Jump to content

Talk:Herman Cain 2012 presidential campaign

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cain on media's book-tour diss

[edit]
CBN's David Brody     "Talk to me about Iowa. The media has been getting on you because of this book tour. Explain to people the deal on that."

Herman Cain     "When the media starts writing me checks to my campaign, I’ll let them write my campaign strategy. Here's the deal. We've been to Iowa twenty four times since the beginning of the year. We have a very solid staff in Iowa. We've got a solid base of support in Iowa. I'm planning to go back to Iowa but people don't realize and the same ones who are saying why aren't you spending more time in Iowa they aren't writing my campaign strategy. This book tour is helping me overcome a weakness. I had a low name ID. This book tour is helping to raise my name ID so you've got Governor Perry, Governor Romney, even Speaker Gingrich--they’ve got much higher name ID so we see this book tour as a way to have raised my name ID at the same time we are continuing to campaign and doing fundraisers and do events and so the two are not mutually exclusive and this is why we don't see this book tour as a conflict."

—From transcript of interview; Omni Shoreham Hotel, Washington, D.C., October 8, 2011 (link) --Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citations do not relate to the sentence they're attached to

[edit]

Under "social issues", the sentence "He has criticized court cases where sharia law was used in American courts" has cite notes

However, neither of these articles mention Herman Cain. For now I'm going to remove the citations and put "citation needed", and if I find a citation add it in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellbur (talk • contribs) 04:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

9-9-9 plan

[edit]

Can someone please add a section explaining what this plan is, to the extent possible. Can't believe Wikipedia has nothing?!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.98.74.175 (talk) 12:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was in there, under "economic issues" (I added this a few days ago, but it's covered at the parent article Political positions of Herman Cain in greater length). I'll see if I can't work on that section, which I just processed sentence by sentence as a summary of the other article but which obviously could actually be written. Wnt (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"cain 9-9-9 tax plan" gets me "About 29,600,000 results" in google. Why wikipedia doesn't even have a subsection in this article about it is beyond me. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See Political positions of Herman Cain#9-9-9 plan.   Will Beback  talk  22:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Time (magazine) resource

[edit]

Herman Cain’s Credibility: Questionable, but Will It Matter? by Michael Crowley 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like an opinion piece and so it would not be an ideal source. However it does highlight some of the recent issues for the campaign which might be included using better sources.   Will Beback  talk  22:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

9-9-9 WSJ resource

[edit]

Study Puts Cain Tax Plan Under Microscope OCTOBER 19, 2011 by JOHN D. MCKINNON, excerpt ...

Herman Cain's "9-9-9" tax plan would boost taxes paid by moderate- and low-income households while cutting taxes for upper-income earners, according to a study released Tuesday by a think tank.

Is this a Flat tax? 99.190.87.108 (talk) 05:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. You might remember Steve Forbes's Flat tax also for the ultrawealthy. 99.56.122.250 (talk) 07:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See Dial 9-9-9 for nonsense Oct 17th 2011, 20:52 by W.W. in The Economist. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SuperPAC resource

[edit]

Herman Cain’s New Super PAC October 19, 2011, 1:49 pm By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE in NYT 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

USA Today resource

[edit]

Column: Rise of Cain reflects disarray in the GOP by DeWayne Wickham 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Gwaltney

[edit]

Is she any relation to Don Gwaltney, Technology Manager at Koch Business Solutions-(Koch Industries)? Hcobb (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe start your search here ... http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/committees/koch-industries-inc-political-action-committee-kochpac.asp?cycle=12 with KochPAC 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign Policy

[edit]

I took out the following statement about Uzbekistan.

In an interview with Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) host David Brody, Cain mocked Uzbekistan as "Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan" when asked about Uzbekistan's head of state and claimed the country is one of the "small insignificant states around the world". He further stated, "I don’t think that is something that is critical to focusing on national security."

This statement was derived from a joke that Cain made about being prepared for a debate, and does not imply a foreign policy.

As shown from the following quote taken from Herman Cain's newsroom:

Cain has done well — generally — in the debates so far, but he has never had to deal with the level of scrutiny from both the moderators and his opponents that will come his away tonight. Asked about that raised level of scrutiny in an interview with Christian Broadcasting Network’s David Brody on Friday, Cain responded: “When they ask me who’s the president of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan, I’m going to say, ‘You know, I don’t know. Do you know? And then I’m going to say, ‘How’s that going to create one job?’”

