"Now Herman Cain is acting like he never met Herman Cain!"

Priceless.

Meanwhile, Perry is choking the last bit of life out of his own botched campaign.

Image: 11perrycaucus-hpMedium.jpg

re: #1 garhighway

"Now Herman Cain is acting like he never met Herman Cain!"

Priceless.

That's not the Herman Cain that this Herman Cain knows.

re: #3 lawhawk

That's not the Herman Cain that this Herman Cain knows.

"Ricky hates it when Ricky can't find Ricky's limo."

Ricky "Ricky" Henderson

re: #2 lawhawk

Meanwhile, Perry is choking the last bit of life out of his own botched campaign.

Image: 11perrycaucus-hpMedium.jpg

I have acted inappropriately with people sometimes. You know. I'm human.

Conclusion: Herman Cain is a cyborg.

Top two reasons Cain should get the nomination.

1) Virtually guarantees that Republican extremism will be locked out of the White House.

2) Absolutely guarantees high quality shows on The Colbert Report and The Daily Show from the nomination to the election.

re: #6 Obdicut

I have acted inappropriately with people sometimes. You know. I'm human.

Conclusion: Herman Cain is a cyborg.

Or..or .... Jesus?

GOP "Super" Committee: Lets cut taxes on the rich some more

re: #9 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

GOP "Super" Committee: Lets cut taxes on the rich some more

the 'Committee' merely concentrates the stupid

re: #7 Talking Point Detective

Top two reasons Cain should get the nomination.

1) Virtually guarantees that Republican extremism will be locked out of the White House.

2) Absolutely guarantees high quality shows on The Colbert Report and The Daily Show from the nomination to the election.

Seriously, I don't want him to get the nomination.

Mostly because we'd be subjected to so much race-baiting by the MSM it would make me vomit.

re: #11 ggt

Seriously, I don't want him to get the nomination.

Mostly because we'd be subjected to so much race-baiting by the MSM it would make me vomit.

How so?

Joking aside, I've actually been thinking that it would be a good thing in a serious sense. It would be evidence that at least some Republicans have grown past overt racism.

That isn't to say that they're past advocating for inherently racist policies - but making progress on racial issues will inevitably be a long, drawn out process, and a black Republican Party nomination would arguably be a significant step.

[Link: www.avclub.com...]

I RUN ON JELLYBEANS

LIKE RONALD RAY-GUN

re: #11 ggt

Seriously, I don't want him to get the nomination.

Mostly because we'd be subjected to so much race-baiting by the MSM it would make me vomit.

We're going to be subjected to that, anyway, given the incumbent.

I don't want Cain, Santorum, Bachmann or any of those whackjobs as the nominee because they are not fit to run this country. The idiotic, ignorant social conservatives propping these people up are once again dragging the entire country down with them, in their quest for stupidity über alles.

re: #12 Talking Point Detective

How so?

Joking aside, I've actually been thinking that it would be a good thing in a serious sense. It would be evidence that at least some Republicans have grown past overt racism.

That isn't to say that they're past advocating for inherently racist policies - but making progress on racial issues will inevitably be a long, drawn out process, and a black Republican Party nomination would arguably be a significant step.

what if he wins?...consider that
America is in bad enough shape as it is

re: #14 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

if it's romney, he'll have to pick a wacko as a running mate

re: #12 Talking Point Detective

How so?

Joking aside, I've actually been thinking that it would be a good thing in a serious sense. It would be evidence that at least some Republicans have grown past overt racism.

That isn't to say that they're past advocating for inherently racist policies - but making progress on racial issues will inevitably be a long, drawn out process, and a black Republican Party nomination would arguably be a significant step.

No, by getting some black/any old black and propping him up like they are doing Cain would only prove they have perfected the same old conservative, tokenist attitudes towards Blacks used against us for generations.

One of those whackodoodles gets the nomination, they've got a 50% chance of getting into the WH. I don't want any of them anywhere near it.

re: #16 WindUpBird

if it's romney, he'll have to pick a wacko as a running mate

That, he will. The GOP has really waxed themselves into a corner with this. If Romney gets the nomination the 23 percenters might just have to go third party or leave that spot on the ballot blank.

Just a drive by comment....

