Friday, September 17, 2021
HomeRecommendedA Critique of the Criticism re Herman Cain's Qualifications to be President

A Critique of the Criticism re Herman Cain’s Qualifications to be President

Sorry this is a little late.

This is Part II from my interview with Herman Cain, a natural born citizen, over the age of 35 (Art II, Sec 1)…
…with no prior governmental experience, but recognized as a financial rescue specialist par excellence and with a proven record of leadership.

After exchanging pleasantries Mr Cain on New Year’s Eve, the first thing I asked Mr Cain was for his take on this common criticism that he “isn’t qualified” to be president because he has no experience  in government.
It didn’t offend Mr Cain when I asked that question. He wasn’t angry, but he was certainly animated, as he jumped on it like a cat. I assumed he’d been asked this before. He said:

“Nothing energizes me more than somebody telling me I can’t do a thing. It was the same when they asked me to take over a dying company that “couldn’t be saved.” I consider such things as challenges.”

He then went on to relate the things you already know about the Godfather’s  rescue, how Pillsbury (the parent company) had given them up for dead, and how he had not only turned it around, but set in place a generation of management that survives to this day. Pretty impressive.
Still, many think, as a potential presidential candidate,  something is missing in Mr Cain’s resume.

This is my critique of the criticism of Herman Cain’s qualifications, and others like him from the private sector, based on that second part of the equation just stated above, “with no prior governmental experience.”

Going back thirty years, nothing has annoyed me more than the notion that presidents must come from the political class, and actually a very narrow segment of it. That’s like saying only West Pointers should make General in the Army, or that the Foreign Service’s highest offices should all belong to Princeton grads. Or, Gad! – that Congress should only be of the legal profession.

See where I’m going? It’s a club thing, ring-knockers, and little more. And much of the political-media world the past generation has had as it main mission to convince citizens that they must look ONLY to the political class to find their leadership. A closed union shop. Look for the union label, which spells “Big Government Chic.”

My criticism here is not aimed at any particular member of the political class. (Please read this sentence twice, you slow learners. I’m not trying to pooh-pooh any of your candidates.) But the political class as a template for predictable, successful performance is too riddled with failure to be exclusivist about much of anything. A little humility, please. You’re lucky we haven’t strung you up…without benefit of trial or clergy.

Therefore, I’m not suggesting that the past failures of the political class should exclude any member who comes along offering a better way. There are some fine potential candidates out there who I like very much. We’ll take good leadership when and where we can find it.

But surely you can see that the private sector should be added into the mix.
This past election (and the next and the next, I’ll wager) has already shown a shifting demographic for the types of people who are running for office at the district and state level. The lawyer class isn’t being shut out, but it sure is losing some of its luster as a fast track for political success, especially since that track often bypasses a lot of real-life experiences the people once again are beginning to see as important in our political culture.

The “farm system” being established by American Majority will be recruiting many of these kinds of people, people who have met a payroll, among other things. They have credentials to bring to the table what hopefully may be coming back into vogue. Critical credentials. Herman Cain calls it “common sense.”

Of course, this will takes years to shake out, but one of the things we’ve all prayed for is an end to 2000 -page laws, backed up by 20,000 pages of regulations written in undecipherable legalese.  Writing the laws in a straightforward manner will eliminate the need for lawyers telling us what the laws say.  We don’t need a bureaucratic, Levitical class to tell us what the laws really mean.  The Framers assumed the people were smarter than that.  The federal law and agencies should no longer subsidize the proliferation of lawyers who have no other useful purpose. Take away the government rice bowl and most will likely go into a different line of work. Let the rest write my will, sue the guy who rear-ended me, and run get coffee in the corporate boardrooms around America. A real win-win for America.

So, the “reasons” put forward to support this thesis of political class exclusivity fail entirely once put under the microscope. You can’t point to any past success that suggests that we can expect anything but more of the same next time, and you can’t point to any specific thing a private sector person can’t do that one from the political class can.

I always ask people who tell me this, “OK, be specific. Assume we’re sitting around the conference table with the Cabinet. Just what issue could come up that a former CEO of a private corporation wouldn’t be able to handle that a former governor of Minnesota could?” (Being a governor from a small state, Sarah Palin gets the same bum’s rush, as well.)

Show me with specificity how this “lack of qualifications” works out at the time and place of decision. And please, lay off the foreign policy background. Since FDR very few presidents had prior foreign policy experience, with mixed results…while one with none, a former actor, turned world history upside down by defeating the world’s most evil empire.  He didn’t learn any of it at Princeton. Nor in Sacramento.

A commenter to my earlier Leadership post about Mr Cain, said:
“I insist on someone with demonstrated experience in scaling back government.”

Now, I’ve scratched my head on that one and concluded “there is no such animal.” Throughout our history, at least since Millard Fillmore, no American from the political class ever had a record of having ever “scaled back government” prior to coming to the White House, and certainly not while sitting in it. We have a few governors who are trying to do this, but their “success” is a little too early to call. I like those who walk the walk while also taking the talk, but most of all I like those who can nail the coffin shut. Federally, this type does not exist.

