Why I would urge people who support Cain to not give up hope.
THE ATTACKS AGAINST HIM IS BECAUSE THE ESTABLISHMENT IS AFRAID OF HIM.
Sounds paranoid, I know, but this is the de facto operation of the mass media. The guy on top gets the guns aimed at him first. Cain is the rising star, he is resonating with the general population, for all his shortcomings, he still is more a "leader" than Romney or Perry...who are the more "acceptable" candidates for the RNC nomination.
So, I take anything said about Cain with a HUGE grain of salt.
minervx wrote:
1. The scandal accusations. While likely the accusations are a baseless smear campaign, he has been handling it poorly, running rather than aggressively trying to defend his name. And if there is truth to the accusations, he is dead.
Granted, IF the accusations are PROVEN true, he would be a death blow as the Republicans/conservatives supposedly stand for "values."
Problem...there is not going to be a valid fact-finding investigation. This is a trial in the court of public opinion where rules of evidence do not operate. This is mud slinging, and they are hoping to catch Cain in a blatant lie or get him to admit to something they can twist into proof of sexual harassment.
My issue....Obama had worse brought against him...especially on his proven Marxist, Communist, Socialist, radical revolutionary associations and beliefs...all of which were (and still are) very relevant to his holding the office of President. The media pretty much was silent. If the worst you can come up with against Cain is that he was "accused" of sexual harassment. It is nothing to worry about.
minervx wrote:
2. His 9-9-9 plan gets more complicated as he adds onto it. While I like the idea of broadening the base and lowering the rates, he assumes both that the sales tax will match current revenues and that people can evade the sales tax by buying used goods, which is a paradox. Moreover, he does not address how a new sales tax will affect people receiving disability, retirement pensions, etc. Moreover, he never addresses how this measure (which even many Republicans in congress disagree with) will pass. He says "don't worry about whether it's passable, worry about if its bold enough". Well, eventually he may have to compromise his plan and overcomplexify it to please members of Congress. So if 999 does not pass, he just sits at his desk for 4 years.
What America needs is tax reform. We need to abolish the current tax code that is nothing but a tool for the IRS to confound and abuse people and businesses. Maybe 9-9-9 won't pass at all, but something similar in concept will pass. Cain is the ONLY CANDIDATE pushing this issue other than Ron Paul. Going with Romney or Perry means no real tax code reform is going to happen.
minervx wrote:
3. He is danger of being a single issue candidate. He needs to talk not just about 999, but environment, health care, social issues, etc also. He is a pro-choice. He says he's pro-life but he thinks the government should not illegalize abortion. That's essentially pro-choice. I never met any pro-choice person who likes abortion.
As the president DOES NOT enact legislation, this is irrelevant. Obama's "single issue" was about wealth redistribution. Everything he touted was anchored in this. CONGRESS ENACTS LEGISLATION. The president only signs it into law or vetos it. The most a president can do is facilitate the enactment of legislation, but he can't force Congress to do anything...nor is it his job to do so. The job of the president, at heart, is to enforce the laws of the United States.
minervx wrote:
4. It seems like he is ill prepared, whereas other candidates like Newt Gingrich have really done their homework. He said at one point "I've only been researching these issues for a couple of months". We need a president who already has his/her beliefs developed, not someone who researches the issues last minute like they are cramming for an exam.
We allowed Obama, who has no real experience doing anything, to be president. They derided Palin being a VP candidate when she had more executive experience as governor of Alaska than Obama had doing anything. The hypocrisy of that position drove me crazy. No matter what a president believes, what he does will be largely shaped by the experts he puts in his cabinet to advise him on issues. He makes the final call, but even if you are die hard for one side of an issue, you might find out the reality is that your views won't work and can't be imposed.
Professional politicians are a huge part of America's problem. I don't see much value in putting in someone more "polished" who ultimately thinks like a politician.
minervx wrote:
5. He does not address foreign policy much, he has no foreign policy experience, and he seems to not know much about it. He never clarified his stance on Afghanistan. He spoke little of Iraq. Foreign policy is 50% of what the president is, and while Herman Cain may make a good domestic president, I doubt that he will be an effective Commander In Chief.
