Herman Cain may not be so bad after all, or he's just trying to do damage control since he's increasing popularity in polls. It appears that he wishes he could have defended a gay soldier that was booed during the GOP debates.
In case you don't remember, Herman Cain was among the panel of GOP presidential hopefuls that included Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul among others. During the course of the debate, televised on Fox News, a homosexual soldier submitted a question via video chat. When the soldier, Steven Hill made his statement, some members of the audience booed him. This was his statement:
"In 2010 when I was deployed to Iraq, I had to lie about who I was, because I am a gay soldier. I didn't want to lose my job. My question is, under one of your presidencies, do you intend to circumvent the progress for gay and lesbian soldiers?"
President Obama is right in the scolding manner he took to the ordeal. In no way is it acceptable to boo a US soldier. You, naturally, have a constitutional right to do so; but what kind of lowlifes boo a soldier? Chances are, some of these hecklers have never even served in the military, much less lived a life in the closet in fear for losing your career.
Now, Herman Cain is saying that, in retrospect, he wishes he could've defended the gay soldier. Why? It would only make him less popular among the notoriously bigoted types. Do you think he is saying this because of what president Obama said? Or is this a pandering attempt at getting the support of some more moderate, or left-leaning voters? Hey, it's a dog-eat-dog world -- politics -- so all's fair in love and war.
---~~*~~---
©2011 Chelsea Hoffman is the Author of "Chloe and Louis," and the "Fear Chronicles," series of books. She also covers a myriad of true crime stories online. Click here to visit Chelsea Hoffman's official blog and contact website. Be sure to like the page to become a fan!
---~~*~~---
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 39 ( 1 removed by Chelsea Hoffman )
You ask what kind of lowlifes would boo a soldier? The same kind that called me a baby killer when I returned from overseas. It was Iceland that I returned from. It could have been the same type that called my son-in-law a baby killer when he had yet to be deployed to Iraq. That was when we had a Republican dropping bombs on other countries.
If you are from Queens, forgive me!!!
Anyway, you let one of those assholes threaten to cut MY face for dating another race.. I don't necessarily do.. I prefer caucasian men, plain and simple; but the last guy who came after me with a weapon ended up with a memory of me that will NEVER go away no matter how much therapy he takes.
nuff said.
not bad for a liberal, if I say so myself. :)
We can work on the liberal thing.
Oh yeah, my wife might object...
he's more liberal than me too.. we argue over immigration and native american reservations..
(half the people on gather would shit and fall backwards in it if they realized just how NOT liberal I really am, but hey since we play word games I'll go all out and say Im a dirty socialist just because I voted Obama and think our healthcare system is screwed. I'm not stupid though and I don't think the world runs on hugs and free money.)
It's fun to get a rise out of some of the readers though.. I'll admit.
>> Can field-dress a deer in 10-12 minutes and can throw a punch like a man.
> Marry me.
Interesting, a punch and gut fetish!
The President saw the opporutnity to distort the facts to his policitical advantage. In the same way the Republicans do. - This is politics. But to believe that the crowd was truely boo him because he's an American solider is ludicrist.
He was booed for what he said, not his occupation. To say that someone in uniform cannot be booed for what they say, because they are wearing an uniform, rings of censorship. Placing the first amendment rights of one group (e.g., gay miliarty personnel or anyone in uniform) over another (those who disagree that gays should serve, etc.) is inconsistent with our Constitution and what thousands have died for.
Just a Thought -
And the difference that makes that OK is what exactly?
Anyone who says that just because someone is in uniformed they cannot be booed for what they say (e.g., a solider who says "Bush was the best President" or "hate all gays") is wrong.
>> in uniformed they cannot be booed for what they
>> say (e.g., a solider who says "Bush was the best
>> President" or "hate all gays") is wrong.
Well, first, this is not some abstract matter of principle
so that is not even the question. The solder was not
booed just because we was a soldier.
He was booed just for asking a question about the
future of gay soldiers. It was gays who were being
booed, and that is analogous to blacks being booed
for being black, and more specifically if it was a
WWII soldier returning after serving to receive
disrespect because he is black, and in spite of being
a soldier.
