The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

If he didn't have enough public relations problems already, Cain continued to raise questions about his views on abortion Tuesday night.

Asked about the issue on the Fox News program Special Report with Brett Baier, Cain reiterated his anti-abortion credentials, as he has several times in the past few weeks: "I believe that abortion should be illegal. I've always felt that way. I believe life begins at conception."

But explaining his comments on CNN's Piers Morgan show two weeks ago when he said it the decision was best left to the woman and her family in some instances, Cain said: " But the point I was trying to make if a situation exists where they may consider some other alternative, then how will the law prevent that? That was the point I was trying to make."

When pressed about which situations he was referring to, Cain would only say, "An extreme situation, very extreme situation."

Asked if by those extreme situations, he meant rape and incest, Cain insisted: "I do not have exceptions. No I do not. I am pro-life from conception."

but instead must be dancing (playing minstrel) for the favor and money of unseen calculating white oppressors.

“If I were president, I would sign legislation that would protect the sanctity of life”

That shouldn't be too hard for you to understand - that is if understanding is what you really want here.

I find this to be a rather amazing and offensive assertion. Moreover it denies the essence of the proposition of individual equality and freedom that clearly underlies all the rest of their political aims with respect to racial issues.

I have heard several political commentators referring to supposed "minstrel behavior" on the part of right wing black political figures.

“If I were president, I would sign legislation that would protect the sanctity of life”

How's he going to make abortion illegal if he let's women make the choice?

If it's illegal then the government is not staying out of the question.

None of can know Cain's motives for sure (or those of any one else either). However, Setanta's expressed views are at least plausible.

What exactly do you mean by the inference that other, "more calculating" people may be involved?

I have heard several political commentators referring to supposed "minstrel behavior" on the part of right wing black political figures. Evidently these commentators believe (and some even explicitly assert) that no black person can honestly think or act outside the context of what they refer to as "the black experience or collective memory". They go on to suggest that any who do express such out of context ideas, cannot possibly be thinking for themselves as individuals, but instead must be dancing (playing minstrel) for the favor and money of unseen calculating white oppressors.

I find this to be a rather amazing and offensive assertion. Moreover it denies the essence of the proposition of individual equality and freedom that clearly underlies all the rest of their political aims with respect to racial issues. The truth here is that blacks, like everyone else, are often exploited by their own group of self-serving opportunistic political leaders who would keep them in the dependent herd simply to foster the power and prominence of these self appointed "leaders". To the degree that such exploiters are successful in fostering such group think, the folks in the herd (whether black or any other group) remain duped, exploited and unfree.

That ain't the authentic "black experience or collective memory" if Rider Haggard is anything to go by.

And Mr Cain is blacker than Mr Obama. I like Mr Cain. I don't think he will win mind you but I hope he does.

And I don’t see someone who is doing homework like someone who is serious about becoming the POTUS. I don’t see someone who wants to be president – I simply see an opportunist and not much more.

Yeah, it looks like they're gonna be stuck with Weather-Vane Willard, after furiously casting about for ANYONE else they could be more excited about.
I was thinking Perry would be their white knight for awhile, and it scared the bejeepers outta me to think of what he'd do to the country.

I think bland and wishy-washy Mitt only has a chance because of the determination to elect ABO (anyone but Obama). It can't be because of the man's core values. He ain't got any.

In 1875, Haggard's father sent him to what is now South Africa, to take up an unpaid position as assistant to the secretary to Sir Henry Bulwer, Lieutenant-Governor of the Colony of Natal. In 1876 he was transferred to the staff of Sir Theophilus Shepstone, Special Commissioner for the Transvaal. It was in this role that Haggard was present in Pretoria in April 1877 for the official announcement of the British annexation of the Boer Republic of the Transvaal. Indeed, Haggard raised the Union flag and read out much of the proclamation following the loss of voice of the official originally entrusted with the duty.

Problem? You mean for the GOP, I take it. Yeah, I don't envy them what they have to run with. I like Obama's chances a lot better.

November 03, 2011 12:35 PM
Romney struggles with his own tax plan

A few months ago, soon after the “corporations are people” flap, Mitt Romney made an effort to appear moderate on tax policy. “I don’t want to waste time trying to get tax cuts for wealthy people because frankly, wealthy people are doing just fine,” the Republican presidential candidate said at the time.

Yesterday, he pushed this line again in an interview with a local TV interview in Tampa. “The policies I put forward are tax cuts for the middle class,” Romney said. “I’m proposing no tax cuts for the rich.”

I can understand why Romney would make the claim; more tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires isn’t exactly a winning issue when the vast majority of American voters want the exact opposite.

The problem, of course, is that Romney is either lying or he’s not familiar with his own proposals. Pat Garofalo said the candidate’s claim is “simply absurd on its face.”

Quote:

His tax plan consists of $6.6 trillion in tax cuts, the vast majority of which goes to the wealthy and corporations. In fact, Romney dedicates an entire section of his economic plan to discussing elimination of the estate tax, which only the very richest households in the country ever have to pay (since, right now, an estate must be worth more than $5 million to pay any estate tax at all). Currently, more than half of the estate tax is paid by the richest 0.1 percent of households.

Meanwhile, Romney’s claim that his tax plan cuts taxes for the middle-class has little basis in reality. A ThinkProgress analysis found that the vast majority of middle-class households would get no benefit from Romney’s tax plan, since it’s based on a capital gains tax cut when most middle-class families have no capital gains.

That’s true, and we can go a little further. While Romney’s pitch is focused on “tax cuts for the middle class,” Romney has also said — repeatedly — that he considers it a “problem” that so many working families are not currently eligible to pay federal income taxes. Indeed, he recently told voters, “I think it’s a real problem when you have half of Americans, almost half of Americans, that are not paying income tax.” It’s a problem Romney intends to fix by raising taxes on those least able to afford it, while cutting taxes on those at the top.