And while, over the past  several decades there might have been a few governors in states who had shrunk their governments’ size, the transition of these immense skills to Washington politics has never worked out very well. In fact, they’ve usually failed miserably…for what should be obvious reasons; in Washington they find an intractable opposition that has every intent to thwart every attempt by the President and his party to accomplish for the country what they see as fit and proper and in the best interests of the People. A failure to utilize Mr Cain’s WAR principles explains this; 1) WORK on the right problem, 2) ASK the right questions and 3) REMOVE areas that present barriers.

The sad and ugly truth is that the Left has applied this rule better than our side in Washington, for to them, the “right problem” was always dismantling our constitutional system. And some states, California largest among them, have already slashed their wrists, they did it so well.

So then, why do we continue to do the same thing over and over again, each time hoping for a different outcome? I think in some urban dictionary that’s considered a sign of insanity. Or at least stupidity.

Again, this isn’t a knock against all those fine men and women who have come, with the best of intentions, to fix things. It’s just that the hard truth is that those with the most success at doing this have been excluded from the current political mix altogether, simply because they can’t flash their union card.

Scaling back costs and staff is a routine part of the private sector economy, both in small-to-intermediate sized businesses, and large corporations. My main interest in Herman Cain, besides his other qualifications, is that he is the archetype of this sort of leadership and managerial can-do, results-oriented performance we all wish we could find in our political class. I’d like to see a dozen more of them in coming years.

The clamor out there is for a dedicated cost cutter from the political class, with a proven record…and Govs Christie, Daniels and now Walker, are on such a glide path of performance…but the job also requires the hard-nosed ability to draw up a unified plan across all government…not just the financial side. This same individual, using a strong conservative majority, and a willingness and ability to spit in the eye of the Left and Democrats, who will be hellbent to defeat those plans at every turn, including putting thugs in the streets, must, at the same time, stare down China, Iran, Russia, North Korea…while understanding that four, eight years won’t get this job done – more like sixteen or twenty. A full plate indeed.

We’ve been down that path before with governors. We had a conservative president in 2000 who came to Washington with a reputation of working with Democrats in the Texas legislature. He had a working majority in both chambers. But he and his party spent like drunken sailors just to appear compassionate. And they blanched and ducked for cover every time  “racist,” or “the poor, women, or children,” or “Big Business,” or “dirty air or global warming” were mentioned. And the opposition ate them for lunch. They called the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debacle a full 3-5 years before it nearly drove our financial institutions over the cliff, but after a dropped short pass, they punted. Worse, the American people were never consulted, nor asked to come in and help. There was no brinkmanship in either chambers.

So, in 2006, the People passed the chambers over.

I can think of a number of people today who could juggle all these things…but with no more, no less, capability than people from the private sector.
I’m an analyst and it doesn’t take rocket science to understand that 1) to restore the Constitution, 2) restore the people to their proper place as overseers of this Republic, and then 3) get about the hard politics of righting this ship of state, economically and spiritually;  you can’t get there from here using the same old tired templates.

We knew going into the 2010 elections, and certainly coming out winners in November, that the old rules do not apply anymore. The laws of political certainty are being redrawn as we speak. By the end of the 2012 cycle, pollsters won’t even be asking the same kinds of questions they do now. Time, space and power  have shifted.

It’s more than a tidal wave. It’s a sea change. The real question isn’t whether Herman Cain is qualified to be president (clearly he is) but whether his type of professional citizen is qualified, when it is abundantly clear to me that this type ESPECIALLY can solve some of the most searing and perilous questions of our time.

Herman Cain knows this is an issue he will have to deal with in coming weeks and months. So, for every other citizen from the private sector, watch how this develops, for Mr Cain will be pioneering an issue, which, to my mind, may determine the larger outcome as to whether the United States and Constitution will survive for very long. For if we leave it up to the political class exclusively to solve these problems, then I give our chances at less than 50-50.

And for you who will say “Vassar, you’re wrong,” and some of you already have, my answer to you is this:

No, you’re wrong. The problem isn’t your candidate, who I probably like very much. The problem is your template, and I argue, it is that you are fighting to protect. Here it is in simple language;

We’re at a crossroads now where we (the American people) can no longer afford for you to be wrong. We need to broaden our options and change out templates.

vassarbushmills
Citizen With Bark On

17 COMMENTS

Leave a Reply

17 COMMENTS

  1. This article is fine as far as it goes but does nothing to address the concrete, specific issues with Cain in particular. Like #1 his very strong resistance & excuses for not auditing the fed. And yes I heard his excuse that is not his priority-but he has been very vigorous in his defense against it & since this is his old employer when some defends that much I am a little leery & no I am not a Ron Paul nut case.

