Herman Cain offended by 'bad apple,' 'crack pipe' comments
By Kim Geiger
October 11, 2011, 9:06 a.m.
Republican presidential candidate and retired pizza chain executive Herman Cain didn't take long Monday to jump into a dispute over his views on racism.
In an appearance on Fox News’ Hannity, Cain said he found “offensive” comments that were made by Harry Belafonte and Cornel West in response to his assertion that people use racism as an excuse.
“Because he happened to have had good fortune hit him, because he happened to have had a moment when he broke through – the moment someone blinked – does not make him the authority on the plight of people of color,” Belafonte said in an interview with Joy Behar that will be aired in full Friday on HLN.
“Herman Cain is just the latest incarnation of what is totally false to the needs of our community and the needs of our nation,” Belafonte said. “I think he’s a bad apple, and people should look at his whole card. He’s not what he says he is.”
West said Cain, “needs to get off the symbolic crack pipe and acknowledge that the evidence [of racism] is overwhelming.”
Cain took to Fox Monday night and called the statements "offensive."
“Look, I left the Democrat plantation a long time ago,” Cain said in response to Belfonte’s comment. “And all that they try to do when someone like me – and I’m not the only black person out there that shares these conservative views – the only tactic that they have to try and intimidate me and shut me up is to call me names, and this sort of thing. It just simply won’t work.”
He dismissed West as someone who “has been in academia too long.”
“He is out of touch with the real world,” Cain said.
“I don’t have a lot of patience for people who want to blame racism on the fact that some people don’t make it in America,” Cain said, noting that he “was able to climb the corporate ladder” at Pillsbury and Burger King.
“If you put your mind to it and you don’t play the victim card, you can do whatever you want to do in this country,” he said. “I am walking proof of that.”
Posted by Bill, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Oct 11, 2011 at 12:53 pm
I liked what Cain was saying also until he belittled the Occupy Wall St group. Anyone that has bad things to say against this group does not have any empathy for the plight of average middle class citizens who have been screwed by their government, companies they work for, and by the financial institutions.
So this guy who makes probably 300 times the average worker, gets deferred income so he can pay deferred taxes, lifetime health coverage, lifetime executive pension, use of legal and tax attorneys at no cost, blind trusts so that he can make maximum benefit of large quantities of stock options, restricted stock with guaranteed payouts, etc, etc.....thinks that the average worker is on an even keel with him and his friends at the "good ole boys club"?
Posted by b, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 11, 2011 at 3:06 pm
I like how he told everyone to quit whining about how much other people earn or have. If you think someone else makes too much money, that's YOUR fault for not making it. I cracked up when I heard that. Pretty well covered every TEA Party whiner on this board. Quit whining about the great deal someone else negotiated, and go get your own!
Posted by ?, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 11, 2011 at 3:20 pm
Isn't the Tea Party supposed to be racist? At least that is what all the left leaning bloggers tell me. If so, how do you explain this?
"Among Tea Party supporters — who make up half of all likely Iowa caucus-goers in the poll — Cain is ahead of Romney, 31 to 15 percent. And among those who "strongly" support the Tea Party, Cain's lead is a whopping 41 to 7 percent. "
It is amazing what BS is spread when someone states something you don't agree with. Just call them a racist - that will take care of them.
Posted by norolemodel, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 11, 2011 at 3:36 pm
He's no role model!! He said on The View he believes being gay is a choice. Being born gay or straight is just like being born male or female - it's just not hidden any more because we're in the 21st century! Why people think like that is beyond me - just ignorance I guess and they can't help it - it's just the way they were born - just like gay people can't help being gay - it's just the way they were born too!
