I was wrong about Herman Cain.
I said originally that Cain could stay on message better than almost any other candidate. His 9-9-9 plan was all he would talk about and I attributed that to good messaging on his part.
I was wrong.
It is not messaging. Cain cannot talk about anything else.
Tonight there is a video from the Journal Sentinel online that show an interview with Herman Cain. Forget the sexual harassment allegations. Forget Mark Block’s gross incompetence. Herman Cain needs to leave the race because he is not qualified to be President.
The video is painful to watch. It is obvious Cain is in over his head and simply clueless.
And this man wants to be the Commander in Chief making decisions?
Candidates have something called briefing books. These are prepared by staffers and contain, among other things, topics candidates are expected to have at least a passing knowledge of. Cain may not be expected to know the name of the President of Montenegro or the Prime Minister of Moldavia, but Libya is a question that will obviously come up
Watching Herman Cain stumble around looking for an answer is beyond painful. He looks to the ceiling, desperately seeking an answer. He responds in vague talking points.
Unfortunately for Herman Cain, Ron Paul was not there to throw him a lifeline.
What this shows more than anything is a stunning lack of preparation by not only the campaign staff, but by Herman Cain. This was not even a semi obscure question like what should American policy be towards Sri Lanka.
In the debate last Saturday night, Herman Cain’s foreign policy philosophy seemed to be, ‘I’ll surround my self with people who have a clue because I do not.’
Earth to Herman Cain. You cannot subcontract out the duties of President.
This is not deciding whether you will sign a ceremonial proclamation for national railroad month.
Newt Gingrich would have had no problem with this. Neither would Michele Bachman, or Ron Paul or Rick Santorum or even Mitt Romney or Jon Huntsman.
Herman Cain has some very dedicated supporters. A few days ago, when I came out saying he should leave the race, they expressed their displeasure towards me in no uncertain terms.
To the Cain supporters, I simply say watch this video and ask yourself, “Is this the man you want answering the red phone in the White House at 3 AM?”
Permalink Reply by Mike Moore on I admit that Newt is impressive, but I see him as pushing the same overall agenda that the two parties have been instructed to push for decades, with subtle differences in perceived goals of each. My main concern now is achieving a drastic reduction in spending - tweaking the tax code and making cuts that will shave a little off the budget in 10 years are not the immediate haircut that government needs to take. I honestly don't think the dollar has more that a few years (if not months) to live as the world's reserve currency, if changes are not accomplished quickly. Failure of the "super committee" to act is evidence of the lack of courage and vision in Washington now.
You are right to say that Ron couldn't enact changes without building coalitions, but if he is elected, it would be a statement to all politicians to "Get on Board," Remember when Ronald Reagan made his TV address to the nation to say that Congress wasn't implementing the tax cuts he was elected to make? He asked for people to pressure representatives to make it happen, and the people did. Ron would have to do the same, and the people would have to apply that pressure. It's just that I have absolutely no reason to trust that any candidate but Ron has the courage to call for the treatment required to get the country healthy again, despite the uttered sound bites of the other candidates. Consistency is key to me, and I see nothing but platitudes, sound bites and rhetoric in the others.
I'm open to being shown where I'm wrong in that assessment. But I can't support anyone who can't discern the difference between strong defense and global militarism, so I have no hope that the other candidates you mention will make the necessary cuts to militarism budgets (not defense budgets) that are required if we are to wean people off of the bankrupting entitlement programs in the coming decades. Without cutting militarism funding, there is no funding left to insure a smooth transistion in benefits for the elderly, young and infirmed. Ron Paul will defend America and Americans, with deadly and unequivocal force, if we are directly threatened. He'll do it with a declaration of war, identify the mission, achieve the victory with all required force and come home. As commander in chief, Ron would have the unilateral power to bring troops home from abroad, keep the forces on our soil, spending their money here to improve the economy and strengthen out border and national security.
Also, the oft-repeated mantra that Ron Paul is unelectable is losing its luster, as he is steadily rising in the poles (recently polls show him tied for 1st with 19%, or at 2nd with 20% in Iowa and 2nd place in New Hampshire). He's gaining strength not by main stream media coronation, but by slowly winning the hearts and minds of those willing to listen and understand, despite the media's marginalizing of his message .
Sorry for the lengthy rant, but I think we want the same thing, a free, strong, responsible and honorable country and population, but I see only one man that is honest, consistent, knowledgeable and courageous enough to get us there. I'm honored to have the rare opportunity to vote for such a man in America.
Permalink Reply by Mike Moore on Thanks, Ronald.
I agree Newt is a pit bull and, if Ron can't get the nod, I would prefer him to all other less intelligent and forceful candidates. But I can't support him against Ron Paul at this time. I hope the country has time to pave the way for Ron or Rand (not a Bachmann fan at all). But with Newt and company beating the Iran war drum and calling that "exceptional", I don't see the dollar surviving long enough to get Rand in office.As FDR said, "we have nothing to fear, but fear itsellf." I'm sick and tired of being told to be afraid of every two bit regime or fanatic group in the world. There is nothing exceptional about a country that pees its pants every time some gand or two-bit despot flinched in its direction. America needs to grow a pair again.
