One interesting thing we keep learning with GOP voters, the more salacious your past, or the dumber you are, the better you poll. No wonder Huntsman can’t get any traction.

 WTF TOMMY, Mediate was the one that started this! Maybe you should talk to your colleague, Frances Martel, and your editor about pushing this unfair criticism. How out of touch are you??

Bullshit.  It was clear.  He didn’t know that China had nukes.

What’s really sad about that is that I think Hunstmann might not only be the best and the brightest of the Republicans, but also a candidate who might be best able to give us a civil, intelligent, respectful race in which genuine, serious ideas are exchanged.

—

“Teapublicanism: Simple Slogans for the Simple-Minded.” 

HE SAID “MORE” NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES  . BUT SOMEHOW THAT GOT MISSED TOO

What you’re saying is only plausible at best.

Yes you can develop something that you already have, but lets look at his phrasing.

“Develop nuclear capability”

Firstly, further would have been a more appropriate term. And if anybody was referring to developing current capabilities, the correct way of putting it would have been “Develop their nuclear capabilities.”

The singularity of capabilities suggests nuclear weapons as a whole, instead of a multitude of capabilities (which is how you would put it for a country with multiple nuclear options). Then comes the absence of “their”, indicating that he is referring to current capabilities.

So yes, he could have been talking about furthering china’s current nuclear capabilities, but he is certainly to blame for the ambiguity of his statement, coupled with his track record in foreign policy, pretty much asking for it.

Tommy are the Conservatives really getting to you so bad that you have to bend over backwards to appease them?  It’s obvious in the clip that Herman has no idea what he is talking about and only remembers the last thing he read, i.e. the aircraft carriers.  In the follow-up he demonstrated a similar lack of knowledge.  Combine this with his talk of Uzbeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan and you see his clear hatred of knowledge and nuance.

Tommy, you’re better than this.

TC is absolutely correct…it is unfair to criticize Cain about the nuclear gaffe, when there are so many other reasons to criticize the old dirty bastard.

STFU!

Yes indeed!!

Herb Cain has gotten so many issues wrong, that even when he may get an issue right, people still expect him to get it wrong!! That’s how the game is played when you’re a proven typical, ignorant, Republicon running for President!!

Sorry Tommy, Your wrong on this.  He was talking about 2 seperate things.  The Carriers and the Nukes.  He did however go on Fox News at the end of the same day and admit, he screwed up.  I do give him credit for learning and then correcting his statement.  He then sat down with Kissinger to update his Foreign Policy info.

No he didn’t. Listen to the video again. 

I don’t see how you see the “and” here as clearly a placeholder and not denoting two separate thoughts. For one thing, he used “to develop” on either side of that “and”, once for nuclear capability and once for “more aircraft carriers.”  I think it’s fine for you to raise the possiblity that he might have been misinterpreted, but describing this as a gaffe is no “obvious falsehood.” Your self-righteous certainty about it is out of place.

Why, welcome to MediaITE, Mrs. Cain!

I am so sorry that your husband isn’t satisfied with you.

I thought that right off, then wrote him off accordingly as someone with absolutely no chance.

I think no one can say with absolute certitude whether Cain was speaking in terms of expanding China’s capabilities or — as I believe — developing a capability he thinks didn’t previously exist. The reason I’m not willing to give him a pass on this is that it’s very difficult to look at his track record on foreign policy matters and feel confident that this was merely a slip of the tongue. He’s already demonstrated an unwillingness to delve deeply into policy detail and, in fact, showed no embarrassment about his lack of knowledge about such matters, as he knows Teapublican primary voters clearly hold “experts” in contempt.

So while I hate to be cynical, I can’t give Cain the benefit of the doubt on this one. He really hasn’t earned it.

Well Tommy I have in the past noted what I consider to be liberal bias that IMO slants your articles, so it is only fitting that I recognize when you step forward and point out fair facts that many others seem to have left out of their reporting that would go against the same bias of which I have been critical.  You make a honest defense of Mr. Cain’s statement and fill in the missing blank that has allowed others to use it to club him over the head with. Fair is fair and you have done what others seem unwilling to do, thanks for this article.  