His original statement does not seem to mock Uzbekistan but rather seems to be a play on words to create a hypothetical name to represent somthing you would not know off the top of your head.

When someone repeatedly posted a similar statment on Political positions of Herman Cain, Wikipedia writer Morphh stated the following:

that's not a political position - it's just WP:RECENTISM added here as a POV fork to get around WP:BLP

Zkc28 (talk) 03:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, it's what he said (whether it was a joke or not) and is fair play as far as his campaign goes. I removed the bit about Uzbekistan being our ally because that constituted synthesis. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you read the cited source for the "ally" statement, you will see it's not synthesis on the part of the editor who originally added it – the author of the cited article took pains to chastise Cain for his statements (to the effect) that Uzbekistan is not important to the U.S. economy or national security. I had already dialed back the description from "essential ally" to "potential ally", and didn't dispute your delete because of the opinion-piece nature of the source and the lack of expert credentials on the part of the author.
I agree the comment probably doesn't belong in the "Political positions" article, but all these "Foo's fooleader campaign" articles are nothing but recentism forks, so I have a problem calling for deletion of a specific event based on recentism. Just as other candidates may need to check their facts better before opening their mouths, Cain may need to check his sense of humor if he has to keep providing after-the-fact explanations that his comments about electrocuting people and the unimportance of other countries were jokes. He said it; his campaign owns it. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From reliable sources, it doesn't look like a policy issue. I think that thinkpress did not state the whole story, saying that Cain was "mocking" Uzbekistan, and they did not tell what David Brody had asked Cain. However to prevent an editing war, I put in both Fat&Happy's (thinkpress) and the full story from the newsroom.The Intelligent Insider (talk) 12:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think there is a policy issue in there. He was saying that he doesn't care or need to know who the leaders of other nations are. Typically, presidential candidates are asked if they know the name of the leader of such and such country. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is pretty clear debate prep, not policy. Just my thoughts. Light-jet pilot (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a dog in any of these fights, but someone ought to clean up this mess that redlinked User:The Intelligent Insider left behind in the Foreign policy section:

  • "Based on this instance the thinkpress stated that in an interview with ..."

What is "the thinkpress"? Milkunderwood (talk) 11:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone rewrite this section, please. It is difficult to read, and parts of it tell me nothing about his foreign policy. If I wanted to find out his policies, I couldn't get them from this article the way it is currently written. Light-jet pilot (talk) 02:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual harasser allegations

[edit]

POLITICO has published allegations that Cain sexually harassed at least two female employees while he was head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s. I think WP:BLP means there should be considerable circumspection about putting this in his bio article, but it may be appropriate for this article on his campaign. I raise the issue here before adding this material, however, since I suspect the consensus view is that generally we should wait for another mainstream media source to have their reporters do an original story on this matter before running with one outlet's story.--Brian Dell (talk) 07:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, nobody has come forwards with a story of abuse that occurred during the campaign, so if added this needs to go under his own article, not here. Hcobb (talk) 12:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Dukakis didn't give Willie Horton that furlough during the campaign, but it sure as hell was relevant. It doesn't matter when it happened, but whether or not it impacts the campaign. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, Obama wasn´t born during his campaign either ;) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a paragraph on the software lie detector test that "exonerated" (if that's the right word in this case). Is speculation on the David Axelrod link worth adding, or should we wait until more credible (i.e. not circumstantial) evidence becomes known? Danielgump (talk) 04:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to look at this from a NPOV, rather than speedily deleting it without a valid reason (as has already happened). I believe this to be very relevant:

The day following Cain's November 8th press conference, CBS Atlanta reported that Private investigator TJ Ward demonstrated for them through software voice analysis, that "[Herman Cain] is being truthful, totally truthful. He is a man with integrity and he talked directly about not knowing any incident he is accused of.". This demonsatration also flagged accuser Sharon Bailek at a high risk of lying. '"I don't think she is fabricating her meetings," said Ward. But, she is fabricating what transpired."' The software employed was touted as having 95% accuracy and usage in "nearly 70 law enforcement agencies nationwide."[1]

Danielgump (talk)

References

  1. ^ Mike Paluska (November 9, 2011). "Investigator: Herman Cain innocent of sexual advances". CBS Atlanta. Retrieved November 12, 2011.
I agree. It is relevent news, if it could be written from a NEUTRAL pov. Light-jet pilot (talk) 00:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Main article: Political positions of Herman Cain

[edit]

