Where do they come up with these rubes ......

[RLENT]

From one putz who, while Rome is ablaze, seems to think the correct importance is who is cutting another candidate's lawn ..... to another guy who apparently is the equivalent of a Constitutional retard ..... as well as having a penchant for talking out of all four sides of his mouth (north, south, east, and west .....)

Surely we deserve better .....

Herman Cain may not think it's important to know who the president of Uzbekistan is, but he might want to brush up on his knowledge of the constitution.

The GOP candidate told Christian Broadcasting Network that he would sign a constitutional amendment banning abortion.

"I feel that strongly about it. If we can get the necessary support and it comes to my desk I’ll sign it. That’s all I can do. I will sign it," he said.

Unfortunately for Cain, as Politico's Ben Smith points out, the president doesn't sign constitutional amendments. In fact, he plays essentially no role in the process.

Cain's comments came in the wake of last week's controversy over remarks that he made to Piers Morgan. Cain told Morgan that abortion is "a choice that that family or that mother has to make" and "it's not the government's role...to make that decision." After taking heat from Republicans, he walked back his remarks and asserted that "abortion should not be legal."

He also blamed CNN for allegedly taking his remarks out of context.

His attempts at damage control have done little to silence his fellow GOP candidates. Michele Bachmann accused Cain of "flip-flops" on "Fox News Sunday" and last week, Rick Santorum called the former pizza executive's beliefs "quintessentially pro-choice."

Watch his full interview with CBN below:

It will be interesting to see how he tries to wiggle out of this one

Original article linked below contains numerous supporting links links and video:

Herman Cain Abortion Amendment:
GOP Candidate Makes Constitutional Error

 

[greg334]

Surely we deserve better .....

I look around and ask myself do we really deserve better?

 

[witness23]

Cain's honeymoon is over. I like the guy, but he has made several blunders in the last few weeks that will not go unnoticed. It's not his fault though, its that darn lamestream media out to get him.

 

[witness23]

Herman Cain may not think it's important to know who the president of Uzbekistan is

I thought he didn't know who the President of "Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan” was?

 

[layoutshooter]

That's okay, Obama thinks that there are 57 states in THIS country and he got elected.

It is very unlikely that ANY president can name the name of the chief executive of every country on the face of the earth. OUR president should, at the very least, know how many states there are. Any bets that Obama does not know the name of all of the governors of those 57 states? In reality he must believe that there are 59 states. He states he has visited 57 and has NOT gone to Hawaii or Alaska. He was not allowed to go to those states. His staff would not let him. What a leader!

Just another example of why I have NO use for our media. Why focus on this? It is NOT important!

Hear King Putz the 1st in ACTION!

Obama Claims He's Visited 57 States - YouTube

 

[witness23]

Yaaaawwwwnnnnnn..........

Go back to not paying attenion.

 

[layoutshooter]

Yaaaawwwwnnnnnn..........

Go back to not paying attenion.

Why do you even bother coming into these forums? YYYYYYYAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWNNNNNNNN. Go back to not posting. I mean, fair is fair.

 

[witness23]

I thought he didn't know who the President of "Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan” was?

Sorry Rlent, I should've stayed on topic and not brought up Cain's "Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan” comment.

As to your question of how he's going to wiggle out of this one, he can't, at least not with the Evangelical's and the gaggle of candidates running for the GOP nomination that will pounce on his views of abortion. He is Pro-Choice, period. I really don't care, what I do care about is what you pointed out about his knowledge of the Constitution and what he can and cannot do as President.

 

[Pilgrim]

That's okay, Obama thinks that there are 57 states in THIS country and he got elected. It is very unlikely that ANY president can name the name of the chief executive of every country on the face of the earth. OUR president should, at the very least, know how many states there are. Any bets that Obama does not know the name of all of the governors of those 57 states? In reality he must believe that there are 59 states. He states he has visited 57 and has NOT gone to Hawaii or Alaska. He was not allowed to go to those states. His staff would not let him. What a leader!
Just another example of why I have NO use for our media. Why focus on this? It is NOT important!

Hear King Putz the 1st in ACTION!

Obama Claims He's Visited 57 States - YouTube

This is typical of the Mainstream Media to come up with these "Gotcha Questions" - playing their version of Trivial Pursuit with the GOP candidates. One has to admire Newt for calling them out for their silly pop quizes, and every one of the candidates should do likewise. My bet is that with the possible exception of Newt, not ONE of the GOP candidates could have named the president of Uzbekistan, Lichtenstein, Lesotho, wherever.

