It looks like Herman Cain's been writing a fairly regular column for a site called WorldNetDaily. The amazing article linked HERE has the title HERMAN CAIN HAS WRITTEN 113 COLUMN FOR "BIRTHER" SITE. Yahoo's homepage featured the article I linked above on their headlines page with the headline HERMAN CAIN WRITES COLUMN FOR BIRTHER SITE with the 'subheadline' "The GOP hopeful's link with a website that pushes conspiracy theories could be a liability". Is Yahoo NUTS? When I saw it was WorldNetDaily which is the paper he writes for, I knew it was a site that's dedicated to a lot more than the birther issue, a LOT more, so that made me curious. Doesn't the Yahoo headline "HERMAN CAIN WRITES COLUMN FOR BIRTHER SITE sound like it's a BIRTHER ARTICLE he's written? But, the article clearly admits "Not one of Cain's 113 columns BROACHES THE TOPIC of Obama's birth!" WOW.
If that's the case, why is the headline news very, very obviously inferring otherwise? Unless they're trying to put in peoples' minds that Cain is a birther? And, really, wasn't it legitimate to question Obama's birth when so many facts looked very iffy? And isn't the term 'birther' a pejorative the Lib media used to make the curious look like loons? I suppose the purge has started, particularly when we see Morgan Freeman and Samuel L Jackson saying that stupid and laughable lie that Tea Partiers are racist because they want Obama out! This is the kind of thing we'll have to expect leading up to the election, I suppose. Don't forget, Americans like Freeman and Jackson and WILL hear what they say and not question it. Thankfully, some Americans will hear what they say and, admire them or not (and who can't admire Freeman's acting?), they'll say "are they NUTS? what's racist about them?" But, I digress..........
I think most people understand that WorldNetDailyis a site where its owner believes Obama's not a legitimate American citizen and he has no problem pointing out fact after fact backing his beliefs, but does anybody think WorldNetDaily never carries anything but that subject? Can nobody write for it without the leftwing media suggesting that writer shares all that paper's beliefs? WND's been around for years, before Obama was a glint in his party's eye. Cain's said it's a question which was worth looking into...is his curiosity wrong?
Can every writer for the New York Times be labeled FAR LEFT NUT because they write for them? If a writer does a piece for PLAYBOY, does that make them a porn fan? I found this treatment of Cain's writings unfair and even a little shocking, do you?
z
30 comments:
I sometimes look at WND. But like any similar site on the web, WND has its own "agenda" and certainly a particular slant.
In my view, even if the birther issue has merits (Noticed that I said "if"), the matter is dead in the water now.
Doesn't the Yahoo headline "HERMAN CAIN WRITES COLUMN FOR BIRTHER SITE sound like it's a BIRTHER ARTICLE he's written?
Yep.
The point is to discredit Cain and to divide Cain's supporters. Now that he's a real threat to be on the GOP ticket.
I recall a time when nearly nobody knew who a thing about Herman Cain -- especially as a possible GOP candidate for POTUS.
Seems to me, if I were wanting to get my message out to the public, I'd write articles to every publication I could find, and if a certain publication published one of my articles without re-writing it, I'd continue to submit them, regardless of what kind of publication they are.
If he hasn't written any articles about the birth of Obama, why would this writer even make such a connection? I think the answer to that is obvious.
Joseph Farrah runs WND, and he pushed the birther issue. Using a broad brush to paint every WND contributor a "birther" is just a smear tactic.
The press is Obama's Praetorian Guard, and this is nothing compared to the fusillade they have prepared for whoever the eventual GOP nominee is.
I'm a little disheartened that Cain would write anything for that site.
WND is the Nutty Buddy Bar of conservatism.
net observer, if you come by this post; do you think Cain's a racist?
SF....WND is nutty, no doubt about it, and I see your point; but the way this media handled it is ridiculously transparent and stupid.
the whole point is to discredit and insult, no doubt about that.
Also, WND does have SOME articles that aren't 'over the top'...
Speedy, Farrah once came here and made a couple of snarky comments that surprised me. Not a fan at all.
"Can every writer for the New York Times be labeled FAR LEFT NUT because they write for them? "
Yes. That's why brother Herman needs to watch the company he keeps.
Anyone who has taken rhetoric knows its a logical fallacy called guilty by association.
World Net Daily, the one that ran the "Soy is making kids gay" series?
We should be learning just how fringe Herman is.