My suggestion is to delete everything else in this section, after that link note. Hcobb (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign inspired by Pokemon movie

[edit]

Why no ref to Pokémon: The Movie 2000? Hcobb (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd come to regard you as a serious editor. Now I'm wondering if I was mistaken. Why would we refer to that movie in this article?   Will Beback  talk  21:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about, "Assume good faith." The article states, "Multiple times during his 2012 presidential campaign, Republican candidate Herman Cain directly quoted the first verse of Donna Summer's "The Power of One", a song exclusively featured in the closing credits of Pokemon: The Movie 2000. Cain mistakenly ascribed the lyrics, on two occasions, to the closing theme of the 2000 Olympics, and on another, to an unnamed "poet"." Light-jet pilot (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which was added after both of the above posts.[1] It's a waste of other editor's time to post teasers like that. Even now that it is explained, it seems trivial.   Will Beback  talk  22:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be better to actually cite the book from which the lyrics originally came: The_Power_of_One? Danielgump (talk) 03:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New sexual harassment accusations

[edit]

Obviously today's press conference advances the story considerably, and I've added updated info to the relevant section (very much just a first pass and something to stick there for now). I've also redirected what had been a brand new article on Sharon Bialek, the only named accuser so far, to that section of the article after declining an A7 speedy nomination.

The text we have here should probably be reconciled at some point with this section from the main bio article, not that they are dramatically different. Frankly what we probably will need is an entire sub-sub-article on these accusations, as this imbroglio clearly just became the biggest scandal of the 2012 campaign to date and is not going away in the near future. We can then use summary style in both this article and in Herman Cain. Also I would strongly argue that any non-public person associated with these matters--Ms. Bialek or any other accusers who come forward, defenders of Mr. Cain within the NRA or elsewhere, etc.--not have articles created about them, but rather have redirects created for them which send readers to the relevant section of whatever sub-article we talk about this in.

I'm not sure I'll do much work on any of this, but I think this is a good way to proceed and I hope we can avoid creation of fringe bio articles and instead keep all content about Ms. Bialek and others here or in a new article on the controversy. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Order of endorsees

[edit]

I know it's just my opinion that lists should be sorted by position held, but I also think it makes more logical sense because it appears more organized. J390 (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rush Hour 3

[edit]

Do we have a good enough ref to put "Rush Hour 3" into the trivia section? Hcobb (talk) 03:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC) ? Light-jet pilot (talk) 03:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Brother from another mother" Hcobb (talk) 04:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would help if you explained what exactly you were talking about, but regardless, this probably does not belong. Trivia is basically, by definition, trivial. Per WP:TRIVIA, trivia sections are something to be avoided. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Herman Cain presidential campaign, 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Herman Cain presidential campaign, 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Question? A help request is open: The second/third of these appear to be dead archive links. I've found no way to access good versions for them.. Replace the reason with "helped" to mark as answered.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The second/third of these appear to be dead archive links. I've found no way to access good versions for them. The rest are fully accessible. —ADavidB 03:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of 9–9–9 Plan into Herman Cain 2012 presidential campaign

[edit]

Most of the information here probably could be consolidated with the Presidential campaign article pbp 18:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Most of the issue sections in the article are quite small, so trying to merge in this one would give undue weight to one aspect of his economic policies, which section is long enough already. Merging would also necessarily remove much of the details. However, I would probably support merging 9–9–9: An Army of Davids, Cain's book about the plan, into the plan article. BilCat (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This was a major part of his campaign. Major parts of campaigns deserve their own pages, similar to Fuzzy math, Strategery, Flip-flop, Swiftboating, and Drill, baby, drill. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. One good comprehensive article is better than two largely overlapping topics. Most of the details that would be lost with a merge won't be missed per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:PROPORTION, and WP:VNOTSUFF. The 9–9–9 Plan article is padded with a lot of relative trivia and lazy block quotes based on fleeting daily news items, which may be verifiable but don't lend impetus to permanent separate article status. With good editorial attention it can be consolidated to a few well written paragraphs within the campaign article. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There is sufficient content worthy of inclusion in the 9-9-9 Plan article. There is admittedly some overlap, but this is very common when there is a section in one article that links to a main article on the same topic. Merging the 9-9-9 Plan article into this article would either cause the loss of too much information such as the detailed analyses from multiple perspectives or the list of supporters or create a much too long section regarding just the 9-9-9 Plan.NK1406 (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Herman_Cain_2012_presidential_campaign&oldid=1263396243"