“Teapublicanism: Simple Slogans for the Simple-Minded.”     

“Yes we can?”

Agreed. This is a lame attempt to defend Cain’s lack of knowledge. And no, Soviets didn’t won the space race. US made it to the moon first. It’s interesting how right wingers are now trying to rewrite history books. Why? Because some moron said that the Soviets won. And when Cain says China doesn’t have nuclear weapons right wingers are trying to convince everyone that somehow they don’t.

The best way to think about this is what would you think if your neighbor was leaning over the fence telling you the same exact words.  Everyone knows exactly what he meant.  Stop trying to change the meaning of every day language to find an escape route for this dumb bell.

It is goofy to try and say Cain didn’t mean exactly what he said.  The guy is a buffoon and he has proven that over and over.

Bullshit, even if he was talking about the Chinese Varyag carrier, it’s not a nuclear powered carrier.

According to wikipedia, the PRC aircraft carrier Shi Lang is powered by

Steam turbines, 8 boilers, 4 shafts, 200,000 hp (150 MW)

2 × 50,000 hp (37 MW) turbines

9 × 2,011 hp (1,500 kW) turbogenerators

6 × 2,011 hp (1,500 kW) diesel generators

4 × fixed pitch propellers

It’s not nuclear! Nice try, Cain really is an idiot, or as Rachel Maddow put it (someone I rarely agree with), Cain is a “performance artist”

LOL…nice try Tommy, but even conservatives know he was wrong.  Talk about trying to generate clicks….for shame!

Huntsman is not polling well because he is running in the wrong primary, he should have switched parties and run against the president in a democratic primary where he would have stood a better chance.  The odd part is that Huntsman would be my choice out of this field but at every opportunity he pushes republican voters away from him…  He may be a better choice but he is plain and simply the worst candidate.  

Trying to correct a leftist smear Tommy is like trying to talk to a leftist about facts, damn near impossible.

Snicker, look at the comments and admit, you lefties can NEVER admit they were wrong or that a smear is a smear.

Next thing you know, Tommy might actually question the messiah. Oh well, maybe not that.

Clinton… Kennedy…

“HOPE”

http://obeygiant.com/headlines/obama-ebay-disappointment

I’ve discovered I don’t much care for Haagen Dazs Blue Walnut whether served in a cup or a cone. Apparently, there are a number of women who feel the same way.

—

“Teapublicanism: Simple Slogans for the Simple-Minded.” 

Tommy if you think this one truthful article makes up for all of your other half truths you are out of your ever love’n mind. 

Your argument is lame at best. 

Cain, himself, in one of his “What I MEANT to say……” explanations the next day, said what he “MEANT to say” was that China wants to “develop its nuclear capability so that it gets as many weapons as we have.” 

Even Cain didn’t try to suggest he was talking about nuclear aircraft carriers.

You invented an excuse that even HE didn’t think of.  Good try.

HERE are the exact words Cain used to explain his gaffe the next day.

“Maybe I misspoke. What I meant was — China does not have the size of nuclear capability that we have.
They do have nuclear capability. I was talking about their total nuclear capability, so that’s what I meant by that.”

Not one word about aircraft carriers.

“We Can’t Wait!”

…until 2013. But we’ll have to.

Wrong. http://www.economicfreedomcoalition.com/news/press-opinion-120305.asp

How do you get to be so positive and so wrong at the same time?

developto expand or enlarge…………nuclear capabilityto aid in the growth of………..nuclear capabilityto improve the quality of; refine…………….nuclear capabilityto cause to become more complex or intricate; add detail and fullness to; elaborate…..nuclear capabilityto convert or transform………..nuclear capabilityhttp://www.thefreedictionary.c…

See how easy that was.

Not when there are feather boas and lederhosen to be modeled, eh Kook? Priorities!

http://www.economicfreedomcoalition.com/news/press-opinion-120305.asp

Read that and tell me you still believe it.