Joanne,
There is no way in the world I can take Perry seriously. He lacks depth, character and courage, is a typical "crony" corporatist, and we don't need another of those in office, ever.
Mike
Permalink Reply by Joanne Williams on Mike, since you are making those statements about Perry, why don't you give some evidence to back up what you say. Perry is extremely conservative
Permalink Reply by Mike Moore on Let's start with some of the info here:
http://politics.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=28147497994...
Here's an excerpt: "Watchdog group Texans for Public Justice has researched all the donations Perry received from December 2010 (totalling $102 million), and found that nearly half of his major donors got tax breaks, business deals, or appointments within the state government."
Thus begins a laundry list of what the article describes as "kickbacks." Whether these are mere allegations, or truth, the fact that he puts himself in the position to potentially have pressure exerted upon him from the wealthy corporate donors upon whom he relies, rather than the common man as his majority stakeholder, is enough for me to turn my attention elsewhere at this critically fragile time in America's economic and political history.
There are many other reasons for me to not consider him a quality candidate, but there's no need to get into it in depth.
Permalink Reply by Mike Moore on Joanne,
I should add that I don't mean to attack you or demean you for your stance on Perry. I'm not used to making comments on social media sites. I can text with my phone and that's about as far as I advanced (not a facebook or twitter kind of guy either). It's just that, when I was linked to a tea party site to read the subject article here, I was surprised that so many people were supporting candidates that seem like part of the old problem, and not supporting a new direction. So I joined so I could interact with folks here and learn more, but I'm blunt and may not come across in a friendly way. I've experienced decades of, "I'll fight for you" political rhetoric that never amounted to anything after an election, so I look at Perry and most other current candidates and see glowing, crisp, quotable but empty words, more of the same. I thought tea party people were supporting change and I'm trying to reconcile that with what I'm reading here.I'm interested in your take on the matter. Thanks.
Mike
Permalink Reply by Mike Moore on Ron,
If you could have fielded a candidate for 2012, who would that candidate have been? I've been under the perhaps mistaken impression that Ron Paul influenced the political climate such that the tea party took root. The media definitely marginalizes any candidate who does not toe the globalist party line, but they sure seem to love, at one time or another, Herman, Newt and Rick. There open contempt and misrepresentation of Ron's positions is kind of a badge of honor, in that respect.
I'd like to know, as you've mentioned your, and your ancestors' honorable military service, are you turned off by Ron's non-interventionist foreign policy positions? He wants a strong, responsive "defense", but not a world police organization for multi-nationals. I was taken aback a while back by an NPR interview with a high ranking general (can't recall his name) who stated, "The purpose of the American military is to make the world safe for American corporations." That floored me!! I no longer find it unpatriotic to challenge the previously foregone conclusion that American corporations have our citizens interest at heart (maybe I was naive all along). And I don't believe it is unpatriotic to take a close look at our total foreign policy (political or military policy), in light of the damage - the resultant debt, death and destruction of prestige wrought by that policy. I've read numerous books on foreign policy, some of the most eye-opening written by Michael Scheuer (the former head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit). He and Paul see eye to eye on "blowback" and non-intervention. With that in mind, what's your take on a non-interventionist, strongly defensive, but not aggressively interventionist foreign policy, such as that espoused by Ron?
Thanks for your input here.
Mike
Permalink Reply by Debra Rae steinman on Believe me I say, I have 'noticed'.
Permalink Reply by Joanne Williams on Here's the person we need:
http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2011/11/15/perrys-government-refor...
Permalink Reply by Debra Rae steinman on Same here Ron. She was my first choice. Unfortunately, she chose not to run. My prayers remain with her.
DEBRA
SARAH IS OR HAS ALREADY BUILT IN ARIZONA-- SHE IS NESTING IN-- I FEEL SHE IS GOING TO START WITH SENATOR OR CONGRESS-- OR MAYBE GOVERNOR WHEN JAN BREWER IS READY TO LEAVE-- AND MOVE FROM THERE-- SMART MOVE-- AND SHE WILL BE A KING/QUEEN MAKER JUST AS JIM DEMINT IS DOING NOW--SHE IS NOT OUT OF THE PICTURE AT ALL-- AND SHE IS HAVING FUN
SOMETIMES YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE A PRESIDENT TO CAUSE CHANGE
Permalink Reply by Barbara O Cassel on I add my vote to yours! Herman is the man 'they' all want out so I know we are onto a good thing here...besides I like what he has to say....he makes sense and he isn't a RINO!
Permalink Reply by Jeff Waller on B,
If Herman can study up and get familiar with the world situation he might have a chance...but not right now.
© 2013 Created by Judson Phillips.
