is in the details of the item you posted. I can think of several reasons why I, too, would “vote against our children.”

1). Mandatory life sentences. On its face not bad, BUT, this is a federal law. We already have too much federal legal interference with the states. This is a state matter, not federal.

2). Pander(ing) visual illustrations of children as child pornography. What does that even mean? Any drawing of a child can be called pornographic? Don’t tell me no, because this doesn’t say.

3) Increasing maximum sentences for a number of specified crimes against children. See 1).

4) Trips to foreign countries for illicit sex with children, Morally reprehensible, but the responsibility of the countries where this occurs. This is an implicit imperialism where U.S. law gets to trump and surpass the laws of other countries. And what limits? Any person anywhere making such a trip?

5) Enlarging wiretap and surveillance abilities. Look, if the already enormous wiretap and surveillance abilities of law enforcement aren’t enough this bill won’t provide them. Also, another state v. federal issue – if states want to do this fine, but they shouldn’t be compelled by the federal government.

So, almost every item in this explanation of the bill’s “benefits” is questionable as to its Constitutional status, the international limits of U.S. law, or probable effectiveness. In fact, beyond largely sentimental posturing for political purposes, there really is no purpose to a national Amber Alert system.

Is there a current law that prohibits states from setting up their own Amber alert system? Is there a law that prohibits states from enacting the punitive measures (other than international travel) described? Is there a law that prevents states from providing other states an Amber notification of a child abduction?

I believe the answer is a resounding “No.”

You asked: “How many children have been saved by this bill?”

I don’t know.

But, here’s another couple of questions that never get asked:

How many haven’t been saved despite this bill?

How much money has been wasted because of this bill?

How many children “saved” by the bill actually crossed state lines?

Grace:

SKPeterson took the bait and answered your question admirably. I would add that Paul himself was actually “forced” to vote against the AMBER alert system primarily because our own Joe Biden added an unrelated rider that would have allowed the federal government to violate private property rights as part of the “war on drugs.” Full story here: http://slander.revolutioni.st/protects_pedophiles.html (yeah, the website’s a bit…fanatical, but this part happens to be true).

But what I really wanted to add was that your comment was a complete non-sequitur. We were talking about foreign policy. The AMBER alert has nothing whatsoever to do with foreign policy. And I have no idea why I’m supposed to reject Ron Paul’s foreign policy because of some vote he made on an entirely separate issue.

Because Ron Paul hates children and our foreign policy interest revolves around protecting children from sexual predation and abduction. Ipso facto, Ron Paul cannot represent our national interests. And Rick Perry has better hair.

SKPeterson and Cincinnatus

Your comments SKP in post 39 are not well thought out, nor are they applicable to children that are taken across state lines. Anyone who molests a child DESERVES to live in prison, it isn’t a ‘maybe’ – Going to foreign countries to buy sex is not the issue here, it is crimes against children in this country – that is the law that was passed, the AMBER ALERT.

Pornography isn’t all that complicated, photos of children aren’t difficult to discern, they are vile, and violate the most vulnerable. Your analogy of a drawing is an nothing but an excuse.

Have you ever had a child molested or taken or worse yet killed? I have known those who have gone through such hell – the AMBER ALERT, alerts those throughout the country and surrounding states that a child is missing.

SHAME – that eyes are so closed when it comes to innocent children.

Grace, you’re entirely missing the point in more ways than one. First, you’ve totally ignored the reasons Paul voted against this particular AMBER alert bill. In short, it has nothing to do with hating children or supporting molesters.

Second and more importantly, we’re talking about Paul’s foreign policy, not his other political positions. His positions on child abduction, drug legalization, prostitution, state’s rights, etc., have nothing to do with his foreign policy. Which, again, is conservative. Your comments are a gigantic non sequitur and red herring. Please stop. Alternatively, perhaps you could share your views on Paul’s foreign policy instead of ranting incoherently about a random vote he took on a completely unrelated issue years ago.

Cincinnatus @43

No, I have not missed the “point” nor have millions of others, and those who voted for the “Amber Alert” – your argument is weak, it has been used time after time, to no avail.