I have no idea what happened to that copy and paste, should read

develop

to expand or enlarge…..nuclear capability
to aid in the growth of……nuclear capability
to improve the quality of; refine……..nuclear capability
to cause to become more complex or intricate; add detail and fullness to; elaborate….nuclear capability
to convert or transform….nuclear capability

See how easy that was.http://www.thefreedictionary.c...

By his own admission…he doesn’t have a CLUE….and did NOT mean  ”it is clear that Cain was talking about the Chinese carrier program” .

“Maybe I misspoke,” Cain said. “What I meant was, China does not have the size of nuclear capability that we have. They do have a nuclear capability.”

“Maybe I misspoke??!!”

NOTHING mentioned about nuclear capabilities being part of the Chinese carrier program…zero…zip…nada

This is from Politifact and  and   Christopher……you better grab a fire extinguisher, because your own pants are on fire as mush as Cain’s are:

Judy Woodruff: “Do you view China as a potential military threat to the United States?”Cain: “I do view China as a potential military threat to the United States.”Woodruff: “And what could you do as president to head that off?”Cain: “My China strategy is quite simply outgrow China. It gets back to economics. China has a $6 trillion economy and they’re growing at approximately 10 percent. We have a $14 trillion economy — much bigger — but we’re growing at an anemic 1.5, 1.6 percent. When we get our economy growing back at the rate of 5 or 6 percent that it has the ability to do, we will outgrow China.”And secondly, we already have superiority in terms of our military capability, and I plan to get away from making cutting our defence a priority and make investing in our military capability a priority, going back to my statement: peace through strength and clarity. So yes, they’re a military threat. ~~~They’ve indicated that they’re trying to develop nuclear capability, and they want to develop more aircraft carriers like we have. ~~So yes, we have to consider them a military threat.”

We contacted the Cain campaign for comment on this, but we didn’t hear back.

Cain said that China “indicated that they’re trying to develop nuclear capability.” According to the U.S. State Department, China conducted its first test of a nuclear weapon in 1964. So Cain’s approximately 40 years behind the times. China is a long-standing nuclear power. We rate his statement Pants on Fire.Editor’s note: After we published this item, Cain addressed his statement in an interview with theDaily Caller website. ”Maybe I misspoke,” Cain said. “What I meant was, China does not have the size of nuclear capability that we have. They do have a nuclear capability.”

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/nov/02/herman-cain/herman-cain-said-china-trying-develop-nuclear-weap/

Rio, you seemed to have missed Anon’s point, the exact point I was going to make….

Anon is right: Cain said China wants to ”Develop nuclear capabilities,” instead of “their” [existing] capabilities.

Big difference. The FIRST definition of develop is “1. To bring from latency to or toward fulfillment.” 

And when you don’t identify an existing thing, developing it means acquiring it. 

Give Tommy some benefit of the doubt here.   When I first heard the Cain clip, the comment went by so fast I thought he was talking about nuclear carriers as well.  In my mind, that was the only way the sentence made any sense. But I went back to listen to it again, it was obvious that was not what he was talking about.

Who is Tommy Christopher and why does he get to write things so inaccurately? 

Whether it’s furthering the James O’Keefe “pimp costume” myth or not understanding the difference between “developing capabilities” and “developing THEIR capabilities…”

Is Mediaite that afraid of being labeled liberal?

IMO Mr. Christopher is in dire need of English as a second language lessons. 
 
“They’ve indicated that they’re trying to develop nuclear capability, and they want to develop more aircraft carriers like we have. So yes, we have to consider them a military threat.”  That’s the quote.  Christopher writes : “I’ve been waiting for someone to point out that Cain indicated no such thing.”

Not ‘mis-quoted’, not ‘taken out of context’, but ‘indicated no such thing’.  Yea, he did.  In fact he was crystal clear that he had no clue about the capabilities of China, and considering his other gaffe about recognizing the ‘other’ China–it’s pretty clear he’s as deep as one of his pizzas when it comes to foreign policy.

As I always try to remind my conservative friends–”It’s not JUST about the economy stupid”–there’s a whole wide ugly world out there that has to be dealt with by the man in the WH.  This guy is not up to the job.  Period.