Posted by radical, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 11, 2011 at 4:40 pm
another notion to be challenged- i personally believe that whether or not people are born gay or not, they are free to be it if they choose, but the fact is norolemodel,only about 1/3 of Americans agree with you
Posted by Steve, a resident of the Parkside neighborhood, on Oct 11, 2011 at 7:54 pm
Bill, those incoherent drugged out new age hippies prorating everything they can't have because they won't work for it, are not, repeat NOT, middle class Americans who have been wronged by any corporation. Most are students, union members and professional protestors who can't agree what they are railing against, much less how to fix it. You should be worried that these are future adults that will be running things into the ground one day
Posted by Zorro, a resident of the Mariposa Ranch neighborhood, on Oct 11, 2011 at 9:19 pm
"Among Tea Party supporters — who make up half of all likely Iowa caucus-goers in the poll — Cain is ahead of Romney, 31 to 15 percent. And among those who "strongly" support the Tea Party, Cain's lead is a whopping 41 to 7 percent. "
Sounds like Tea Baggers, like all racist slaveowners once upon a time, are all too happy to have an Uncle Tom looking after their white-boy interests. The irony is delicious.
Then b says with no small dosage of sarcasm:
"None of these noisy protests. They're so uncivilized."
The Mayor of Boston agrees after he stated this evening that he would "tolerate no civil disobedience [!] in his city." (Which would've kinda ruled out the Boston Tea Party, wouldn't it?) (Not to mention the long and respected tradition in democratic America of civil disobedience.) When the rich and their Tea Bagger sops are reduced to commenting on hippy-looking protesters who lack proper hygiene, any intelligent citizen recognizes the Tea Baggers have no valid ideas to offer.
Tea Baggers got what they wanted ... their Santorums and Bachmanns and Perrys and Palins and Cains and Pauls. All have now been exposed as the doofuss santorums they all are. Tonight's debate was hilarious, capped off with Gingrich wanting to lead a pitchfork wielding lynch mob against Democrats and arrest them all (while talking at the same time about liberty). And the Republicans eat up this swill.
Remains to be seen what OWS protesters accomplish, but they sure won't be rummaging through the Tea Bagger trash heap.
Posted by steve, a resident of the Parkside neighborhood, on Oct 12, 2011 at 10:03 am
zorro, you valid ideas are linmited to calling patriots for smaller, more accountable govt tea baggers. I'm sure you are very familiar with what that term references in your circle of friends with similar lifestyles, but your use of the term is as useless as your suggestions to improve the country (what, no solutions?--only criticism of those providing a counter point to your childish rants?).
b-they can protest all they want. It gives these kids something to do and helps support the industry responsible for the sales of all those tents and sleeping bags. Maybe now is a good time to buy stock in Coleman Co.......but, don't ask adults to take these people seriously. If you've heard any of them being interviewed, they can barely construct a sentence that makes any sense, let alone formulate their stance for a better country. They are only interested in what's in it for them, they are not looking for ways to turn around the recession, but at least they are now starting to realize that obama is part of the problem. Maybe they are on to something.
Posted by R.L., a resident of the Bordeaux Estates neighborhood, on Oct 12, 2011 at 11:14 am
I noticed that too. All the college kids, the recently graduated students who are unemployed, the foreclosed upon, the bankrupt, the wiped out by medical costs, those innundated by credit card debt and school loan debt, the old pensioners on inadequately fixed incomes, the 70+ year-olds who refuse to get off their lazy butts and find a job for themselves (anyone out there ever hear of Walmart???). Yes, they all can barely construct a sentence. They should all take a hint from the highly articulate Steve from Parkside, who states, "you valid ideas are linmited."
Posted by Bill, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Oct 12, 2011 at 1:03 pm
Our parents thought that our generation was crazy for protesting the Viet Nam war. The same language was used back then, "just a bunch of crazy hippies". You know, the crazy people actually were the ones running the war, like Robert McNamara, who supposedly was a brilliant business executive but was a complete failure when it came to running government.
Just because someone is rich and powerful doesn't make them wise. The only thing Herman Cain left out from his comments towards the common people is "Let Them Eat Cake". And you know how that ended for Marie Antoninette.
