GOP Candidate Breakdown #9: Herman Cain

I lived in Atlanta, Georgia for several years.  Some of my favorite times were in the year 2008.  I don't have a sports team that I follow, no real religion to speak of, so it was replaced by the 2008 campaign.  I watched CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News all the time, I was constantly reading the Drudge Report; it's safe to say that I knew everything that was going on in the campaign, I knew the journalists and the broadcasters who was with what campaign and the latest poll numbers.

In Atlanta, there's a talk radio station, WSB 750 that hosted people like Neal Boortz (who I don't mind as much as I used to), Clark Howard (there's nothing wrong with Clark Howard) and Sean Hannity (who I despise.)  Late in the evening, about 8pm, they'd play the Michael Savage show.  For those of you who don't know who Savage is, I would say that you lead normal and well-adjusted lives.  I know this because the moment that Savage enters your life, everything will fall into chaos and disarray.

I was leaving work late one night and turned on the radio.  I listened to WSB because I like listening to points of view and opinion that radically differ from my own.  But one evening instead of listening to the harsh and crass Brooklyn-accented voice of Savage, came a clear, concise Southern elegance, the kind that you'd expect a Baptist preacher from Georgia to execute without flaw.  It was Herman Cain.  He replaced Michael Savage because (according to talking with someone at WSB), they had to push Savage back to get the "nutjobs" to stop calling during the "regular" hours.

So my first full-on exposure to Herman Cain wasn't as quick as others.  He is known of course to be the former CEO of Godfather's Pizza and for having turned the company around (with the exception of the one up the street from my house.)  He also ran in 2004 for the Georgia Senate Seat that was being vacated by Zell Miller and would be taken by Johnny Isakson (R).  But with this radio show, he was going to get a chance to speak to the Atlanta audience and who-knows-where-else and explain his message.

He's still in the race despite poll numbers and general lack of knowing what the hell he's doing.  So, let's get to it.

Age: 65.  He's in good health and shows his age a little, but there's polish in there.  Thats to say that Herman Cain looks wise not just... well, old.

Hometown:  He was born in Tennessee, but his home for the last several years has been Atlanta, GA.  He's usually described of as Georgian or from Georgia, which is well-enough.

It should be noted that he's the only candidate so far that doesn't have a political office under his belt.  Outside of radio broadcaster and CEO, his other credential is Chariman of the Federal Bank in Kansas City.  He's never been elected to office before, despite his campaigns.

Place in the Republican Party:  He's likable to the Tea Party movement and Fox News likes him as well, more because they like conservative minorities and not really because of who Herman Cain is or what he stands for.  Because he's never held an elected office before and hasn't won a campaign before, he's considered more of a fringe candidate than Ron Paul.

He's okay with fundraising, but will have a long way to go to match Perry, Bachmann or Romney.

Polls:


Nationally, he's in the back of the pack.  If someone like Palin enters the race, like Ron Paul, Herman Cain should consider cutting his loses.  His voice would be lost in the media shitstorm that would ensue.

In a head-to-head match up with Obama, Cain loses by an average of 14 points.  That number is born out of two points:  Cain has a hard time getting his name and message out among the other candidates (a problem that Obama doesn't have) and while Obama is slipping in popularity, people prefer the Devil they know to the Devil they don't.  The other point is this:  what little information about Cain that has gotten out into the public knowledge has been his strong opposition against Muslims.  Not Muslim extremists, just Muslims.   More about that later on in this post.

Iowa:  He's towards the back in the poll averages, however, this is going to be worse once Perry is included in all the polling.  A black conservative businessman isn't going to have the same sort of appeal that a white Southern farmer is going to.  This blogger also wonders how Cain's religion and church (here's a link to the website of the church he's a minister that he attends) is going to play out should he advance in the nomination process.

New Hampshire: Again, not doing so hot in New Hampshire.  The more libertarian-minded populace of the state should prove to be something of an advantage to Cain, but it's harder for him to get his name out in the media (in a good way).

South Carolina:  He does better here.  However, Perry isn't put into the mix and, again, if Palin enters, a lot of attention will be taken from Cain.  As I've written before, SC does like it's crazy politicians and in the South, smart-mouthed politicians can get a little bit further.  If his campaign survives long enough, he could stand to do well here, but it's hard to imagine him getting by far enough.  At least at this point.