Huntsman and perhaps Romer seem to be the only ones with an ounce of intelligence.  I use to think Gingrich had some intelligence based on stuff from the 90s.  But recent stuff (like his theory that money owed on a revolving account is somehow not a debt) seems to even put him in the pea brain category.

How quickly people forget that Herman Cain worked on BALLISTIC NUCLEAR WEAPONS for the US Navy.  Some of which were reported to be Chinese Ballistic capabilities.  

But then again why actually report facts when copying opinion is easier for journalists?

How many times have you offered up your Hagen Dazs Blue Walnuts in a cup or a cone?. :) Just kidding with you. Aim that hate cannon elsewhere.

Public education?

Lets get something straight before our great REVISIONIST history folks take this argument somewhere that doesnt exist. THE SPACE RACE was about illustrating superiority in space exploration and travel. PERIOD. SO, its up to you if you feel that Palin and her “Sputnik” claim is on par with the idea of WINNING the space race. I guess moon landings and everything else the USA has done with regard to the science of space travel is a losing effort. Havent you heard, She could see the Russians on the moon from her backyard! 
COME ON PEOPLE we are better than this right. A failed satellite qualifies as the winner of the superiority race? OH and if your excuse for her ignorance is “well she was right, up until we went to the moon” then I guess you are one of those people standing around saying you won your sports bets because your team was winning “up until the end of the game”..Sputnik, for those of you who need a few more days of school, essentially STARTED the space race.

Yeah, because you’re so well known for sharing independent, non-partisan, objective links. 

NINE danke. 

OH, I do think that what Herm was talking about was NOT their general nuclear capabilities but their recent push for better nuclear war related machinery. I honestly dont think -with a lot of hope here- that he didnt know the Chinese have been nuclear capable for about 5 decades.

He wasn’t talking about their nuclear carrier program.  In an interview after the original clip, he said he was talking about their “total nuclear capability” and “China does not have the size of the nuclear capability that we have.”  Nobody has asked him any questions that would determine whether or not he knows what nuclear capability they have (or we have for that matter), or what their nuclear treaty obligations are and whether or not they have lived up to them.  He’s actually lucky that people are focusing on whether or not he knew China has nukes though, since it’s distracting from his statement that he wants to increase military spending despite conservative calls for fiscal austerity and the ~100% growth in military spending of the past decade or so.  The clip where he clarified his response without mentioning carriers is available here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/03/herman-cain-china-nuclear-weapons_n_1073477.html?ref=politics

The Soviets also built the first ICBM, put the first animals in space, were first to bring animals back from space safely (sadly for Laika, the first space dog, not on the same mission), first to put a man in space, first to put a woman in space, first to fire a rocket in orbit and escape orbit, first to land a probe on another planet and the moon, and many other milestones.  Today, the Russians are capable of sending people into orbit and the USA is not.  They also have the only existing stockpile of fuel for deep space probes – we have to buy it from them for our missions.  The only way the US can be said to have won the space race is if the bar is continually moved throughout the race and you change the name to “race to put a man on the moon.”

At the very, VERY best, Cain is a sloppy thinker who regularly tries to paper over his ignorance and untruthfulness with bombast. Much more likely, Christopher has decided to go for the long stretch and afford Cain international credentials he just doesn’t have.

No matter what, Cain comes off the fool, which his subsequent behavior in the week pretty much confirmed.

Then why is he unable to discuss such issues without swallowing his tongue?

Even if it were “just” the economy, sub-genius motivational-speaker Herman “buy my book” Cain is not the right man for the job.

Agreed.  If you watch the interview on PBS, no one will mistake “and” as “umm”, except the people try to help Cain out. 

The question really is why many voters want Cain to be the leader?  This only indicates the mind and quality of many American voters. They do not want educated people to lead, they want someone like themselve, one of them, to lead the country.  It is a sad reality.  I agree that Obama lacks ability to lead, and he is not deserved to be reelected.   But, at least he has knowledge. However, Cain? Perry? Backmann? Give me a break!  Only Huntsman is qualified from Republican side.  I will vote Huntsman over Obama.  But, Cain?….

Trying to explain to right wingers how stupid one of their candidates is like trying to talk to them about science, damn near impossible.