Posted by The ever capable Kenny Jay, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Oct 12, 2011 at 1:23 pm
What I really really like about Cain is his ability to tell big lies without even cracking a smile. Like the doozy about he'd be dead from cancer right now if "Obamacare" had already been implemented. Of course, any knowledgable citizen knows that Cain's insurance plan under "Obamacare" would be no different than the plan he currently has. But undaunted by that mere fact, he stood in front of the camera and lied. What a guy! I'm votin' for him! We need more liars like him in the White House!
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of the Vintage Hills Elementary School neighborhood, on Oct 12, 2011 at 2:09 pm
Kenny, Herman Cain is not an elected official, so I'm unclear as to what coverage you feel would have stayed the same. So if he speculated about being covered by Obamacare; he could also speculate as to how things might have turned out for him (he was 61 at the time). Can't exactly call that a "doozy."
Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community, on Oct 12, 2011 at 3:21 pm jimf01 is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
If you want to look at the facts, logic, and common sense, then let's examine what Herman Cain said, instead of accepting what the anonymous left-wing trolls say Herman Cain said.
Fact: Herman Cain is a Stage 4 colon cancer survivor
Fact: Herman Cain said that if Obamacare had been in effect when he was first being treated for cancer
Herman Cain stated that he was able to get tests, treatment, multiple surgeries, and chemotherapy in 9 months. With a 30% chance of survival, his Dr told him fast treatment was necessary to save his life.
Common sense: any process that is handed over to government bureaucrats becomes slower and more cumbersome. Name us one that isn't?
Fact: Medicare has a higher claim rejection rate than most all large private insurance companies
Logic dictates that a process that is handled by a smaller, profit driven organization is going to be more efficient than government bureaucrats.
Fact: Many employers have already gone on record stating that Obamacare requirements will force changes to existing employees plans, and increase costs.
Herman Cain made a perfectly reasonable assumption in making this statement. But left-wing anonymous trolls on this board will tell you that everything that anyone with an (R) next to their name says is a lie. And if that person is favored by the Tea Party, well, of course they are not only liars, but racists to boot.
Seems Herman Cain is living proof that the left-wing anonymous trolls on this board are the liars.
Posted by The ever capable Kenny Jay, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Oct 12, 2011 at 5:10 pm
Under "Obamacare" people are not forced to relinguish the coverage they already have, dearie. The multi-millionaire Cain would not be expected to relinguish the coverage he already purchases. He's a liar. To say that Cain not being an elected official changes the nature of the lie demonstrates either disingenuousness, sheer stupidity, or both. Now, you want to compare a cancer patient being treated under Obamacare being poorer off than uninsured emergency room treatment, you go right ahead with that and all so much other foolishness.
A lie is not an assumption, sweetpee. Oh, and your "logic" isn't, and to say it is is to offend any reasonably thinking individual.
There's plenty of room in the world I live in for Uncle Toms to kiss up and kick down as they do. It is the lying I'm chafing at, and Cain told a big one that was slurped up by the Republicans like it was liquid gold running down the alleyway. See for example the slurper KR.
Posted by Penny, a resident of the Remen Tract neighborhood, on Oct 12, 2011 at 8:32 pm
I watched the debate, Kathleen. And Herman Cain said if he had to have had Obamacare, he wouldn't be alive today. He didn't mention that he wouldn't (and won't) have to have had Obamacare. By so omitting that important caveat, he clearly conveyed that Obamacare would have contributed to his death. A pure fabrication, if you want my opinion on the matter.
Also, Mr. Cain did not express an opinion, as you misleadingly state, Kathleen. He stated it as a fact. An opinion isn't a lie. An intentional statement of fact, uttered as a truth when it is known to the speaker to be false, is a lie.
I agree with The Kenny. Herman Cain proved himself to be a liar that night.
Posted by b, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 12, 2011 at 10:03 pm
Sounds like some people around here don't even understand this healthcare bill they call Obamacare. That dude would've been dead if he'd been one of the millions of uninsured citizens of this kingdom he wants to rule. Clearly, he has no clue what goes on outside his castle. He would've been better off living in Canada than being one of the underemployed and uninsured.