Pointing straight to Ron Paul’s vote on the AMBER ALERT, is just but one of his huge BLUNDERS – it will not be forgotten.

Because you cannot understand the importance of the AMBER ALERT, doesn’t mean anyone has missed the point – it is you and others just like you, who are blinded as to the horrific deeds done to children, which the AMBER ALERT throws light on, while the child may still be found alive, and before harm as been inflicted upon an innocent child.

Fine, Grace, fine. Though I disagree with you, let’s all pretend to agree that the AMBER alert bill was uber-important, and that Paul made a “huge blunder” in voting against it. So huge might this blunder be that you would never vote for Paul in a presidential election.

Fine.

So what? What does that have to do with his foreign policy? How does that impugn his views on foreign non-interventionism, etc.?

Grace,

I’d like you to point out specifically where my arguments are not well thought out. Saying so, doesn’t make it true, and your rejoinders, ironically, are based entirely on a crass appeal to emotion, not upon reason.

But to Cincy’s point. Your argument against Paul’s foreign policy boils down to screaming THINK OF THE CHILDREN !!!!! without really providing any substantive criticism of Paul’s foreign policy. In much the same way you completely dodged my reasons one could object to the Amber Alert bill on questions of Constitutionality, expense and effectiveness by misdirecting the issue to one of your personally knowing someone who has been affected by such a tragedy. While that is certainly terrible, it doesn’t confer upon you some special insight into the merits of the law, nor does it allow you to circumvent the Constitution of the United States because you feel strongly and really, really mean it.

Grace, I’m afraid you’re a politician’s dream voter – easily swayed to jettison essential principles of liberty and law by an emotional appeal.

SHAME – that eyes are so closed to the dangers to our liberties from political panderers.

Latest Rasmussen Reports:

“The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Iowa Republican caucus-goers shows Gingrich with 32% followed by former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney at 19%. Georgia businessman Herman Cain, who led in Iowa last month, drops to third with 13% of the vote. “

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/iowa/2012_iowa_republican_caucus

It might be worth remembering here that Grace is on record as having already donated to the Perry campaign. I don’t know how significantly.

But perhaps there’s a bit of buyer’s remorse, Grace?

tODD @ 48

We have not contributed any money so far to any candidate. We do however, support Rick Perry, but not financially at this point. Is it important to you, that you have this information?

If we do financially support Perry, and he loses, that does not equate “buyers remorse” –

Both Gingrich and Perry are excellent candidates.

This just in from CNN:

“Presidential candidate Herman Cain will receive protection from the U.S. Secret Service, a source in federal law enforcement and two other sources told CNN.

Cain will be the first candidate in the race for the Republican presidential nomination in the 2012 election cycle to be placed under the protection of the federal law enforcement agency. The reason was not yet clear.

While early, it is not unprecedented for the Secret Service to take over the security of a presidential candidate. In May 2007, then-Sen. Barack Obama, who was running for the Democratic nomination, was placed under Secret Service protection. “

Grace are you saying Herman Cain is a Muslim?!?

SKPeterson – 52

YOU WROTE: “Grace are you saying Herman Cain is a Muslim?!?”

What sort of ignorant question is that? – or – why would you say such a thing?

@SKPeterson, #41

@SKPeterson, #41
“Because Ron Paul hates children and our foreign policy interest revolves around protecting children from sexual predation and abduction. Ipso facto, Ron Paul cannot represent our national interests. And Rick Perry has better hair.”
——-

Well, you know SK, Rick Perry DOES have better hair. He at least has that going for him. 😉

“…I’m afraid you’re a politician’s dream voter – easily swayed to jettison essential principles of liberty and law by an emotional appeal.”
————-

Grace (@49), yes, I do think knowing more about the people arguing for r against candidates is useful in evaluating their statements. A comment in favor of Cain would mean different things coming from, say, a left-leaning person, a libertarian, a former Palin supporter, etc.

So even if you have not donated to his campaign (and I would definitely take any comment from a financial supporter this early in the game with a rock of salt), it’s still true that three months ago (!), you’d said:

My husband and I called Governor Rick Perry’s offices months ago and offered our support. We believe as many others, that he’s the man for the position of POTUS. …

Gov. Perry has been our choice long before he made his announcement to run for president.