Florida:  More bad news. He gets shoved back, even with a hypothetical Palin campaign and there's no reason to think that he would do well in Florida.  If he can somehow position himself as a favorite in the Tea Party and still appear as a loyal Republican, he might do well.  But it's hard to tell and a little bit of a long shot.

Nevada:  Herman who?

As I wrote earlier, there are two main problems with Cain's campaign:  name recognition and bad name recognition.

Not a lot of people know who Herman Cain is and sometimes he just comes across as a bad imitation of Alan Keyes.  He's never held an elected position anywhere and, while he has a strength in a business background, there's a larger question as to whether or not that is necessary to get the country running in the right direction again.  He has to make both arguments at the same time;  that's double the work that he has to put into the campaign.

The other problem, and maybe the bigger problem, is that when Herman Cain does get on television, it's about some horrible and disgraceful thing that he has said about Muslims.  He's vocal that he wouldn't nominate a Muslim to his cabinet, he's said that Sharia law is trying to take over the country and that he's supportive of communities that want to ostracize Muslims and prevent the construct of mosques anywhere.  As these links demonstrate, it's not just that he's wrong, but that he's gone back and said that he didn't say these things.  Which makes him a liar and an opportunist.

While there is something refreshing about his bluntness and his frank speaking manner (something I always appreciate), it has to be made clear that someone that he is bigoted in private and lies about it in public.  Does he not remember that he says these things?  And if Muslims are a problem domestically, how would this play out in diplomatic relations in Pakistan and Indonesia and other predominately Muslim nations?

I don't think that Herman Cain is a bad person, but he should stop and ask himself why he's running for president.  It comes across to me as a vanity project.  It's why he took the radio gig, it's why he's a commentator on Fox News and Fox Business and why he says half the things that he does.  He's disingenuous, insincere and is a waste of everyone's time.

---

You can also follow me on Twitter @truthissoap

Presidential Campaign Obituary #1: Tim Pawlenty

I feel responsible for this recent defeat of former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty.  If I had the time, I could have written another GOP Candidate Breakdown of him and it would have garnered all sorts of attention.  Then, Pawlenty would have exited the race much, much earlier, instead of wasting all of his money on the pointless, fruitless Ames Straw Poll.

Should Pawlenty have dropped out of the race?  I think the better question why was he in the race to begin with.

Good for him.

Tim Pawlenty entered the race for 2012 because 1) he was floated as a possible VP candidate back in 2008 and the resulting chatter also speculated that he might make a bid in 2012 or 2016 and 2) he was originally seen as a reasonable guy that was capable of bridging the gap between the GOP and Democrats (he was elected Republican governor of a "blue" state.)

However, Pawlenty fell victim to a number of causes, most of which were preventable.

First, he got in the race to begin with entirely too early.  He declared back in March 2011, which meant that he had five months to get the message out.  Good for him.  But by jumping in so early, it allowed people to get bored with him so quickly and realize that he was the milquetoast candidate.  It wasn't until the end of his campaign that he realized that he had to distinguish himself.  What's more, he declared that he was running for President and then more or less stayed in one place the entire time, which leads me to...

Second, he put entirely too much emphasis on the Ames Straw Poll and the State of Iowa.  Watch this bite Michele Bachmann in the ass.  The Ames Straw Poll is important to two groups of people: the person who wins and the person who's banking on winning and then loses.  It proved to be catastrophic for Pawlenty for the simple reason that he made it so important.  Look at Newt Gingrich.  He wasn't doing nearly as well as Pawlenty and he's not a quitter!  I mean, he should quit, but that's not the point.  These things are only as important as you make them out to be.  Look at Romney:  he couldn't give a shit that he didn't win and he came in behind someone that had announced their candidacy that day (Gov. Rick Perry).  He's still going strong.

Boo hoo, Michele Bachmann is liked more in a corn wasteland than Pawlenty.  

That's like being the King of Turd Mountain.  

Third, he tried to break away from the pack too late.  The most significant point of the campaign before his withdrawal was actually within the last week when he was debating Michele Bachmann, among others.  He showed fire, he showed strength and he showed that he could be as snide and snippy as Rep. Bachmann.  But it was too little too late.  You don't try to out-sass the Sass Queen.  What's more, you have to establish that as your character a while ago.  Otherwise, you look desperate and out of control.