Herman Cain thinks China hasn’t already developed a nuclear capability. How do you explain that?

Maybe I’m missing something, but as far as I know, aircraft carriers don’t carry nuclear weapons, so how does the mention of carriers mean that he knows the Chinese have nukes?

Old point, but then why did he say “develop”

No one cares what Herman Cain says about China.  As long as he doesn’t sexually harass people anymore, I’ll be happy.

you talk about facts then invoke the messiah.  wow.  I suppose you think the earth is 6000 years old too lol.

 Doubt you will ever be happy.

I share all sorts of links. Quite often they’re completely objective. Sometimes they’re from lefty sites. That link is to an article written by Cain six years ago, discussing China, including their nuclear capability. You afraid you’ll catch something? Or are you afraid you might learn something?

How do you simpletons not jump all over something so easy as this post by TRRE?

In the very post in which he praises someone for being civil, intelligent, respectful, genuine and serious – he generalizes about an entire group of people in a demeaning, sarcastic manner. Another word for that is stereotyping. I thought we had all established that stereotyping people was wrong. Seriously, once again, how do you people not eat this guys lunch?

You people are too easy.

Ricci is right. I don’t know why Mediate is trying to patch up this fool’s ignorance. In an interview with Ginni Thomas, Hermie said he “misspoke” (yet again) about something he has no freaking clue about. I totally hope he wins the GOP nomination. The tea party will get their perfect “know nothing” candidate and Obama will get 4 more years.

What a ridiculous article.  I watched the video for the first time and Cain is not referring to China’s naval nuclear capability. Cain is referring to nuclear weapon capability overall.  You state that he uses a umm as a verabl placeholder not meant to separate the two thoughts. Give me a break. Your break down of this interview is laughable.  Sometimes we use umm the verbal placeholder while thinking of a lie to state and/or because we don’t know what we are talking about.  Cain is referring to China wanting to becoming a nuclear power first and then second, he is referring to naval power. Point blank and period.  Give me a break Christopher.

Oops. I typed “Ricci” was right when I meant the previous commenter Dave Be. Sorry Ricci, but Cain doesn’t have a clue.

This is probably the second article by Tommy Christopher that I have a problem with, both involve defending Herman Cain. The first simply ignored facts, and this time you’re inserting facts that do not exist.

Time is relative. If you did not realize that, you sir are as educated as a shoebox. Everything is quantifiable. If you have an outside observational position. How do you know that the Earth is not 6000 years old? Relatively speaking of course?

Now, what exactly are you getting at by the way, stating that the Earth is only 6000 years old? Is that your position or exactly who’s position is that?

You do realize, that is what this article is about, right?

The implication is that they’d develop nuclear powered aircraft carriers.  They may be working on a nuclear powered design, but the carrier they launched recently isn’t nuclear powered.  They are building a fleet of submarines though, including ballistic missile subs.  A couple of carrier groups fits well with China’s ambitions for control of the contested South China Sea, but it’s close enough to mainland China that nuclear powered carriers aren’t really necessary.  I expect them to field 2 indigenously built diesel carriers in the next 3 or 4 years.  I doubt they’ll have a nuclear powered carrier within the next decade.

Thank you for this article.  It is nice to know hat SOMEBODY has the sense to figure out that a man of Herman Cain’s intelligence and background would be unlikely to be unaware of such a well known fact as China having nuclear weapons.  If nothing else, the guy worked for the Navy in the 1960′s, working on weapons systems fire control – that means aiming them so they hit something, not preventing fires, for you civilians out there – and the Navy was quite concerned about China’s capabilities back then.  That the MSM can promote such an obvious canard shows the depth of their bias against anyone who threatens “the Anointed One”.

They’re talking about what he said. If his job experience was at issue (which it is not) he would look even dumber. Try to nail down the point of what is at issue before you decide which facts are relevant.

Nice job of promoting an anti-smear tirade with smears. That really pushes your point quite effectively. Wait … what was your pint ? 

Cain told the Huffington post that he “misspoke” and knew that China had nuclear capability. He said he was referring to their greater nuclear development which does not rival ours. I don’t think this is as bad as Obama saying he had visited 57 states so far implying there were more than that.