For the record... about four months ago, I called that the winter storms would be especially harsh this year after the exceptionally warm summer. This was not a hard prediction to make. More vapor in the air + more energy in the system (both from heating) = bigger precipitation events. This aspect of climate science is quite easy to understand and it is direct proof of AGW in action.

I would like to see one of these GOP fellows asked about that.

re: #8 Alexzander

Or..or ... Jesus?

Now that's crazy talk.

//

re: #18 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

I think they'll mostly grit their teeth and tell themselves they're voting against Obama. Romney might not get as many small donations but he'll have plenty of money from corporate interests and lobby groups flowing in. The local GOPs will make sure there are local ballot initiatives-- probably gaybashing and the like-- to get people to come out to vote.

Romney is a serious threat to Obama in a general election. I do think that he'll lack support from the base but I don't think that'll matter so much because Obama won't lack opposition from that same group.

I'd like to be wrong.

re: #17 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

No, by getting some black/any old black and propping him up like they are doing Cain would only prove they have perfected the same old conservative, tokenist attitudes towards Blacks used against us for generations.

One of those whackodoodles gets the nomination, they've got a 50% chance of getting into the WH. I don't want any of them anywhere near it.

I think that there is a quantifiable difference between tokenism and voting for a black man to be your Party's nominee.

A whackadoodle will get the Republican Party nomination one way or the other. People might have said that Bush was a moderate as compared to any of the non-Romney candidates, but his policies were disastrous at multiple levels.

I'd rather have a whackadoodle who has less of a chance of winning, particularly if to at least some degree, it advances the notion that overt racism is a thing of the past.

On the other hand, there are some disturbing implications of the possibility that a serial sexual harasser would become a major party nominee for president.

re: #15 albusteve

what if he wins?...consider that
America is in bad enough shape as it is

I don't know how much worse off the country would be with Cain as president vs. Romney. Once in office, there are moderating influences that would impact Cain, and Romney would be under more pressure to mollify the extreme elements in the Republican Party.

The point is that Cain winning the nomination would equal less of a likelihood that we'll have a president who governs with the intend of mollifying extremism - mostly because Cain stands much less of a chance of winning.

re: #21 Obdicut

I think they'll mostly grit their teeth and tell themselves they're voting against Obama. Romney might not get as many small donations but he'll have plenty of money from corporate interests and lobby groups flowing in. The local GOPs will make sure there are local ballot initiatives-- probably gaybashing and the like-- to get people to come out to vote.

Romney is a serious threat to Obama in a general election. I do think that he'll lack support from the base but I don't think that'll matter so much because Obama won't lack opposition from that same group.

I'd like to be wrong.

I tend to doubt that there will much drop-off from the extreme wing if Romney gets the nomination. Obama-hatred and demonization of libz is a very powerful force these days, and IMO, would likely over-ride concerns that Romney isn't extreme-enough.

re: #12 Talking Point Detective

How so?

Joking aside, I've actually been thinking that it would be a good thing in a serious sense. It would be evidence that at least some Republicans have grown past overt racism.

That isn't to say that they're past advocating for inherently racist policies - but making progress on racial issues will inevitably be a long, drawn out process, and a black Republican Party nomination would arguably be a significant step.

Yes, in a serious sense it would be. Yet, we'd get NO serious coverage of it.

I guess I've become cynical when the only decent reporting we can get is from Jon Stewart. On-Air Newscycle stuff.

Good journalism is something that doesn't sell right now.

re: #17 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

No, by getting some black/any old black and propping him up like they are doing Cain would only prove they have perfected the same old conservative, tokenist attitudes towards Blacks used against us for generations.

One of those whackodoodles gets the nomination, they've got a 50% chance of getting into the WH. I don't want any of them anywhere near it.

I would say they have a 50% chance. But they don't have no chance.

Which is why I still want Mitt to have the nomination.

re: #22 Talking Point Detective

I think that there is a quantifiable difference between tokenism and voting for a black man to be your Party's nominee.

A whackadoodle will get the Republican Party nomination one way or the other. People might have said that Bush was a moderate as compared to any of the non-Romney candidates, but his policies were disastrous at multiple levels.