So, what does the future hold for someone like Pawlenty.  As was suggested back in 2008, he would make a good VP for the eventual nominee.  He's agreeable and capable of reaching across the aisle in order to solve issues.  He also would be good for balancing the ticket, not geographically but ideologically.  This would allow the Prez Nominee to be a little further to the right than they normally would be.

He should be on a short list, but it wouldn't surprise this blogger if Pawlenty were to go the way of Tommy Thompson and eventually take up a national level seat in Congress to represent Minnesota.  There might be a chair vacant for Minnesota's 6th District in November 2012.

I won't be using it!

---

You can also follow me on Twitter @truthissoap

Also, be sure to click over to www.nuzcom.com to get more news and commentary.  Be sure to follow my column there!

Songs and Campaigns: How Politicians Never Learn to Listen

Tom Petty Tells Bachmann to Back Off "American Girl"

I like to think that this blog has documented very well the stupidity of Michele Bachmann.  But, I can't really blame her. All politicians have a stupid streak through them.  There's a quiet tragedy about how politicians never seem to actually listen to the song.

In the above link, there's an article that details Bachmann using the song "American Girl" and didn't get the permission of Tom Petty.  Below that, HuffPost lists the several examples of politicians that use songs without the artist's permission.  Even though its probably a biased list (most of the offenders are Republicans, though Obama is on the list), it seems that most frequent offender was John McCain, and specifically John McCain back in 2008.  It was like an intern just hooked up their iPod shuffle to the PA system and hit play.  Ridiculous.

Two things strike me as insanely odd in this:  First, why are there so many offenders?  I mean, surely the one mistake that would have been made would have been Ronald Reagan using "Born in the USA" and then all political campaigns after that would have hired a guy to ask all the artists whether or not they can use the songs.  You got a thousand people working for the most minor of campaigns.  All you have to do is google the record company and call them.

Bachmann Intern:  Hey, I'm So-And-So with the Michele Bachmann for President Campaign and we were wondering if we could get your permission to play "American Girl" during campaign rallies.

Tom Petty:  What?

Bachmann Intern:  Can we play "American Girl" during our campaign rallies.

Tom Petty:  Um... no.

SEE HOW EASY THAT WAS!?  It's a quiet action, your rejection isn't public and people wasting their time talking about how your campaign is ridiculous because you couldn't take the time for a five minute phone call. PS, I wish that calling Tom Petty was that easy.

Me:  So, when you were touring with Dylan in the 80's, you guys totally got high, right?

Tom Petty:  What?

Me:  You got blazed with Dylan?

Tom Petty:  Um... yeah, man, like all the time.

Me:  Awesome.

But this leads me to the other point:  Do the politicians actually listen to the songs that they are choosing to play at the rallies???  Reagan obviously never listened to "Born in the USA" before he started playing it or he would have known that the song is from the point of view of a homeless guy who was a veteran of Vietnam and was subsequently rejected from American society despite his service.  Charlie Crist played "Road to Nowhere", which is a terrible, terrible, terrible idea for a campaign song and Crist deserved to lose just based off of that.  Why not play "And She Was"?  The girl in the video was floating for Crist's sake (sorry for the pun, couldn't help myself), which suggests that we're going some where with Crist!

Then you have Bob Dole changing the lyrics from "I'm a Soul Man" to "I'm a Dole Man", which is like saying "Yeah, I'm fucking cool!" to "I work for a banana company and I'm here to see that all your banana needs are being met..."

And then we come back to Bachmann's use of "American Girl".  It's clearly a song about a girl that jumps off the balcony after losing something (or someone) that completed her.  I'll grant its appropriate in the sense that what made her American was the fact that she was going to try and die trying, if that's what it meant.  But maybe you shouldn't share with your followers that you don't have a problem with them imaging you jumping off the balcony.  Think about that.  But I suppose, if you did, you wouldn't be Michele Bachmann.

The Problem With Bachmann and the Modern Media

Michele Bachmann Doesn't Know How to Answer a Fucking Question

The question is simple and the answer is transparent.  Bachmann is asked very plainly, "Why did you say that Obama only issued one oil drilling permit when he released over 250?".