Posted by Common sense, a resident of another community, on Oct 12, 2011 at 11:09 pm
?, Cain is NOT ahead of Romney ! The only people who believe that are Iowans, and some politically ignorant evangelicals. Iowa nominated the so-called Rev Pat Robertson, over soon-to-be president Papa Bush !. Last time, in '08, tent revivalist huckster Huckabee won Iowa...so totally out of step with the country.
Nobody is even close to Romney in the legitimate national polls. If anybody else is nominated, incumbent Obama stays right where he is.
Voters have to decide...keep Obama or not....your choice.
Posted by Tennis Anyone?, a resident of Dublin, on Oct 12, 2011 at 11:19 pm
Whether he's a Mormon holy-long-johns wearing used car salesman who talks out of both sides of his mouth or a lying Uncle Tom telling black people they are "indoctrinated" and "racist" doesn't matter to me. They're the best that the Republican Party can come up with? Think about it. These are the BEST the Republican Party can come up with? Tells you quite a bit about Republicans and their party, doesn't it? Obama wins: Game ... Set ... Match
Posted by lazzboy, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 12, 2011 at 11:56 pm
No, I can't. I think 98% of all national representative are corrupt. Corrupt in the sense that they follow the money. Not necessarily taking it directly, but in the sense that they all want to get reelected so they make decisions based on that (campaign funding, more money for the district, etc) versus making decisions based on what is actually best for this country. I only say 98% because I want to believe there are at least a few good people out there, but who knows.
I don't think we currently have a good leader as President and I do not see one on the horizon.
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of the Vintage Hills Elementary School neighborhood, on Oct 13, 2011 at 12:03 am
Penny, exactly who is on Obamacare today? Cain believes he would have died if that was his plan at the time. He could be right; he could be wrong. It was opinion and speculation. Again, not defending the guy, but I don't see why he'd be called a liar on that point. As Patriot points out, there are other reasons to not choose Cain.
Posted by Tennis Anyone?, a resident of Dublin, on Oct 13, 2011 at 11:14 am
Well, then, lazzboy, if you can't state how a "better" president might effectively overcome partisan obstructionism aimed at doing nothing more than derailing the other party's future election prospects, then your criticism of Obama and potential others seems a bit toothless, it seems to me.
Your criticism of pols being beholden to money doesn't do much better. Although I agree with you, simply tossing out 98% as a figure is a bit facile, don't you think? What might be more interesting is if you looked at 'big money' contributions v. 'little people' contributions (e.g., less than $100) to various campaigns. I think you'd find one party consistently is getting more 'big money' than the other, and that that other is receiving consistently more 'little people' money. So, what I'm suggesting is that money itself isn't the evil, as all campaigns need money. I personally cut checks to candidates I support, but I don't expect them to cater to my every whim once they're in office. The problem is the ungodly sums contributed by large corporate interests and the expectation that the pol must then meet with their lobbyists on a twice-weekly basis.
Posted by steve, a resident of the Parkside neighborhood, on Oct 13, 2011 at 11:37 am
tennis anyone-"Can you tell us how a "better" president would overcome systematic, partisan obstruction in congress?" Let's start with the first two years of the current WH occupants stay. He had a 'mandate' with control of both the houses on Congress...and yet....
Part of the challenge he faces today is directly related to his policies and blatant partisan idealogy that directly resulted in the landslide defeat of democrat candidates in 2010. So, obama brought on the 'obstruction' in Congress himself, by doing things like ramming through obamacare without concensus from both parties. Heck, even members of his own party in the Senate rejected his 'jobs bill' for another round of failed stimulus spending. He can try to curry favor from those of his ilk by blaming R's for every setback he incurs, but in the end he's sealing his own fate by presiding over a failing economy.