I'd rather have a whackadoodle who has less of a chance of winning, particularly if to at least some degree, it advances the notion that overt racism is a thing of the past.

I wouldn't, because it's purely symbolic. If true, one does not need to imbue any old black person with that kind of symbolism, which is what tokenism is. Tokenism and using Black individuals as race-shields may be an improvement over the signs, waterhoses, and dogs, but anything is an improvement over that.

On the other hand, there are some disturbing implications of the possibility that a serial sexual harasser would become a major party nominee for president.

Especially if they are striving for some kind of race-redemption via the person of Herman Cain or other Black Walnut of the month. ///

But both parties (HC and the bigots of the GOP who he has allowed to somehow bestow him with such Black Authenticity) got themselves into this boat. I just wish they could play these games at some other time, when we're not in the kind of economic shape we are in.

re: #22 Talking Point Detective

I think that there is a quantifiable difference between tokenism and voting for a black man to be your Party's nominee.

Tend to agree with this.

The rules are definitely changing.

I've said this before, but I recall sitting in a parking lot in the spring of, it must have been 2007, yukking it up with a coworker at the idea that anyone really thought either a woman or a black man was going to take the Democratic nomination. Science fiction time! Cheesy unbelievable thriller time!

Now we're talking seriously about a black Republican hanging on long enough to take his party's nomination. I don't think it's going to happen, and if it is, I really wish to God it wasn't Herman Cain, who, if nothing else, doesn't deserve the place in the history books, but things are changing pretty fast in this arena.

re: #23 Talking Point Detective

I don't know how much worse off the country would be with Cain as president vs. Romney. .

I wouldn't actually burst into tears every time someone said "President Romney".

re: #24 Talking Point Detective

I tend to doubt that there will much drop-off from the extreme wing if Romney gets the nomination. Obama-hatred and demonization of libz is a very powerful force these days, and IMO, would likely over-ride concerns that Romney isn't extreme-enough.

You could be right. The extreme right stays home or doesn't according to a metric I've never understood very well.

re: #30 SanFranciscoZionist

You could be right. The extreme right stays home or doesn't according to a metric I've never understood very well.

A friend of mine Who Knows These Sort of Things says that the GOP is very good at making sure that there are measures on the ballot-- like 'defense of marriage' stuff that the social conservatives will bestir themselves to go vote for. Then, while they're there, they pull the straight GOP ticket too.

It makes sense to me. I have no idea if it's actually accurate.

re: #21 Obdicut

I think they'll mostly grit their teeth and tell themselves they're voting against Obama. Romney might not get as many small donations but he'll have plenty of money from corporate interests and lobby groups flowing in. The local GOPs will make sure there are local ballot initiatives-- probably gaybashing and the like-- to get people to come out to vote.

Romney is a serious threat to Obama in a general election. I do think that he'll lack support from the base but I don't think that'll matter so much because Obama won't lack opposition from that same group.

I'd like to be wrong.

We might be saying something similar. It's one thing for the 23 percenter dupes to not recognize that Romney is their best hope against Obama, but the GOP still has to get the moderates, and do everything they can to get the left to stay home. So, they've got their hands full.

Social issues are going to definitely be the go-to, as they are in every year, but this year is going to be one of the worst on record, I think.

Re antigay, I'm prepared for it. I've been saying for a long time I also expect a lot of social bashing on the part of the GOP especially with the overturning of DADT and D. grumbling against DOMA, and of course more kenyamuslim57states telepromptermetrosexual crap about Obama. There's no end to conservative social resentments and it's going to be mined for it's worth, because the GOP has nothing else. It's how they ended up with these crankjob candidates in the first place.

re: #27 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

I wouldn't, because it's purely symbolic. If true, one does not need to imbue any old black person with that kind of symbolism, which is what tokenism is. Tokenism and using Black individuals as race-shields may be an improvement over the signs, waterhoses, and dogs, but anything is an improvement over that.

Especially if they are striving for some kind of race-redemption via the person of Herman Cain or other Black Walnut of the month. ///

But both parties (HC and the bigots of the GOP who he has allowed to somehow bestow him with such Black Authenticity) got themselves into this boat. I just wish they could play these games at some other time, when we're not in the kind of economic shape we are in.