This argument would make sense if he had said “trying to develop THEIR nuclear capability” because adding the  “their” implies they already have one. But without the “their” the sentence can only be interpreted as it was. So sorry but no.

 Agreed. Christopher’s argument would make sense if he had said “trying to develop THEIR
nuclear capability” because adding the  “their” implies they already
have one. But without the “their” the sentence can only be interpreted
as it was. So sorry but no.

Timmy, you fucktard, Cain clearly states that the Chinese are trying to develop nuclear capability. Perhaps he meant that he was developing a way back machine to October 1964 WHEN CHINA FIRST SET OFF AN 22 KILOTON ATOMIC BOMB. Jesus Christ driving a Lincoln, Cain’s statement is very clear. Maddow is right. He is an performance art project for someone.

And to add to Mike’s point, Rio – when you don’t identify the FIRST AND PRIMARY definition of a word as contained on the very website to which you link (arrogantly suspecting that nobody will check your work) because it is obvious to you and everyone else that that definition taints the point you are trying to make, you are clearly being deceitful yourself (which is leading me to understand your apparent support for a Republican candidate).  And FTR, if you look up deceitful, I’m referring to the first definition listed.

This is MILDLY persuasive to me, but given his comment, which leaves a very strong argument that he DIDN’T know China was nuclear, and given his otherwise well-demonstrated lack of foreign policy awareness/knowledge, I’m inclined to wonder how many of his “weekly comments” he writes himself?  Like most pols, I suspect not many.  I’m thinking he has some large-breasted intern write them, then gives her a nice pat on the ass to say “Thanks.”

Do you really think Obama thought there were 57 states? Of course not. But it is entirely possible Cain was unaware that China has nukes. So no, of course it is much worse.

Sorry, Mr. Kramer, but as Stephen Colbert often says, “Reality has a well-known liberal bias,” and that’s the case here.

You have to walk a country mile to reach the conclusions expressed in this article. The indisputable proof is that a few days later, Mr. Cain explained what he “meant to say,” and he didn’t mention aircraft carriers, so that is not what he meant.  There was no smear, Mr. Cain simply said what he said.

Now, what was that you were saying about facts?

It’s about someone doing incredible mental gymnastics to suggest a man didn’t say what he clearly did say.

That’s “WHOSE position,” Mr. Shoebox.

Nonetheless, the man said what he said, and even he doesn’t pretend he meant nuclear aircraft carriers.

Nonetheless, the man said what he said.  Did he really think China doesn’t have nuclear capabilities?  I don’t think he thought that, but that is what he said.  The gaffe was real, not invented.

Um, no, he did not.

Thank you, English was never my strong point. Math, science, logic, a few others are my strong points. But of course, I guess proper editing is not what we were talking about then was it? Nope, so are you going to address the topic or spew like you were my 5th grade English teacher?

Sorry, Mr. Kramer, but as Stephen Colbert often points out, “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.”  

That’s the case here.  You have to walk a country mile to come up with the conclusions offered in this article.  The indisputable proof that Mr. Christopher has created an argument out of whole cloth?  Mr. Cain later clarified what he “meant to say.”  He did not say anything about aircraft carriers, so that is not what he meant to say, QED.  No smear, the man simply said what he said.

Now, what were you saying about facts?

Colbert is a frelling idiot and even dumber to say that reality has a bias. But hey, keep spewing idiotic talking points. Someday you too can come up inane comments like Colbert. I prefer mine.

You can lead in idiot to the tree of knowledge, but with no common sense they cannot reach the first branch.

By the way, you are pretty short are you not?

… and yet just a few minutes ago, you were talking about addressing the topic.  I’m 5′ 8″.  

I already have. I only made the whose/who’s comment because I personally find it amusing when some casts aspersions on someone else’s education, then screws up himself.

I apologize, Mr. Kramer.  Your earlier comments made me think you were up to an intelligent discussion.  Now that I’ve followed the link to your web site, I see I was wrong.  Sorry, I didn’t mean to press an unfair advantage.