A misleading headline designed to smear Cain. I'd rather judge him by his words than the reputation of the magazine that published them.
An article trying to discredit a Republican? That's a little too easy.
I read a "non-discrediting" article regarding Palin saying she isn't running. In the article it said how she annoyed many Americans with her "defensive" speech after the Arizona shooting. Yeah that was really important to insert that in there.
The good news is many of us can see right through it and more of us are wising up to it.Although you will always have your die hard King Obama supporters who want "more free stuff" from the rich and the Bd's and Ducky's of the world.
Some of us have to remember that, as I said in my post, a writer for Playboy is not necessarily a pervert. But, some jump on this stuff as the media hopes they will and they're simply not thinking.
Don't forget; Free Speech is going by the wayside with the left. some NY Senators are saying we have too much free speech; and are aiming at "fixing that"...unbelievable.
One simply CANNOT disagree with the leftwing anymore.....the America which respected and THOUGHT about both sides of issues is almost gone.
I'm stunned at how many liberals come around when they listen for just a few weeks of Dennis Prager, for example. I've had many lib friends turn around. One journalist who hated Prager finally went to hear him and apologized to him, verbally and in writing. Not sure he completely agreed, he didn't have to, but he told him what HE'd heard was dead wrong and he admired Prager's 'clarity'...
When Americans have a media keeping them from both sides and a media (and White House) which slams the Rightwing media, like FOX, etc., we've got more problems than we think....deeper, more profound problems.
I'm hoping Elmer's Brother some day soon tells you something he's been going through that includes kids and indoctrination....
(hint, hint, Elbro! Please write me a piece of what you've been telling me)
Z, Are there any facts that a "birther" or a site like World Net would accept to prove President Obama's citizenship?
Dave, of course.
The problem is the obfuscation of ALL his records over the years...it would add fuel to any thinking person's fire.
Sure, why did it take Donald Trump to get the Obama people to produce one..., for starters?
We don't need to go into the font problems, the paper problems, the terminology problems; If you've been watching you've seen the discrepancies..
Democrat Philip Berg has led most of the charge and he's ignored, too.
Look...Obama wins; the media's quiet and the media cleverly made this a non-issue with the term "birther" and other insults to anybody who had pretty legit questions, so.....it's over!
"Leading ‘birther’ website brands Cain’s syndicated column as its own"
Apparently they changed the title after receiving complaints. Probably a nudge from Cain's office if I had to guess =)
Regardless, I think there's a larger point here, Z. Frankly, most people, including me, think it's ridiculous to suggest that Obama achieved the presidency without being a naturalized citizen. This is of course very similar to the way most people think it's ridiculous to say that 9-11 was an inside job; hence, the terms "birthers" and "truthers".
Right or wrong, most people, including me, think both of these views are strange at best.
Since our associations so often say something about ourselves...let's just say if you're running for president, you might find yourself having to explain yourself a LOT, if you have a clear, bold connection with leading voices in the "birther" movement.
I'll never forget the way Sean Hannity CONSTANTLY played Jeremiah Wright's "G--d-mn America", like, I don't know, maybe a hundread thousand times?
And I'll never forget Obama's ensuing "Speech on Race". I thought -- and still think -- it was a bold and brilliant speech. But most of Obama's opponent's, and even some "neutrals", weren't the least bit interested in an intellectual explanation or conversation about race. They were stuck on "Well, he shouldn't associate with people like that!"
And that's just the way it was.
Speaking as an independent who kinda likes the current Herman Cain wave of excitement, being associated with WND in such a conspicuous way, could definitely come back to haunt him.
Z, I just caught your question about Cain after I left a post about the article itself.
No, I don't think Cain is racist at all. As you know, you have to go a long ways before I even think about calling someone a racist.
But if I can detect a deeper question within your question: More than anything else, I think Cain is running for the GOP nomination.
And what I mean by that is this: Cain sounds a little bigoted with respect to Muslims in my opinion, but I think he's doing that to get votes. He also sounds a little bigoted when it comes to gays, but I think he's doing that to get votes as well.
But I think the real Herman Cain is a decent open-minded man with conservative leanings for sure, but not nearly as rigid or reflexive as he comes across on the radio or in recent interviews.
I suspect Cain would be a pragmatic conservative president.
I liked his position on Rick Perry's recent "mini-scandal". I like the way Cain used the term "insensitive", instead of "racist", even though it didn't stop the usual suspects from predictably mouthing off with accusations of "race card".
Anyway, I think Cain opted for the classier path in the instance.