I'm not sure that it would be purely symbolic.

For example, I don't think that it was purely symbolic that Obama won the election.

Having two black candidates running in the election would be a message of significant importance to black youth, to racist whites, as a porjection around the globe about racial intolerance.

I'm not rejecting that there are elements of what you describe at play - but I don't think that they are all that are at play. There is more to racism than what is simply overt, but combating overt racism is a significant achievement at multiple levels. Institutional racism will continue to exist at multiple levels whether Cain is the nominee or not. I don't see where Cain as a nominee will increase the negative impact of institutional racism. Implied racism is infused in much of conservative ideology, and Cain's nomination would not, IMO, increase or decrease it much one way or the other. But it might have the positive benefit of undermining overt racism to some degree. And there would be other, ancillary benefits.

re: #29 SanFranciscoZionist

I wouldn't actually burst into tears every time someone said "President Romney".

True. I hadn't considered that.

But the boost in tissue sales would help the economy.

re: #19 LudwigVanQuixote

Just a drive by comment...

For the record... about four months ago, I called that the winter storms would be especially harsh this year after the exceptionally warm summer. This was not a hard prediction to make. More vapor in the air + more energy in the system (both from heating) = bigger precipitation events. This aspect of climate science is quite easy to understand and it is direct proof of AGW in action.

I would like to see one of these GOP fellows asked about that.

I'm a little curious about how this winter is going to pan out for those of us in the South Central US. For the last two winters, the Dallas area had record snowfall for two years running, and many days of record or near-record cold temperatures. This was despite the fact that both winters "average" temperature was significantly warmer than normal. Then, of course, this past summer was the hottest in recorded history for the area.
I get the feeling that the rise in the Gulf of Mexico temperatures that the heat wave brought (which will bring an increase in atmospheric moisture when the eventual winter cooling happens) is going to spawn more than a few harsh winter storms this year.

re: #28 SanFranciscoZionist

Tend to agree with this.

The rules are definitely changing.

I've said this before, but I recall sitting in a parking lot in the spring of, it must have been 2007, yukking it up with a coworker at the idea that anyone really thought either a woman or a black man was going to take the Democratic nomination. Science fiction time! Cheesy unbelievable thriller time!

Now we're talking seriously about a black Republican hanging on long enough to take his party's nomination. I don't think it's going to happen, and if it is, I really wish to God it wasn't Herman Cain, who, if nothing else, doesn't deserve the place in the history books, but things are changing pretty fast in this arena.

I don't think so. The only reason HC is being taken seriously is as a stick to beat the incumbent. If the incumbent were not Black, nobody would pay any attention to a food company CEO with a radio show and no political office experience at all.

re: #28 SanFranciscoZionist

Tend to agree with this.

The rules are definitely changing.

I've said this before, but I recall sitting in a parking lot in the spring of, it must have been 2007, yukking it up with a coworker at the idea that anyone really thought either a woman or a black man was going to take the Democratic nomination. Science fiction time! Cheesy unbelievable thriller time!

Now we're talking seriously about a black Republican hanging on long enough to take his party's nomination. I don't think it's going to happen, and if it is, I really wish to God it wasn't Herman Cain, who, if nothing else, doesn't deserve the place in the history books, but things are changing pretty fast in this arena.

Ain't gonna happen. I could make a lot of money from anyone who's convinced it will.

re: #30 SanFranciscoZionist

You could be right. The extreme right stays home or doesn't according to a metric I've never understood very well.

I think that a big part of Republican strategy has been to highlight any issues that will motivate the base no matter the nominee.

Primary among those, of course, is abortion. But there's a whole raft of other issues that will having people voting against the devil rather than voting for Romney. The question will be whether he can convince folks that he's not a pro-lifer in pro-choice clothing - but my guess is that he'll be able to pull that off. Obama-as-anti-christ has been a deliberate focus, and the Republican Party has made a concerted effort to cater to extremism. The libertarian extremists positively salivate when Romney starts sweet-talking about the "free-market." I just don't see many extremists staying a way from the polls. Of course, the "enthusiasm" question will be at play, but Obama has a problem in that regard also. What happens if both parties see a drop of in turnout? Could be interesting.

re: #36 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

I don't think so. The only reason HC is being taken seriously is as a stick to beat the incumbent. If the incumbent were not Black, nobody would pay any attention to a food company CEO with a radio show and no political office experience at all.