The response:  Obama hasn't released enough.

(All the articles that I have here go over to the Politifact website, my favorite news site on the web.  I like it because it's fair, even-minded and has a long, long memory.)

No where in the Bachmann lexicon is she capable of admitting that she was wrong.  Go ahead, try to find a statement that Bachmann's made that she's come back and said that she was wrong on.  Its not like she said "My favorite color is blue..." when all the Bachmann insiders have said that it's red.  I'm talking about the Treasury Secretary wants us to have a One World currency, or (my favorite) that Swine Flu can be attributed to Democrats being president, when it happened under a Republican.  Not just wrong, but insanely wrong, wrong that could only have been achieved by knowing what the correct answer was and then drawing the lines to the complete opposite facts.

I should point out that no congressman (or woman) has ever gone directly (which is the key word) from the House to the White House (though there are plenty who have tried.)  I think that Bachmann has about the same chance that Pat Robertson did back in '88.  The Evangelicals will be mobilized for a little bit but other elements of the party are going to resist the portion that insists upon the Christian religion (please see Hucakbee campaign) and want to focus on other aspects of the platform.

But in the meantime, this exchange makes two things quite clear:

FIRST:  If Michele Bachmann is incapable of saying something to the effect of "You know what, I was way off on the numbers, HOWEVER, the point about the Obama Administration's hostility towards off-shore drilling shows BLAH BLAH BLAH!", then what does this mean for her presidency?  I mean, if the US makes a mistake on the international stage (a novel concept, I know), is she going to redact it?  Is she going to acknowledge that we're flesh and blood humans capable of making a mistake?

And it's not a question of opinion that the last Swine Flu outbreak was during a Democrat.  It's an objective fact that it happened during the Ford Administration (one of the forgotten worst presidencies because Carter was so much worse ::eye roll::) Did she apologize and say "You know, what I was just trying to be snide."

I know that it's not politically-wise to apologize for cocking up and moving on, but you'll always gain the respect of the people whenever you admit that you were wrong.

Instead, all she could say was that Obama was messing something up about offshore drilling, like he was supposed to put the drill literally on his shoulder and swim to the bottom of the Gulf and get the oil up through a crazy straw... I assume Bachmann has a lot of crazy straws...  But this leads me to the second problem:

SECOND:  When she was obviously dodging the question, when she wouldn't apologize, when she wouldn't even admit that she had on several occasions said something that was not only wrong, but misleading (which is what makes it Pants on Fire), what did Schieffer do?  He said "I don't believe that you answered the question...", and then ended the segment.

There has to be a responsibility that the media has towards those that are LYING.  He wasn't even trying to pin her down in the report that she had been caught lying and just let it roll on by.  "Hope to see you down the trail."?  I'm not accusing Schieffer of favoritism with Bachmann or the GOP, but I am accusing him of laziness.  When you repeat a question, and they are giving you the same answer, ask "Why are dodging the question?" or "Why won't you answer the question directly?" or "Did you know that a decapitated monkey with Clinton bumper stickers stapled to its body has a better chance of becoming president than you?"

The unfortunate thing is that there's no recourse, there's no real chance to take a step back and to have an honest conversation about how we can't have an honest conversation.

Converting Across the Aisle

One of my favorite thinkers of our day is Christopher Hitchens.  Most of the time, he's very well-reasoned in his arguments and, even when he's off the mark, he's tight, biting and smarter than a god-damn whip.

Recently, he was diagnosed with esophageal cancer and has slowed his output as of late.  I usually watch him for his religious debates (brilliant, brilliant, brilliant!) and for his commentary on politics foreign and domestic.  I don't always agree with him, but I respect the hell out of him.

I always forget he reviews books and, this past weekend, reviewed the book from playwright/author David Mamet.  "The Secret Knowledge" is a book that discusses Mamet's "conversion" from liberal to conservative... 

And Hitchens drops an elbow from the sky! And Mamet is down...

I highly recommend the article because it shows how adroit Hitchens is with the written word and that it's not necessarily a problem of what the argument is but it is a problem as to how a problem is presented.  And the argument present within the book is clunky and full of errors.

In the effort of full disclosure, there may have a been a mix up regarding conservative thinkers: American Thinker: Mixing up Hitchens, Mamet and Hayek?