Now regarding the so-called constitutional illiteracy issue: it seems that the context of the interview was that Cain would sign legislation making abortion illegal and yes, he got his facts screwed up while he was talking to the CBN interviewer. Link to the transcript provides a better insight as to what was going on.
Herman Cain Exclusive: Tells Brody File He Will Support Constitutional Amendments on Life and Marriage

One wonders if the MSM will hold all the candidates to the same standards of nitpicking, and they probably will - except for the Republican candidate they favor and of course, Obama whose gaffes and mental blunders go unnoticed. The bottom line is that if this is the best they can come up with to disparage Cain, then he'll remain in the lead and probably pick up some sympathy votes as well. More than likely, 99.9% of the voting public couldn't find Uzbekistan on a map and couldn't care less who their president is. Regarding abortion, Cain's position is not nearly so bad as the media is trying to make it. Until Rove v Wade is repealed there's not a whole lot the President can do other than jawboning. A constitutional amendment is highly unlikely, and unless the GOP gets a super majority in both houses nothing of any significance is likely to pass through the legislative process. Besides, Cain had it right the first time - in most cases it should be up to the individual women, their families and religious counselors to make these decisions unless and until Congress gets around to passing significant legislation. Abortion shouldn't even be an issue in a presidential campaign to begin with.

 

[RLENT]

I look around and ask myself do we really deserve better?

Although my question was intended to be rhetorical, I'm glad you answered as you did.

Yes, I think you are correct in framing the question that way ... do we indeed ?

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Cain may not be versed in the art of diplomacy, or a constitutional scholar. However, he has something the others on both sides of the isle do not... a sense of liberty.

Besides... Obama, and half of our presidents from the last century, do/did not know enough about the Constitution to uphold it. Obama, at this very moment, is trying to bypass Congress to get parts of his "jobs bill" in motion. I don't ever remember reading about that power in the Constitution.

So, if we're talking about constitutional retards here, we can go all day naming the ones in Washington.

Having said that, Cain lost points with me for being a constitutional retard. But so has everyone else.

 

[RLENT]

Sorry Rlent, I should've stayed on topic and not brought up Cain's "Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan” comment.

Witness,

From the looks of two recent threads, I'd say you might have a better sense of what constitutes "on topic" than some moderators do ....

As to your question of how he's going to wiggle out of this one, he can't, at least not with the Evangelical's and the gaggle of candidates running for the GOP nomination that will pounce on his views of abortion. He is Pro-Choice, period.

I'm thinking that really what he is, is Pro-Waffle .....

And like you say the others will be all over it, like a dog on a bone ....

If nothing else, what recent history has shown us about Herman Cain is that he is inconsistent ..... and has a propensity to say really stupid things ..... which is a deadly combo .....

This, of course, doesn't bode well for his continued candidacy ...

I really don't care, what I do care about is what you pointed out about his knowledge of the Constitution and what he can and cannot do as President.

That's certainly the more relevant issue.

 

[RLENT]

This is typical of the Mainstream Media to come up with these "Gotcha Questions" - playing their version of Trivial Pursuit with the GOP candidates.

Now I know that awareness of actual facts often doesn't help forward the cause, but please allow me to point out:

IT WASN"T THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA THAT CAME UP WITH THIS QUESTION - IT WAS AN INTERVIEWER WITH THE CHRISTIAN BROADCASTING NETWORK

One has to admire Newt for calling them out for their silly pop quizes, and every one of the candidates should do likewise. My bet is that with the possible exception of Newt, not ONE of the GOP candidates could have named the president of Uzbekistan, Lichtenstein, Lesotho, wherever.

Sorry ..... but this instance is not the same as to what you are referring to .... and your attempt to equate as such, merely demonstrates that you apparently can't see how it is different:

Cain was asked a simple question - one that he could have chosen to answer simply with a "yes" .... or a "no" ....

But, being the sort of fellow who is enraptured by the sound of his own voice, he chose to expound and pontificate a little .... and then stuck his foot directly in his own yap ......

Now regarding the so-called constitutional illiteracy issue: it seems that the context of the interview was that Cain would sign legislation making abortion illegal and yes, he got his facts screwed up while he was talking to the CBN interviewer.

No, that's utterly and patently false - the context of the interview was a series of questions about various things, one of which was:

Brody: Are you for some sort of pro-life amendment to the Constitution that in essence would trump Roe v. Wade?