True, but the incumbent is black, which is forcing the GOP to try this angle. It's interesting.

re: #37 Decatur Deb

Ain't gonna happen. I could make a lot of money from anyone who's convinced it will.

Not from me. I still think they're doomed to Romney. They don't want him, but he's all they've got.

Better than a dead cat, or Walter Mondale, anyway.

re: #28 SanFranciscoZionist

I've said this before, but I recall sitting in a parking lot in the spring of, it must have been 2007, yukking it up with a coworker at the idea that anyone really thought either a woman or a black man was going to take the Democratic nomination. Science fiction time! Cheesy unbelievable thriller time!

Absolutely. That is exactly what I was thinking about when I wrote my earlier comments. It was inconceivable to me that Obama would be able to get enough white support right up until the votes were counted. Remember all the discussion about how pre-election polls would be inaccurate because of hidden racism? (I forget the technical term.)

re: #41 Talking Point Detective

Absolutely. That is exactly what I was thinking about when I wrote my earlier comments. It was inconceivable to me that Obama would be able to get enough white support right up until the votes were counted. Remember all the discussion about how pre-election polls would be inaccurate because of hidden racism? (I forget the technical term.)

Bradley effect.

re: #41 Talking Point Detective

Absolutely. That is exactly what I was thinking about when I wrote my earlier comments. It was inconceivable to me that Obama would be able to get enough white support right up until the votes were counted. Remember all the discussion about how pre-election polls would be inaccurate because of hidden racism? (I forget the technical term.)

re: #33 Talking Point Detective

I'm not sure that it would be purely symbolic.

For example, I don't think that it was purely symbolic that Obama won the election.

Having two black candidates running in the election would be a message of significant importance to black youth, to racist whites, as a porjection around the globe about racial intolerance.

Not when one is a real candidate and the other is a prop. Nobody would ever say having Michele Bachmann as the nominee is a good symbolic move.

HC as one of the GOP's most unhinged candidates ever, is a setback for black youth, who are smarter than nonblacks give them credit for. A lot of kids can see directly through this crap a lot better than adults.

As for racist whites and their legendary intolerance, it will take a lot more than plopping any old black in the R spot against Obama to undo the damage they have done to themselves, and our society. It will also make those people stay home from the election, having to choose between two of The Blacks™. The GOP cannot afford that and will not allow it, imo.

I'm not rejecting that there are elements of what you describe at play - but I don't think that they are all that are at play. There is more to racism than what is simply overt, but combating overt racism is a significant achievement at multiple levels. Institutional racism will continue to exist at multiple levels whether Cain is the nominee or not. I don't see where Cain as a nominee will increase the negative impact of institutional racism. Implied racism is infused in much of conservative ideology, and Cain's nomination would not, IMO, increase or decrease it much one way or the other. But it might have the positive benefit of undermining overt racism to some degree. And there would be other, ancillary benefits.

HC as the Republican nominee/conservative-white-approved symbol of Black Authenticity won't do anything to combat racism, any more than Michele Bachmann as nominee will combat sexism, for exactly the reasons you state. Those aren't the only things at play in the election season.

They are horrible candidates, among the modern day GOP's least ready to handle the job of POTUS, that I have ever seen in my life.

It's not like we don't already have to deal with that perception for the past 2 generations.

re: #39 SanFranciscoZionist

True, but the incumbent is black, which is forcing the GOP to try this angle. It's interesting.

Yeah, but look what they come up with, a guy who a bunch of white women say sexually assaulted them and groped them, calls 95% of black voters brainwashed, purports to absolve white bigots for their white bigot history, makes all manner of ignorant and bigoted policy statements about gays and Muslims, and wants an electrified fence on Mexico.

"Our blacks are better than yours" mentality did not start with Ann Coulter. We've been dealing with this crud from them since the signs came down. The only difference is that this is on a national scale, not a corporate or academic one, and thus impossible to hide any longer.

re: #44 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

Excellent post in all ways. A million updings if I could.

re: #28 SanFranciscoZionist

Tend to agree with this.