It is one thing to boo or cheer at a debate in an orderly
manner to express agreement or disagreement, but it
is not OK to boo a person for being who or what he is,
If the soldier did something like curse or spit or
something rude a boo might be in order, but just
for asking a question is not, the booing was
directed towards gays, and in response to a soldier,
and that show typical Republicans uncivilized
behavior.
Time to become more mannerly overall --- not just for soldiers, old ladies or gays.
Simply because there is no reason to be rude.
I like how Mr. Cain handles himself and would like to see him on the Republican ticket in 2012.
Just a Thought -
It's the price we pay for a free society. If you think you can come up with a line to draw that everyone will agree, I'd love to hear it.
Just a Thought -
Wrong, especially today, violence is so quick to be inciting, there is now such a thing as hate speech. And ... even if the law in the US were to protect that speech if it is disturbing the peace or threatening someone it is s crime ...
and there are other countries such as Germany where it would the speech
itself would be illegal.
1) He's Herman Cain. Known for his ridiculousness. He may be doing well in the popularity polls now, but it's not for long. It's only because of the temporary falters of the rest of the candidates.
2) Republicans will never win. Obama's polls may be going down, but the Republican candidates are all unqualified and have something wrong with them that people don't agree with, so there isn't one candidate that everyone likes and will get the majority vote. Republicans don't have a chance in 2012. So stop wasting our money.
IMO, your assessment of Republican solidarity behind a nominee will only happen if either Mitt Romney, Newt Gringrich or Jon Huntsman become the nominee. I truly do not believe that Republican Party members in any great number will abandon their chosen ideology and throw their support behind {any} Tea Party candidate.
Republicans just like Democrats, have their ingrained ethical mindset of political ideology. As such the party's faithful will not abandon their ideology and help elect a candidate who is not truly of their party's ideology. Some will undoubtedly do so, but for the most part, Republicans are Republicans and are not Teapublicans, the two are distinct and ideologically different entities and therefore one will not support the other.
The election of a Teapublican as the Republican Party's presidential candidate, will assure that Pres. Obama will be overwhelmingly re elected in 2012. The Republican base and Independent voters will not support a Teapublican candidate, plain and simple.
Herman Cain is no Teapublican, but there again, he is no Republican either, because he is not a politician with a defined ideology. He appears to be only a businessman whom seeks public recognition for reasons which he has yet to state or to make clear to the voting public. His, sole reason to seek support as a candidate appears to be an agenda of, "Vote for me" I'm a businessman not a politician. That being his only stated reason for asking the voters to support his candidancy will never get him past first base with Republican voters.
Not to mention the Citizens United decision extending citizen rights to corporations.
However, it does identify you as being of the Teaparty mentality.
Well said response - until the end. No reasons to insult the rest of those in the Teaparty or assume he is the "poster child" of the Teaparty virtues. Just like the other party's, they all have those who can only speak with insults, instead of logic.
Last election night John McCain had to restrain his own supporters from rioting practically, and we have the "you lie" outburst in the state of the union not mention escalating incidents in the various media. Threats of violence go well past free speech and Republicans just seem to ignore what are like bull elephant charges made to intimidate.
Pay attention.
A question should not be booed in any case either.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=Mmf0c5GrD5g
As I said above, Republicans cannot take the truth, at least some loud number of Republican, and they behave rudely and like a mob in public at national events, like ignorant thugs - as a matter of regular behavior.
I think there is something about groups that are driven by violence and intimidate at their heart that excites bullying and violence in their followers and in fact they would do more if they could than just boo, but thankfully we do not allow that anymore.
The same thing in the 2000 election, rather than have the votes counted in Florida by a bipartisan group of counters that were half Republican, Republicans had to riot, storm the precinct and disrupt the voting to stop it. Republicans always seem to eschew reason and debate to find the answer to an issue, and prefer cheating, violence and dirty tricks, and it is just the tip of the iceberg showing in moments like this.