Wrong answer

I like Herman Cain. Not as a candidate but as a person. But this is a major unforced error:

Herman Cain: Sure, I can see myself releasing everyone at Gitmo in exchange for one U.S. POW

There is a reason that every jail and prison in the country has a sign that says “This is a no-hostage facility.” That is because when you negotiate for hostages you are sending the message that a hostage is a golden ticket to freedom.

Never pay ransom. Spend the money on vengeance. In the long run it’s a far better deal.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Wrong answer

  1. yttik says:

    I don’t know if that will read as a “wrong” answer to his supporters?

    The question was framed around support of Israel, do you think Israel made the right decision releasing a thousand prisoners in this exchange? Cain is saying two things here, he supports Israel’s decision and one American POW is worth a few hundred Gitmo detainees.

  2. Dario says:

    O/T —
    I guess OWS has not changed how the Fed and banks work together to screw the taxpayers.

    Federal Reserve and Bank of America Initiate a Coup to Dump Hundreds of Billions of Dollars of Losses on the American Taxpayer


  3. 1539days says:

    There’s a reason why Israel traded 1000 prisoners for one. They capture a lot of Palestinians. If that kind of trade were to happen, we could capture the same number back in short order.

    I’d say you can’t negotiate with terrorists, but you can. We paid ransom for those hikers, we just got another country to do it.

  4. votermom says:

    Apparently I am missing out on a hair-pulling spectacle by not watching the debate. 😀

  5. Dario says:

    It’s done all the time under the name of “prisoner exchange”. It’s a very old practice. The U.S. has done it many times.

    • Dario says:

      I can see some people objecting because those who we are at war with, who we kill all the time are not classified as war prisoners. If they are not war prisoners, then they are criminals. But the U.S. cannot have it both ways. Killing criminals without a trial is wrong. It’s a funny rationalization that Americans get into.

  6. WMCB says:

    Cain made some stumbles in this debate. I like him as a person, but he puts his foot in it sometimes and then has no idea how to walk it back.

    I did watch most of it, here’s my take just from a semi-objective debating standpoint:

    Perry, hate to say it, did much better this time around. He still looked caught flat-footed and clueless a couple of times, but he at least perked up and went after Mittens and had him back on his heels some. It wasn’t like the last zombie Perry debate. He may be too far gone to save himself, though.

    Bachman, alas, comes across as so knowledgeable at times, then veers off into the silliness.

    Mittens did okay, but his main claim to frontrunner is “Mr. Smooth”, and he got really flustered tonight a couple of times. When you have to plead “Anderson! Anderson!” to intervene while Perry is up in your grille, you look a lot less smooth. He still did okay, though.

    Ron Paul is SO freaking correct on a few things, and SO freaking batshit on others. There is no middle ground, and you can’t get the little bit of good stuff without also accepting the insane zealot from anti-Fed Pluto where there are no Joooooooos.

    Santorum is a whiny douche. He is sometimes right on a few things. But he’s still a huge petty douchewanker. One surprise tonight from him: for the Scary Evangelical up there, he gave the best answer of the whole R crew on the pastor Jeffers anti-Mormon remarks. The rest sucked pandering evangelical ass or were a big nothing evasion, especially Perry’s. Santorum’s answer, surprisingly, was somewhat thoughtful.

    Newt is probably the calmest most intelligent guy up there. And no one is going to let him within 10 feet of power, because…..it just would not be good. Like feeding a Gremlin after midnight. Even conservatives feel it, though they cannot verbalize it.

    No clear winner. Cain took some hits. Romney possibly did too, or stayed even. Perry might have helped himself a bit, but not a lot.

    • WMCB says:

      BTW, since I am a weird one who kind of enjoys the inside baseball stuff of politics, I’ve decided that if I ever start a political blog, I’m just going to do neutral-but-opinionated news commentary covering both parties, and call the blog:

      I’m Your Fucking Political Correspondent

      Whadda ya think?

    • angienc says:

      My mom calls me in the middle of the debate and says to me about Santorum:

      “Who is this guy kidding running for President? He isn’t good enough to be the secretary for the President.”

      • WMCB says:

        Yeah, I think he’s out soon. I did give him props for his Jeffers answer, though – mostly because the other answers were so bad. I try to be honest and fair even when I’m calling someone a douchewanker. 😀

    • yttik says:

      That’s a good run down. I agree.

      LOL, good stuff about Santorum, “huge petty douchewanker.” Yep!

      And Newt, yep, sounding smart, reasonable, calm….but don’t water him! I think you’re right, even conservatives instinctively know this.

    • DandyTiger says:

      One disagreement I have is I think Perry hurt himself again. Instead of being a zombie, he went way overboard after Mittens, to the point where people were booing him. There may not be much enthusiasm for Mittens, but people generally like him OK, so Perry came across as a bit of an ass. And the illegal alien employee thing he harped on him about was a total looser for Perry who has really big problems on the illegal alien problem. Mittens hired a firm who happened to hire an illegal alien(s). That’s just not a winning hit and Perry looked like an idiot.

Comments are closed.