The rules are definitely changing.

I've said this before, but I recall sitting in a parking lot in the spring of, it must have been 2007, yukking it up with a coworker at the idea that anyone really thought either a woman or a black man was going to take the Democratic nomination. Science fiction time! Cheesy unbelievable thriller time!

Now we're talking seriously about a black Republican hanging on long enough to take his party's nomination. I don't think it's going to happen, and if it is, I really wish to God it wasn't Herman Cain, who, if nothing else, doesn't deserve the place in the history books, but things are changing pretty fast in this arena.

Condi Rice and Colin Powell have both been mentioned as possible GOP candidates, it's just not something they want.

HC as a symbol that so much has changed. The fact that this is even a topic tells me just how much things have not changed.

re: #28 SanFranciscoZionist

Tend to agree with this.

The rules are definitely changing.

I've said this before, but I recall sitting in a parking lot in the spring of, it must have been 2007, yukking it up with a coworker at the idea that anyone really thought either a woman or a black man was going to take the Democratic nomination. Science fiction time! Cheesy unbelievable thriller time!

Now we're talking seriously about a black Republican hanging on long enough to take his party's nomination. I don't think it's going to happen, and if it is, I really wish to God it wasn't Herman Cain, who, if nothing else, doesn't deserve the place in the history books, but things are changing pretty fast in this arena.

In 2004, when I watched Obama give the Keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention, I knew that he was very likely going to be their nominee for an upcoming Presidential election. However, I had the feeling that it was more likely going to be the 2012 race versus 2008 because he was a relative unknown outside of the Chicago area.

For the Republicans, if they could get a credible candidate, then I think that they would be very electable. Unfortunately, the three most recently in the national spotlight are either completely crazy (Alan Keyes), corrupt (J. C. Watts), or ...well, just pick one with Cain. The non-fringe potential candidates that they have had a chance to groom, they literally chased from the party with their extremism (Colin Powell and Condelezza Rice).

re: #47 Alouette

Condi Rice and Colin Powell have both been mentioned as possible GOP candidates, it's just not something they want.

Yeah that just speaks to the GOPs entire problem. They only have 17 people to choose from, and only one willing (HC) to step up and say "ok". /

Have a great afternoon alll!

re: #47 Alouette

Condi Rice and Colin Powell have both been mentioned as possible GOP candidates, it's just not something they want.

Condi has never, AFAIK, had any interest in running for office, and Powell's official policy has become that Mrs. Powell says no.

And of course, neither of them is nearly batshit crazy enough for the season that is on us.

re: #44 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

A lot of kids can see directly through this crap a lot better than adults.

Of course they can - and a lot of adults can see through Cain's ideology. But I just think that you're wrong if you think there would be nothing important, as a statement, if two black men were facing off in the election for the American presidency.

As for racist whites and their legendary intolerance, it will take a lot more than plopping any old black in the R spot against Obama to undo the damage they have done to themselves, and our society.

But I've never suggested that. In fact, I explicitly stated essentially the same thing. But that doesn't negate what might be valuable about two blacks facing off in the election.

It will also make those people stay home from the election, having to choose between two of The Blacks™. The GOP cannot afford that and will not allow it, imo.

That is certainly a possibility. But racist Republicans not coming to the polls because Cain is the nominee works to the advantage of the country. That's one of the reasons I'd rather see him nominated than Romney.

HC as the Republican nominee/conservative-white-approved symbol of Black Authenticity won't do anything to combat racism, any more than Michele Bachmann as nominee will combat sexism, for exactly the reasons you state. Those aren't the only things at play in the election season.

re: #49 RadicalModerate

In 2004, when I watched Obama give the Keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention, I knew that he was very likely going to be their nominee for an upcoming Presidential election. However, I had the feeling that it was more likely going to be the 2012 race versus 2008 because he was a relative unknown outside of the Chicago area.

For the Republicans, if they could get a credible candidate, then I think that they would be very electable. Unfortunately, the three most recently in the national spotlight are either completely crazy (Alan Keyes), corrupt (J. C. Watts), or ...well, just pick one with Cain. The non-fringe potential candidates that they have had a chance to groom, they literally chased from the party with their extremism (Colin Powell and Condelezza Rice).