Posted by Wish I was young enough to play tennis, a resident of the Civic Square neighborhood, on Oct 13, 2011 at 12:28 pm
The above post shows the need for increased tutoring programs and civics programs aimed to uplift citizens' general intelligence.
For starters, there are not two houses on the Hill, but one -- House of Representatives. There is another legislative body, called the Senate. (It is not a house.)
Second, how ironic it is that someone so hamstrung by a rigid ideology is unable to spell it. (When a poster's spelling is so atrocious, it immediately waves a warning flag about the poster's ability to read and comprehend what he is reading.)
Third, a genuine majority in the Senate is 60+. Obama didn't have that, and doesn't now. Hence, Obama has never had "control of both houses" [!!!] as above poster erroneously claims.
One wonders how someone can even begin to form rational judgments when the level of ignorance is so high.
Posted by Common sense, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 13, 2011 at 9:17 pm
Wish, your intellectual pettiness hinders in fully understanding or solving anything. yuk ! As I see it, reasonably informed voters can say Obama controlled 2 'houses'. Pelosi was Speaker over a DEM majority 'House' chamber, and DEM MORMON holy-long-johns Harry Reid was chosen 'Leader' over that DEM chamber. All THREE bodies pretty much ruled the WHOLE show for almost three years! That includes the ramming through of obamacare, the blocking of all 'energy' except for loosely named 'green' winners like Solyndra. Legacy is not so great. Of course both 'houses or chamber's were TOTALLY CONTROLLED by DEMS who did exactly as they wanted the two years before that !
They didn't so things they should have, and they badly botched the things they did try.
Petty name calling dribble by 'Tennis' ranks below a teen-aged smart ass. The only thing Tennis had right was 'BIG' money controls one party,...can't get much bigger than the whole of Hollywood $$, and all union $$, plus free full-time,in-kind union campaigning. Those two monopolies have bought off most all the Dems in both "houses".
Posted by franco, a resident of the Vineyard Hills neighborhood, on Oct 13, 2011 at 10:20 pm franco is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Back to Herman Cain.... Gee, I can hardly wait to start paying 18 percent sales taxes on all my purchases (state plus herman cain taxes), just so that corporations and the rich can pay 9 percent income taxes. What a bunch of crazies the Tea Party put into the race this time around....!!!!
Posted by Where's Eisenhower?, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Oct 13, 2011 at 10:25 pm
Alas, repeating one's demonstrated ignorance makes it no less ignorant when repeated a second time around. The conservative Burke might have been right after all about not allowing ignorant riff-raff as citizens into the Republic. As a life-long Republican, I'm embarrassed by so much of what passes as Republican apologia on these postings.
Posted by Paco, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 14, 2011 at 9:42 am
You're right, franco. The greedy GOPers are always complaining that the poor don't pay their fair share of taxes. They conveniently overlook how, in fact, the bottom 20% already pay an average of 11% of their income to taxes, while the upper 20% pays an average of 8% of their income to taxes. Cain wants to add to the working-class burden, and the image of kids starving in America's streets seems to be one Republicans get all frothy-mouthed about.
Posted by Michael Leonard, a resident of the Vineyard Avenue neighborhood, on Oct 14, 2011 at 11:54 am Michael Leonard is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
I guess that you Cain supporters must all be rich?
Cain is an apologist for the Federal Reserve that gives free money to banks so that they can play the Wall Street casino while not paying anything to American who have savings in the bank and not lending money to main street businesses who need it to operate and bails out the banks when they fail while letting them evict millions of Americans who fell for their predatory loan schemes.
It is amazing that people don't see though this sham and applaud his blaming victims and even telling them that they aren't victims.
How are Americans supposed to get ahead when jobs are being outsourced, bubbles are created that cause you to lose money on stocks and your house, money is printed causing price inflation, rules are changed so that the rich and corporations don't pay their share of taxes, corporations are given civil rights equal to your own and our tax money is spent on needless wars instead of rebuilding our infrastructure.