To which Cain answered:

Cain: Yes. Yes I feel that strongly about it. If we can get the necessary support and it comes to my desk I’ll sign it. That’s all I can do. I will sign it.

Your statement above is a clear perversion of what actually occurred ..... it's disingenuous at the very least ....

There was no question in the interview regarding Cain signing legislation making abortion illegal ..... despite what Hermann Cain may have thought ......

Link to the transcript provides a better insight as to what was going on.

The link I originally provided contains the actual video of the full interview - the transcript changes what occurred not one iota ......

One wonders if the MSM will hold all the candidates to the same standards of nitpicking, and they probably will - except for the Republican candidate they favor and of course, Obama whose gaffes and mental blunders go unnoticed. The bottom line is that if this is the best they can come up with to disparage Cain, then he'll remain in the lead and probably pick up some sympathy votes as well. More than likely, 99.9% of the voting public couldn't find Uzbekistan on a map and couldn't care less who their president is.

Well, all of the above, while certainly interesting, is largely irrelevant to this particular matter.

Regarding abortion, Cain's position is not nearly so bad as the media is trying to make it.

Ummm ...... which position of Cain's ?

Besides, Cain had it right the first time - in most cases it should be up to the individual women, their families and religious counselors to make these decisions unless and until Congress gets around to passing significant legislation. Abortion shouldn't even be an issue in a presidential campaign to begin with.

Agreed .... on both counts.

 

[Pilgrim]

Cain may not be versed in the art of diplomacy, or a constitutional scholar. However, he has something the others on both sides of the isle do not... a sense of liberty.

Besides... Obama, and half of our presidents from the last century, do/did not know enough about the Constitution to uphold it. Obama, at this very moment, is trying to bypass Congress to get parts of his "jobs bill" in motion. I don't ever remember reading about that power in the Constitution.

So, if we're talking about constitutional retards here, we can go all day naming the ones in Washington.

Having said that, Cain lost points with me for being a constitutional retard. But so has everyone else.

Exactly right - and those few in Washington that would qualify as constitutional experts are more than likely using their knowledge to circumvent the provisions in that document that get in the way of their agenda. But to label Cain or anyone else as a "constitutional retard" because of one verbal slip in a short interview might be a bit unreasonable. Every word these candidates speak is recorded in this day and age, and with selective editing small mistakes are made out to be far worse than they actually are.

 

[cheri1122]

Exactly right - and those few in Washington that would qualify as constitutional experts are more than likely using their knowledge to circumvent the provisions in that document that get in the way of their agenda. But to label Cain or anyone else as a "constitutional retard" because of one verbal slip in a short interview might be a bit unreasonable.

There's a world of difference between a 'verbal slip' [as when Obama misstated the number of states - do we really think he doesn't know that?] which every person is liable to make, on both sides of the aisle, [and 'pouncing' on them is just childish] and a response that exposes a lack of understanding the actual parameters of the job one is campaigning for.

.Every word these candidates speak is recorded in this day and age, and with selective editing small mistakes are made out to be far worse than they actually are.

Yep, selective editing can paint an entirely different picture, depending on who's editing with what agenda - it's always smart to look beyond the 'sound bytes' to see if it's an accurate representation of intent.
Cain is typical of those who want less/smaller government, though - he's got no problem with government legislating what HE approves of - it's just a problem when he doesn't agree with it.
Can we say HYPOCRITE?

 

[layoutshooter]

No different that Obama's type of hypocrite. Obama took an OATH before God, hand on a Bible to protect and defend the Constitution. Just about EVERYTHING he has done or suggested is designed to get around, circumvent, by pass or do away with that Constitution.

He either puts NO stock in oaths, God, the Bible, OR the Constitution. Maybe all of the above.

There are no lack of hypocrites in either the Dumb-O-Crat or ReBumLiCan parties.

 

[Pilgrim]

Cain is typical of those who want less/smaller government, though - he's got no problem with government legislating what HE approves of - it's just a problem when he doesn't agree with it.
Can we say HYPOCRITE?

Examples??

 

[greg334]

Now regarding the so-called constitutional illiteracy issue: it seems that the context of the interview was that Cain would sign legislation making abortion illegal and yes, he got his facts screwed up while he was talking to the CBN interviewer.

Did I actually miss something here or am I reading from one of them conservative rightwing religious blogs again?

