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

Political Posturing Without A Spine (as featured on www.nuzcom.com)

Back in April (a lifetime ago in politics), Congress passed the budget for the year and then, when the common man began to breathe a sigh of relief that the government wasn't going to shut down, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geitner (bundle of joy that he is) said that the debt limit was going to have to be raised, otherwise the US AAA Bond Rating (our credit score) was going to go down the toilet and possibly put the economy, which is now generally agreed to be an anemic recovery, into a tailspin and then we're back where we started in 2008 or worse.

I remember thinking, well, they should raise the debt ceiling then.  They should question what the purpose of a limit is if they are just going to raise the limit whenever they want to.  Then I remembered that there is the GOP.  The party that doesn't question what a Republican president do, but when a Democrat is in there, all of a sudden, it doesn't matter what the previous president did, we have to focus on the current administration.  But for conservatism, a line of thought that spends so much time on history and studying the way things have worked, its convenient for them to either be amnesiacs OR for them to have suddenly seen the light!

So it didn't matter that the debt ceiling was raised about 7 times under the previous administration.  It didn't matter that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were never put on the books and now this president is responsibly putting them in the figures for the budget.  The rest of it didn't matter.  The only thing that matters now is cutting entitlement spending and not willing to make one single compromise.

The GOP, at first, said that under no circumstances were they going to raise the debt limit.  Then Boehner said that, actually, there were circumstances and that would include cuts in spending in the trillions of dollars BUT NO SPENDING INCREASES WHATSOEVER!  Not even closing tax loopholes, the money that the wealthy should be paying but are not.  NO, NOT EVEN THAT!!!

Hrm.

Then began the stalemate, with it's dramatic walk-outs, starting with Eric Cantor who walked out in the middle of the meeting and President Obama who walked out... at the end of the meeting, after setting the time for the next meeting... not nearly as dramatic as Mr. Cantor, but then again Obama doesn't act like a little child.

It didn't seem like anything was going to happen.  It seems now at this writing that the US is going to fail to pass the measures necessary to raise the debt ceiling, we're going to go into default on our debt and that we're going to be speaking Mandarin by the end of the year... well, maybe not, but the default is likely to happen.

Senator Mitch McConnell (R - KY) proposed that the Congress pass a resolution that would give the President the authority to raise the debt ceiling to the president.  It would be subject to a resolution of approval or disapproval (which the president would be able to veto and raise the debt limit anyway).  I heard about this because I was listening to Sean Hannity's radio program.  Sean Hannity has a head so big that I'm positive that it affects the tides.

Hannity, in a rare demonstration of journalism (a profession that he professes to be an active member of), reported the initial suggestions that McConnell's proposal, he immediately said "I'm going on the record that I don't believe this."  Then he siad that if it was true, then McConnell, should "stand aside".  Not "step down" but "stand aside".  Which goes against the Reagan Commandment:  Thou shall not speak ill of another Republican, but that's hardly the point.

I mention this moment for two reason.  First, Sean Hannity is a blathering idiot and when he talks, its at the detriment to the GOP .  He's the conservative Jane Fonda or Barbra Streisand only without the Tony nominations (next year, Sean, next year!) In the last ten year,s, the Republicans have begun to rely too much on their non-elected officials to get their message out.  Conservative commentators have too much impact and for all the talk about the influence of liberal bloggers (not me specifically, but the collective hive mind) and the liberal Hollywood Elite, nary a word is spoke about AM Talk Radio, conservative websites and Fox News.  The idea that a Senator could have an idea (albeit a bad one, but an idea nonetheless) and be immediately politically threatened is disgraceful.
It shows a disparity within the GOP  that must be addressed before the party returns to full power.  And, because of the Two Party system, it's only a matter of time before they do.

The second reason is more obvious and is one that has already been discussed:  that the Republicans are less interesting in coming to a resolution and are more interested in creating an atmosphere that they feel can support their return to the White House.  it's political posturing on a level that is at least disingenuous and at most criminal.  If Reince Priebus, the RNC Chair, wants the FEC to go after Obama for filming a campaign video in the White House, then he should also speak to the fact that the GOP are blatantly holding up negotiations while they struggle to control the narrative.

There's the suggestion that the GOP are crazy.  I leave that for the New York Times Op-Ed page to discuss. However, if they are sane, then the only reason that the GOP would delay up to this point would be because they are trying to control the narrative.  They are trying to convince people that not only what they are doing is the right thing to do but that, regardless as to the outcome, they have won the overall debate.

It's cowardice, a failure of ideas, and a failure of Republican leadership.  The Tea Party may have bolstered the GOP in the past but if the Republicans can't come up with a real idea or admit to a simple compromise, conservatives have to find a new party.  Because when it comes to evolution and adapting to survive, it helps to have a backbone.

Shattering the Ceiling: The Opportunity Behind (or Under) the Debt Crisis

Normally, I would focus on the GOP campaign for the presidency, but the issue of the debt ceiling is on the forefront of most people's minds, so I'll focus on that.

Since 1939, before the major US involvement in WWII, there has been a "ceiling" on the amount of money that the US government is allowed to owe.  As of this posting, the "ceiling"$14.46 trillion. Most of the debt that the US owes is actually to the citizens and states in the form of government bonds.  About 47% of the debt is owed to other countries, like China (at about 14%).

For the past six months in the USA, the major question has been the debt ceiling, whether to raise it or not.  The GOP controlling the House at first insisted that the ceiling should not be raised under any circumstances.  Now, their argument is that they would consider raising the ceiling, but not without substantial budget cuts (always to education or public programs but never with an eye on wasteful defense spending) and absolutely under no circumstances with a cent raised in taxes.

The Democrats, currently in direct leadership from President Obama have argued that nearly anyone with half a brain on the issue knows that the best way of dealing with the debt situation is to take a balanced approach.  Substantial cuts, sure, but there has to be an increase in revenue.  The GOP have staunchly refused.  They won't even look at the possibility of closing tax loopholes for higher income tax brackets.

Think about that.  The law is already on the books.  The GOP bemoan that the tax on corporations in the US is the highest in the industrialized world (it's not:  Japan's stands at 40%) and ignore the fact that the rate is topped at 35% and that most corporations don't pay that much.  GM, Bank of America and Citigroup (the major recipients of gov't funding in the previous few years) paid no taxes and BOA got a tax return to the tune of one billion.  By closing loopholes, they simply making the requirements that are already expected of the corporations in the US.

The tragedy of a democratic republic is that, at some point, you're going to have to compromise.  To compromise means that you get something that you want, but you have to give something up in the meantime. Give a little, take a little.  Here with the debt crisis, the GOP have a chance to show that they are reasonable people who are capable of governing.  But they're throwing the chance away.  They are almost going out of their way to make it easier for Obama to get re-elected.

While all this back and forth is going on, an intriguing legal argument is coming up.  The 14th Amendment, which by and large deals with equal rights and the citizenship status of those in the US, but also deals with the question of public debt.  Originally, the clause was inserted to protect the Federal government from people looking to collect money that they had lent to the Confederacy.  In the early 20th century, the Supreme Court went a step further and said that the public debt extended to all the debt that the US government owed.  So, the debt ceiling is unconstitutional and, in another sense, those that pursue to maintain it are acting unconstitutionally.  Which may seem strange for the Republicans, the party that passed a measure that would require that all laws cite what part of the Constitution they draw their powers from, but the GOP have always been selective in their outrage.

So, the real opportunity for the GOP in this instance is to follow the writing of the Constitution and remove the debt ceiling entirely.