Yep discredit is correct for one of the competition rags for the WND had a voter survey out today which showed Cain leading by a country mile.
He received 49% while Romney hit an all time low of 13% and Perry at 12%.
"Nobody" received more votes than Huntsman, Johnson and Santorum combined. I imagine many of these to be the ones who voted YES for Obama's re-election.
They also did a vote on Obama vote and it was an overwhelming 97% against his reelection (11,160 votes) to 2%(290 votes) for.
One LSM group AP says it is a two man race, Romney and Perry. They left is trying hard to pick our candidates folks even harder than the "good ole boys" of the "GOP. Don't let them.
Ticker, the LSM is who decided Romney and Perry are the frontrunners, but I'm seeing Cain beating Perry at this point...and who knows?
net observer: I hope you give the other Conservatives the same benefit of the doubt about being a little hubristic on their shows but a little calmer in person.
I always say our blogs are a bit 'bigger' in our opinions because we have little space in which to say our truth.....so we go BIG.
By the way, I'm still REEEEELING from ANderson Cooper's HIT JOB on Herman Cain tonight, just now. MY GOD!
He even said Politifact or something couldn't find that Margaret Sanger was intent on killing black babies when she formed Planned Parenthood! ARE THEY NUTS? I just Googled and it's everywhere!
MY GOD, was Cooper vile toward Cain...it never fails to amaze me.
He even said something like "But facts don't matter to Cain, who still says........."
He even suggested , as did Christiane Amanpour of all people, in an interview with Cain, that he was NUTS to think anybody in this country would entertain a little Sharia Law here and there, and it's already starting in Detroit!
you can't FREAKIN
make this crap up!CNN gives a S*** what the truth is...just KILL THE HIGHEST FLYING REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE..
I'm SO SO mad at Cooper......this stunned me.
back to watching FRASIER; I need a break.
Cooper is nothing more than a yellow journalist. His coverage of Katrina and Haiti bear that out. His ratings are in the toilet and have been for over a year now. I think I read that on one occasion he only had 25,000 viewers.
I missed Cooper. I thought you were talking about O'Donnell on MSNBC. Now THAT was pretty mean-spirited.
Net Cooper was admonished by the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) for his coverage in Haiti. He paid for it in ratings and his own colleagues held him accountable.
Are the Teabaggers really going to double down on the cartoon buffoon?
Will he make it to the Johto League? Will he choose Charizard to battle Mitt Romney?
Elbro, what was wrong with Cooper's coverage in Haiti?
Actually, nothing to do with his coverage, but is it true he and his partner adopted a child from there?
net, I hadn't heard about O'Donnell's Cain interview or whatever it was.
O'Donnell's the only "Journalist" on cable, I believe, who said openly that he's a Socialist.
Z, you GOTTA see THIS...
http://www.therightscoop.com/herman-cain-fires-back-in-highly-offensive-msnbc-interview/
Z you didn't see the parts where he interjected himself in story after story until HE was the story? For e.g. the young man caught looting just to name one.
Elbro, no I hadn't seen that! WOW...you mean Anderson's turning into Geraldo? :-)
net observer; I'm quite sure I have never seen a man with such strength and convictions and guts.
I have also rarely seen a nastier interviewer than O'Donnell..although I'll be forever grateful for his interview having proven that Cain's my frontrunner now.
I had an idea he was strong and smart but not THIS smart. He followed so carefully the questioning, he VERY rarely tried to swing the questions away by changing the subject (Only when O'Donnell was unrelenting and Cain had answered him)..
I had to laugh out loud when O'Donnell, someone who HATED everything about the Vietnam war suddenly went to bat for those who signed up (of course, Kerry seems to have been the only one :-)
I wondered if O'Donnell felt Cain wasn't for Civil Rights with the kind of attacks he made on Cain re not having marched.... He suggesting Cain didn't want Civil Rights?
I was thrilled Cain told him the facts about Republicans and their huge support of that Act.
I regret my life didn't offer me a chance to march for Rights, too.
I have never seen a man quite so well handle the kinds of questions he was asked.
What did you think?
Also, I was stunned by Anderson Cooper last night....I believe it was him, anyway....when he insulted some Conservative (maybe it was Cain, come to think of it?)for having suggested that Planned Parenthood was started with Margaret Sanger's explicit attempts at abortion clinics first in Black neighborhoods......I honestly thought COoper was better than that. That sickened me.
Post a Comment