Until Rove v Wade is repealed there's not a whole lot the President can do other than jawboning. A constitutional amendment is highly unlikely, and unless the GOP gets a super majority in both houses nothing of any significance is likely to pass through the legislative process.

Oh I get it, we can repeal court decisions ... right?

Or is it the constitutional process of sending it to the states for ratification doesn't need to be followed - right?

Even if it makes it to the desk of the president, the president would commit political suicide if he signs it and if by a miracle gets into the ratification process, I have a feeling most of the states will reject it.

Besides, Cain had it right the first time - in most cases it should be up to the individual women, their families and religious counselors to make these decisions unless and until Congress gets around to passing significant legislation. Abortion shouldn't even be an issue in a presidential campaign to begin with.

Look congress CAN NOT pass a law overriding the SC decision and they have had their hand slapped in the past about this subject - the court handed down some guidelines which they followed.

IF Cain is elected, the absolute best he can every wish for is to enforce the tenth amendment and pray that something (maybe the issue of obama care trashing Roe v Wade privacy) goes through the federal court system that may overturn (not repeal) Roe v. Wade but in the present state this country is in, it will not happen in my life time or the lifetime of my kids.

I wouldn't call him a constitutional retard for a few reasons, he is a salesman and knows how to say somethings (not perfect) to keep in the spot light but the truth seems that he is getting air time while the others who are supposed to be the stars of the show are bickering about stupid crap we don't care about.

 

[RLENT]

Oh I get it, we can repeal court decisions ... right?

I'm tellin' ya: ya jus' can't make it up .......

I wouldn't call him a constitutional retard for a few reasons, he is a salesman and knows how to say somethings (not perfect) to keep in the spot light but the truth seems that he is getting air time while the others who are supposed to be the stars of the show are bickering about stupid crap we don't care about.

Fair enough

 

[Pilgrim]

Pilgrim:
"Until Rove v Wade is repealed there's not a whole lot the President can do other than jawboning. A constitutional amendment is highly unlikely, and unless the GOP gets a super majority in both houses nothing of any significance is likely to pass through the legislative process."

Oh I get it, we can repeal court decisions ... right?

OK, maybe I should have said "effectively repealed". At any rate, there have been numerous articles and conversations by politicians, legal scholars and pundits about repealing or overturning Roe v Wade.
For instance:"... And as President, Ron Paul will continue to fight for the same pro-life solutions he has upheld in Congress, including:
* Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”
Abortion*|*Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee

"On Sunday, on CNN's "Late Edition," McCain reiterated that he would not have an abortion "litmus" test for a running mate or Supreme Court nominees. He added that while he ultimately favors repeal of Roe, "we all know, and it's obvious, that if we repeal Roe v. Wade tomorrow, thousands of young American women would be performing illegal and dangerous operations."
Washingtonpost.com: McCain Softens Abortion Stand

Evidently, there are lots of people, legislators, congressmen and legal scholars that are of the opinion that Roe v Wade can be repealed or overturned. Repealing or overturning Roe has been the point of political and legal discussions since it was passed in 1973. Try Googling that phrase - it yields about a half-million results, pro and con about the subject.

Look congress CAN NOT pass a law overriding the SC decision and they have had their hand slapped in the past about this subject - the court handed down some guidelines which they followed.

YES THEY CAN. ".. decisions interpreting a federal statute can be overturned simply through the enactment of a new statute, so that Congress has a relatively easy means to reject the Court's reading of statutes."
http://www.answers.com/topic/reversals-of-court-decisions-by-congress#ixzz1bk8tF7D4

IF Cain is elected, the absolute best he can every wish for is to enforce the tenth amendment and pray that something (maybe the issue of obama care trashing Roe v Wade privacy) goes through the federal court system that may overturn (not repeal) Roe v. Wade but in the present state this country is in, it will not happen in my life time or the lifetime of my kids.

And that would be the case if Congress passed such a law, just as is the current process with ObamaCare. Agreed - the country is too evenly split on the subject for any drastic change to be implemented.

I wouldn't call him a constitutional retard for a few reasons, he is a salesman and knows how to say somethings (not perfect) to keep in the spot light but the truth seems that he is getting air time while the others who are supposed to be the stars of the show are bickering about stupid crap we don't care about.

You betcha - and that works to his benefit, while Romney and Perry snipe at each other about illegal Mexican landscapers. If he can keep the MSM attacking him on matters of substance, he stays in the lead.