In response to that article, I have to admit that for all the points that Hitchens makes, this is merely an oversight for the overall argument.  I agree that sources need to be cited properly, but really?  You're point is that it wasn't Fredrich Hayek, it was Thomas Sowell?  What about, oh, I don't know, everything else that was mentioned?


I used to think of myself as conservative, especially when I first got into politics.  I think my change to liberalism began in relation to three events, all of which occurred in or around 2006:

1- Hurricane Katrina.  Whether the government should have been responsible is something else entirely.  However, since there was supposed to be a response and it was slow, it seemed like the answer wasn't to limit government but to try and make it better in its current manifestation.

2- The Iraq War.  I supported the invasion and subsequent "occupation" (there's really not another word for it) and for three years, I defended it and argued for it.  Then, the death toll reached 2,000 American soldiers.  And I thought to myself "That's it.  That's the number".  In Blowin' In The Wind, Bob Dylan asks "And how many deaths will it take 'till he knows that too many people have died?"  And it haunts me, still to this day that I have a number.  2,000.  Not 1,999 or one, but 2,000.

3-  (Not so proud of this one) I started dating a staunch liberal... hey, liberal or conservative, we all want to get laid.

Now, these events happened slowly, over the course of a few years.  When I got to "the other side", I looked back on the company that I kept and the thoughts I had and the views that I espoused, and I thought to myself about how ardent I was in believing these things.

But, I thought to myself, I didn't think of myself as wrong, any more than I consider myself to be wrong now.  At this point, I fully comprehended what it was to have a point of view and the difference between the subjective and the objective.  One can have an opinion and I can have an opinion, but we should all share facts.  I'm 26 years old.  I've realized this.

Mamet hasn't.  And that's the problem with conversions in general, be it political or religious.  The new and faithful are more adamant about the belief than those raised in the proposition.  (Don't believe me?  Ask Cat Stevens)  And if you think that Mamet has got it together, thats fine... but he admires Sarah Palin for being "a Worker".

What work has she done?  I can only really venture to say that she's an excellent self-promoter, but as a mother?  Failed.  As a politician?  Failed.  As a leader?  I don't think that she's even begun to learn how to do that.

Jon Stewart Pisses on the Rug in Fox's House and Doesn't Blink

http://youtu.be/RwyUdBp-cck

I don't genuinely believe that Chris Wallace is a bad person.  Nor do I believe that Chris Wallace is a blind fool. But it seemed like Wallace was more than willing to do the same old tactics when it came to trying to wrangle Stewart into the little logical fallacies that are presented as true arguments.

"Well, Diana Sawyer said one time that the cops would be able to arrest you in Arizona just because you look Mexican and THAT'S NOT TRUE!"

"Well, you're right, that's not true."

"Well, then the mainstream media has an intense liberal bias and we're looking to balance that out."

I've never liked the phrase "mainstream media", even when I watched Fox News on a regular basis, even when I was voting Republican.  Fox News consistently ranks first in the ratings and yet calls CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS and MSNBC and they brag, brag, brag about it.

But Stewart is in rare form in the video.  He's at once gracious AND he's sharp, biting and unforgiving.  He's a man of principles, probably because he takes criticisms of himself more seriously than most in the media do.

One last thing that I'll make mention of:  Wallace says "Let's talk about your network".  Then, he plays a clip from the Roast of Pamela Anderson and then has this "AH HA!" look on his face, like he just won the argument.  The point that no other network seems to get is that The Daily Show is a show that is comedy first and commentary second.  Also, if you're going to run a news network, get criticized by The Daily Show and then go "Well, your network tells dick and fart jokes!", you have automatically lost the argument.  The fact of the matter is that The Daily Show isn't news, it's satire, and if you're too blind or dumb to see the difference, you're in bigger trouble than Stewart making a joke about you.

Kudos to Stewart and as long as Jon and the Daily Show don't take themselves that seriously, we just might be alright

Announcement

I think that everyone in the poltical realm as a crush on someone from 'the other side'.  For me, and I don't think that I would find any dissent in this statement, Meghan McCain is a beautiful woman.



She is what conservatives want Ann Coulter to be:  attractive.

I didn't really have anything beyond that particular statement.  Just wanted to share that little tidbit.