On top of all of this when some people have the courage to occupy Wall Street this mouth piece of the rich oppressing class tells them off and calls them anti capitalist when what they are against is financial fraud, not capitalism. What a creep.
No nation survives the debasement of their currency and the take over of the economy by financial manipulators. Learn your history and fight for change or prepare to be the new poor.
Posted by dublinmike, a resident of Dublin, on Oct 14, 2011 at 8:52 pm
jimf01, politics is about compromise. How else do you think our founding fathers got it worked out? Cain, like Arnold S. , is use to issuing commands. Therefore, like other potentates, strongmen and authoritarians, Cain fits the bill. Issue edicts. And, screw things up more.
Posted by lazzboy, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 14, 2011 at 10:38 pm
@tennis - "then your criticism of Obama and potential others seems a bit toothless, it seems to me."
So, I am not allowed to make an observation and form an opinion without having a solution?
Call it what you want, but if it looks like a duck, smells like a duck and quack like a duck, then I will call it a duck even though I may not have any idea of what might be better to replace that duck.
And yes, I will throw out random statistics because I could twist every statistic to make it mean something different especially in politics. But if you want some stats, unemployment has gone up with Obama in the WH. National Deficity has increased with Obama in the WH. Of course we can twist all these around to blame someone else and that's my point.
Posted by No one likes croquet?, a resident of the Carlton Oaks neighborhood, on Oct 14, 2011 at 11:21 pm
Classic from Happy Valley.......
Under Senate rules, it takes a vote of 60 senators to end debate, or, in Senate parlance, “to invoke cloture.”
This means that 41 senators can stop a nomination or a bill from being brought to a vote, effectively killing it. (See filibuster)
Tennis oldster probably meant by "genuine majority" de facto majority. Either way, most legislation in the Senate needs the new "super majority" before it even can be voted on. The new "super majority"? 60+. The effective change from 67 to 60 occurred a few decades ago, I think. There's lots written on this on the internet, or can be found in any basic civics textbook.
Which all means that, as per usual, steve doesn't know anything about anything. Hang around a while and you'll learn that there are a lot of right-wing idiots spewing ignorance with a heavy venomous streak in it. Speak a little bit of truth to them and they go scurrying back under their rock.
Posted by Corquet again, a resident of the Carlton Oaks neighborhood, on Oct 14, 2011 at 11:43 pm
Lizzboy ... (what a name!)
I'm going to take a stab at this one, too. I don't think anyone is telling you you're not allowed to form opinions. (Although the right-wingers here frequently mount censorship campaigns against those who have ideas different, and better argued, than their own.)
But your metaphor doesn't serve you very well. You haven't been calling Obama a duck. You've been calling him something that doesn't measure up to something -- whether it be 'duck', or 'good president', or 'better president'. Tennis asked you what a 'better president' would look like, and you admitted that you didn't know.
Well, that seriously weakens your opinion that he's not a very good president. For when someone makes such a claim, audience expectation is that the opiner -- in this case, you, aka lizzboy -- have either a standard against which to make such a claim or perhaps even an historical president against whom we could be some reasoned comparisons.
But to simply say Obama needs to be replaced by someone "better," without standard for comparison and judgment, comes across as an ill-formed opinion. What did tennis call it? Toothless? I'd have to concur.
Posted by Avid Tennis Player, a resident of Dublin, on Oct 15, 2011 at 3:37 pm
"Like Romney, Perry is suffering from an inability to raise money from a broad base of supporters, usually measured by the number of small-dollar donors. Perry raised $13.4 million of his $17.2 million from donors giving between $2,500 and $5,000. He only raised $698,820 from donors giving less than $200, which was 4 percent of his total contributions, the lowest percentage for any current presidential candidate."
As for Cain, does he even have a campaign team? Or is he simply in this to sell his books? 9-9-9 ... and 30% of Republicans drank up the snake oil! What did Barnum say? There's a sucker/Republican born every minute.