Again, Obama had no foreign policy experience. There are advisers for that. The best foreign policy is to let those who spend their life training to do the job do their job. The president as Commander-In-Chief is a civilian safeguard, but no civilian really can tell the military how to best do their craft, and every military failure America has suffered since WWII is directly tied to politicians and presidents telling the military how to accomplish its mission when most of them have no training on how the job needs to be done.
minervx wrote:
6. Lack of overall political experience, though I do respect his administrative experience as CEO. I know he says "How's that working for you", and likes being the outsider, but in Jan 2013, he will be an insider. People in elected office have made plenty of mistakes, but they have learned from them. For example Perry and Romney made a lot of mistakes as governor, but that's a part of learning, and they are wiser from those mistakes. Cain on the other hand has to start from scratch, and will probably make a lot of mistakes, because everybody makes mistakes at first.
We were okay with Obama. Null argument. Romney is "Obama lite." No changes will happen with him in office. Perry is "G.W. Bush lite." No changes will happen with him in office. Both are politicians. Ron Paul could stand for something, but we know the RNC will not give him the nomination. Gingrich has experience and a sharp mind, but he is the face of evil from the Republican party's past. If he got the nomination, you can bet a lot of middle-aged to elderly Democrats will turn out in force to vote against him. Even if he didn't do anything really bad when he was Speaker of the House, his face and name was the icon for everything negative associated against the Republican party in his time.
Cain's chief asset is that his is largely a political blank slate. You can't pin past politics on him. Unlike Obama, Cain has a proven track record of success that holds up to, if not outshines, the records of Romney and Perry.
minervx wrote:
Again, I really like him as a person. But there is a difference between "I really like this person" and "This person should be the leader of the free world for four or eight years". I think he'd make a great Governor, but President of the United States, the world's highest title, is questionable. So, if he does not address these things, my support, as well as his entire campaign is in danger.
Ultimately, you aren't going to get a "perfect" candidate, and frankly, most of your ill notions are the product of the media trying to crucify Cain on any bit of dirt they can dig up...true or speculative.
If you didn't support Romney or Perry before now, what makes you think bailing on Cain is such a smart idea? Do you not realize that this is what the media wants? Do you not realize that if Cain bows to pressure and leaves the race, whomever takes his place will then get all the fire from the media?
The only way Obama gets another 4 years is if the Republican party HANDS IT to him. The Democrats did this in 2004 by putting up Kerry/Edwards...two super liberals that infuriated conservatives so much that they had to show up to re-elect G.W. Bush. This was stupefying because the rules of running a campaign are....
1. Energize your base to come out to vote.
2. Don't do anything to upset your opponent's supporters lest they come out to vote.
3. Sway the undecided voters into your camp.
I was taught these rules by a campaign strategist FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. Kerry/Edwards were so far to the left there was NO WAY conservatives would vote for them, and in 2004, conservatives were angry enough with how G.W. was running things that they would have considered voting for a moderate on the Democratic ticket. If they had put up a true moderate, they would have had the White House in 2004. Their choice of candidates went against everything that lays the foundation for running a political campaign. On top of that, Kerry/Edwards took a double-digit lead on G.W. and turned it into a 50/50 race by election day. What a brilliant choice (sic) if they were trying to win, right? No, but it was a brilliant way to ensure G.W. got another 4 years.
Our elections are set up. They are exercises in showmanship. You don't have a choice on election day. The choices are largely made for you, and sometimes the outcomes are pre-determined regardless of actual votes. The power elite CHOOSE who you get to pick from. If they don't get their #1 choice, their #2 pick is someone they can work with. Loose cannons like Cain or Ron Paul is what they are afraid of. They don't own them, and if the masses turn out and put them on the ballot, there is a chance the elite could have someone in power who they can't control at all.
Mock the Tea Party movement all you want, but for the first time in DECADES, the American people have been getting "outsiders" into public office...people who are doing what the people want, not the will of the power elite. If we can't keep up this trend, the elitists will own everything. This is the dying gasp of a free nation. Our electoral system is bought and paid for by special interests. If we can't/won't take it back now, when, if ever, will we?
09 Nov 2011, 3:15 am