Heh, see also...

re: #47 Alouette

Condi Rice and Colin Powell have both been mentioned as possible GOP candidates, it's just not something they want.

And I think a large part of why they don't want that is the knowledge that part of their purpose would be to say dumb crap about blacks being "on the plantation". I can't imagine Condoleeza Rice saying something that dumb.

re: #55 Obdicut

And I think a large part of why they don't want that is the knowledge that part of their purpose would be to say dumb crap about blacks being "on the plantation". I can't imagine Condoleeza Rice saying something that dumb.

Plus, she does things like be pro choice and refer to America's bad race habits as a birth defect.

That was never a metaphor I agreed with, but it takes some ovaries for a Black Republican to say that in public. They prefer Black Republicans who shuffle and sing and say shucky-ducky. That, to them, is Authentic Blackness.

And then they wonder why they can only get 17 people to vote for them. //

re: #49 RadicalModerate

For the Republicans, if they could get a credible candidate, then I think that they would be very electable. Unfortunately, the three most recently in the national spotlight are either completely crazy (Alan Keyes), corrupt (J. C. Watts), or ...well, just pick one with Cain. The non-fringe potential candidates that they have had a chance to groom, they literally chased from the party with their extremism (Colin Powell and Condelezza Rice).

The problem with this cycle is that crazy is an asset in the nomination race, but crazy won't be an asset in the general.

And yes, the GOP's attempt to pull out a black candidate to run has been somewhat hindered by the fact that, Ann Coulter's preening aside, they haven't got much of a group to run with. In a variety of senses.

Not that the white candidates are a marked improvement, and they were pulled from a much wider pool. Perry is detonating, Bachmann is one round away from trying to kill someone onstage, Ron Paul is still Ron Paul...

re: #53 Talking Point Detective

HC as the Republican nominee/conservative-white-approved symbol of Black Authenticity won't do anything to combat racism, any more than Michele Bachmann as nominee will combat sexism, for exactly the reasons you state. Those aren't the only things at play in the election season.

They are horrible candidates, among the modern day GOP's least ready to handle the job of POTUS, that I have ever seen in my life.

It's not like we don't already have to deal with that perception for the past 2 generations.

Sorry - my last comment got lost. I don't see how Cain as nominee has any impact on the fact that the current Republican Party has empowered more extremists than I've ever seen in my lifetime - and I would suggest ever (the current SCOTUS might well be the most extremist ever).

My question is what would the impact be if Cain were to be the nominee? Would it be positive in the end or negative? Simply on the basis of him being less likely to win, I judge it to be positive. But I think there are other positive elements as well with little downside that I can think of. Cain getting the nomination will not make the Republican Party any more extreme than it already is, IMO.

I also don't see any evidence that Cain as candidate is anything that the Republican Party, on the whole, wants. I don't see how his candidacy is part of some coordinated and orchestrated plan.

Does anyone have any actual evidence to that effect?

re: #59 Talking Point Detective

In fact, I remember just recently seeing the Maddow show were she made the argument that his entire candidacy was meant as, essentially, a joke.

re: #53 Talking Point Detective

Of course they can - and a lot of adults can see through Cain's ideology. But I just think that you're wrong if you think there would be nothing important, as a statement, if two black men were facing off in the election for the American presidency.

If you're going for the mere novelty and race-spectacle, yes, I would agree.

But that presumes the American voting populace votes solely on color and not policies. I don't believe that. For instance, it's certainly never been the case for The Black Vote, one of the most coveted blocs in the country.

But that doesn't negate what might be valuable about two blacks facing off in the election.

If that's the only standard, then Obama vs my cousin Cletus in Orlando should do just fine, then, right?

(Yes, I really do have a cousin Cletus in Orlando.)

That is certainly a possibility. But racist Republicans not coming to the polls because Cain is the nominee works to the advantage of the country. That's one of the reasons I'd rather see him nominated than Romney.

Well, I find that to be pie in the sky thinking and really bad for the election. We need two real candidates, not an incumbent and a race-prop.

re: #61 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

But that presumes the American voting populace votes solely on color and not policies. I don't believe that.

Not at all. I don't believe that either.