I think this definitely helps to understand, for example, your curious desire to bring up utterly irrelevant attacks on Paul and others.

You’re not offering an impartial analysis of other candidates — you’re in the bag for Perry. Or, perhaps now that his star has fallen, are looking to Gingrich.

Unfortunately, you really haven’t made a compelling case for your faves. Just nonsensical attacks on others.

Well, as for Newt, ‘interesting’ to see that he did work on behalf of Freddie Mac as late as 2006.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-11-16/gingrich-said-to-be-paid-by-freddie-mac-to-court-republicans.html

Now that Nooty Newt has risen in the polls, it’ll be interesting to see how much dug up on him by the media will stick. I think by January we’ll see the race reduced to two, Romney and, well, since I dare not mention his name, let’s just say it won’t be Rick Perry. 🙂

Oh, ….. poor tODD @ 55

You sent me to a site I posted on, regarding Rick Perry. No where in that post is a financial gift mentioned to Gov. Perry. This is typical of your ‘ASSUMPTIONS when trying to make a point you don’t have.

Here tODD is my entire post:

46 Grace August 17, 2011 at 1:14 pm
tODD @42 ”

tODD WROTE: ~~ “So Grace (@27, 37, 38), who do you support in the election that’s fifteen months from now?” ~~

“My husband and I called Governor Rick Perry’s offices months ago and offered our support. We believe as many others, that he’s the man for the position of POTUS.

tODD~~ ”And do you have any largely-irrelevant media articles you could quote from at length that would, in some manner, give a reason for why you think Perry — I mean, your favored candidate, whoever that is — is so super-awesome, mere days after he’s announced his candidacy … or so?” ~~

GRACE: “As I’ve stated above, Gov. Perry has been our choice long before he made his announcement to run for president.”

tODD I’m sure you’ll come up with one of your ‘theories as you did earlier, @ post 29 ~~ “Myself, I have this theory I just came up with.” ~~ and then blather on.

“Rick Perry is ahead in the polls because he is far and away, the best choice.

Perry is not ahead in the polls, but that just might change, sooner than you think.

tODD WROTE: “Just nonsensical attacks on others.”

Poor Cain, he’s mixed up. That most likely can be attributed to his lack of understanding in foreign affairs. After all, running a business, be it Pizza or donuts, doesn’t make anyone a learned indvidual in foreign affairs…… unless you believe that pizza’s have terrorists, and mushrooms are about to invade our northern and southern borders – then there is always the sausage,…. yep that’s it, .. that’s the one you want to watch. Perhaps poor ole Cain was overcome by sausage, with a bit of cheese to taste.

JunkerGeorg @ 56

It just might be Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich. If it is, I’ll buy you a carton of tissue, and basket to dispose of it. 😆

Newt, I think, has far too much baggage to be a compelling or plausible presidential candidate. And I’m not merely talking about his personal indiscretions.

Grace @56,

Thanks for the offer. I don’t cry over Rinos getting elected–it’s been the status quo for some time now (at least since Reagan’s 2nd term when Reagan ceased to be Reagan.) If it’s Newt, well, I think he’d be the best of the worst, which aint saying much. Now, if it somehow were Rick “Pharma” Perry, I’d much prefer just a bucket to throw up in, oh, and a safehouse for my children, to protect them from whatever mythical cancer-eliminating vaccines such a politician with a god-complex wishes to impose upon them by direct “executive orders”, bypassing due legislative process, not to mention trampling on parent’s rights and playing roulette with their children’s health.

Grace @58,

Thanks for the offer, but no need for tissue–I’m used to status quo Rino’s. Were Newt to win, he’s the best of the worst of them imo. Now, were Perry to somehow win, which he won’t, then I’d just want a bucket to hurl in, and a safehouse to protect my children from whatever Pharma-backed health initiatives he wishes to impose upon my children by direct executive order.

Evidence that I meant to pull back the harsher rhetoric had I not realized my first drafted reply had already gone through. 🙂