Well, I find that to be pie in the sky thinking and really bad for the election. We need two real candidates, not an incumbent and a race-prop.

We will not have two real candidates no matter how you slice it. At best, we will have one candidate and one candidate whose main objective will be to mouth nonsense to appeal to extreme rightwing elements.

There were no distinctions of substance in the platforms put forth between Romney and Cain last night in the debate. The actually policy stances will balance each other out. At least with Cain there's a greater chance of an Obama win as well as, IMO, ancillary benefits.

re: #59 Talking Point Detective

Is anyone making that claim?

re: #63 Obdicut

Is anyone making that claim?

That's how I read comments that "they" want to run a token candidate. If my impression is mistaken, then I apologize, but I don't see how Cain's candidacy is part of some larger plan that "they" have. In fact, I think he's pretty much a pain in the ass for the Republican Party because he's presenting a very real possibility that a candidate that has far less chance of winning the general will become the nominee.

Anyway - gotta run.

Thanks for the convo.

re: #58 Talking Point Detective

Sorry - my last comment got lost. I don't see how Cain as nominee has any impact on the fact that the current Republican Party has empowered more extremists than I've ever seen in my lifetime - and I would suggest ever (the current SCOTUS might well be the most extremist ever).

But I didn't say anything in what you quoted about extremists in the R. party, just that these candidates scrape the bottom of the barrel in terms of readiness to be POTUS.

You seem to be saying there is some upside to HC being a nominee based simply on skin color. I don't agree with that at all.

My question is what would the impact be if Cain were to be the nominee? Would it be positive in the end or negative? Simply on the basis of him being less likely to win, I judge it to be positive. But I think there are other positive elements as well with little downside that I can think of. Cain getting the nomination will not make the Republican Party any more extreme than it already is, IMO.

Cain is not going to be the nominee, so all of this is theoretical. But what's in bold is kind of a strange argument. 1- extreme in what way? (there are so many! /), 2- it would definitely make them more extreme in the sense of their heinous social issues around gender. 3- whether or not a candidate will make a party more extreme seems beside the point. Tea party conservatives have always been extreme, whatever label they have gone under. This year is no different.

I think the worst thing in the world would be to support someone like him getting the nomination because he's less likely to win, simply because: given the choices, he's among the worst choices for the job.

re: #64 Talking Point Detective

That's how I read comments that "they" want to run a token candidate.

If you mean comments by me, I haven't made them.

I don't think the GOP establishment wants HC as the nominee at all. Not for social reasons, and not for GOP-electability reasons - we're agreed on that. I do feel the "HC as the GOP's nominee would be great because he's black" argument is coming from you.

re: #23 Talking Point Detective

I don't know how much worse off the country would be with Cain as president vs. Romney. Once in office, there are moderating influences that would impact Cain, and Romney would be under more pressure to mollify the extreme elements in the Republican Party.

The point is that Cain winning the nomination would equal less of a likelihood that we'll have a president who governs with the intend of mollifying extremism - mostly because Cain stands much less of a chance of winning.

If Obama loses the TPGOP would be totally convinced that they can take down anyone at any time even more so than they are now. And there would therefore be even more pressure on Romney/Cain/whomever to back the radical element in saving America.

re: #47 Alouette

Condi Rice and Colin Powell have both been mentioned as possible GOP candidates, it's just not something they want.

Because they know the party wants a token in the race, like Cain, and they're not having any of it.

re: #49 RadicalModerate

In 2004, when I watched Obama give the Keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention, I knew that he was very likely going to be their nominee for an upcoming Presidential election. However, I had the feeling that it was more likely going to be the 2012 race versus 2008 because he was a relative unknown outside of the Chicago area.

For the Republicans, if they could get a credible candidate, then I think that they would be very electable. Unfortunately, the three most recently in the national spotlight are either completely crazy (Alan Keyes), corrupt (J. C. Watts), or ...well, just pick one with Cain. The non-fringe potential candidates that they have had a chance to groom, they literally chased from the party with their extremism (Colin Powell and Condelezza Rice).

Watts is corrupt? I know I haven't heard or seen anything about him in at least a couple of years, but my last impressions of him were that he was one of the few decent Republicans left, even then.

Unavailable video