    #2 Cain very much supported TARP, in fact commented several times that it should have been bigger-IMO anyone that supported TARP at anytime is a No-Go for President-it is very telling of their mind set no matter what rhetoric they spew now to make the masses happy.

    #3 When there was talk of nationalizing banks, Cain defended this & made the specific comment that is not what govt was doing BUT if it was that nationalization of banks would not necessarily be a bad thing. Another red flag warning of his true mind set.

    #4 Cain has run for president in the past, he is not a great fund-raiser & this is strictly a practical concern-it will take close to a billion dollars for this campaign, Cain does not have that type of donations in place.

    #5 Cain has run for office several times-not just President-this tends to lend credance to the accusation that it doesn’t seem to matter to him what he wins just so long as he gets an office. Yet in none of these attempts has he been successful, he could not win a Senate bid in 1 state-his own state-so it is realistic to think he can win majority?

    #6 I have also heard Cain supporters thinking that blacks will come vote for Cain, that this is why Cain can beat obama is that it will keep race from playing a role. Anyone IMO that buys this argument needs to get a grip on reality. A lot of educated blacks did not vote for obama in the 1st place & the uneducated only know they are voting Dem so handouts will continue. If anything his being black will make it almost impossible for him to win. Blacks will accuse him of being a “house you fill in the blank” & many whites that voted for obama are not about to trust another black due to obama’s treachery in their view-of course they didn’t listen to obama’s rhetoric or look at his record in the 1st place.

    #7 Name recognition, like it or not this plays a very large role & Cain has very little to none outside of some conservative circles.

    It is NOT about private industry, I am like you in that way partially I don’t care where they come from, although personally I am leaning towards a Governor with 8 years of Conservative Governing that has addressed entitlements, handled natural disasters, that has dealt with effectively social issues I care about all successfully. While it doesn’t matter where they come from, they have to have proven executive experience. My problem with someone from private sector is there is no record to look at & that is a problem because it only leaves rhetoric.

    • I am not aware of Mr. Cain running for president previously, are you mixing him up with Alan Keyes? Mr. Cain did have an unsuccessful bid for Senate from Georgia in 2004. I disagree with what you say in #6, but will say that I don’t think his ‘being black will make it almost impossible for him to win.” It is the conservative message that we’re looking for, and the individual who carries it will get my vote.

      You already seem like you have your candidate picked out – Mitch Daniels?

      My problem with someone from private sector is there is no record to look at & that is a problem because it only leaves rhetoric.

      The problem with many politicians, governors included, is that they’re known for their rhetoric, out there in abundance in order to get elected. Perhaps we need a regular American, someone not a politician.

    • Any presidential choice is a gamble, because the most important thing a president does is to decide foreign policy and be Commander-In_Chief. Senators can have more experience with foreign policy, and governors do have some experience with the National Guard. But none of this comes even close to the presidency.

      Executive experience on the domestic front can come from anywhere, if it’s good.

      Your response appears to be another of “but he’s not perfect” critiques. I’m sure he’s not. This side of Paradise, who would be?

      BTW, it would be helpful in these candidate entries for the writer to disclose his or her candidate choice. (Right now, I have none. I am shopping.)

    • Thanks for the comments, Victoria. You’ll note I made this a very narrow calculus based on the common criticism about Mr Cain’s qualification. I assume Herman will address each of your policy concerns as they come up in debates, where he’ll have to defend his positions. I do think, having talked with his staff that he favors auditing the Fed, however.

      I was talking about the “type” as well as the man, and II you agree with my assessment on the narrow point I raised. I can think of a few governors I like who fit the general description you laid out, but assume, w/8 years, as LadyP stated, you must mean Mitch Daniels. I like him and am sure Herman would give him 100% support should he 1) run and 2) grab the nomination. Can Herman expect as much from you? Or Mitch? Mitch has his own baggage, btw, which will be revealed in due course.

      I almost agree with your point about men from the private sector having no record that can be discerned, but indeed, Herman has an extensive one, and one that is very pertinent to intangible issues such as leadership as well as executive success. But my greater point is that men from the public sector,all of therm, have too much of a record, all coming from a culture that is corrupt almost head to toe, and fraught with failure. Comme ci comme ca?

    • I strongly suspect you are supporting another candidate. Your support for an 8-year governor and someone who dealt with a natural disaster pointed me to only one candidate (it isn’t Mitch Daniels–the internet and twitter know this.) My problem with your points aren’t that you made them here. We invite members to discuss issues freely and at length. One thing you should consider, going forward, is to fact check and then include supporting links for important points you wish for us to consider.

      My mind is at least half-way open to allow both declared and undeclared candidates to make their cases. I have my favorites, and my unfavorites. But I prefer to read items that are backed up, and I suspect most others here are in agreement. If you are interested in a debate, that would seem to me to be good manners.

      Have you had the chance to read our site rules? It may be useful–a lot of thought went into writing them. They are important to this community. You can find them on the right side near the top of the front page, under the heading, Perry’s Corner.

      Things are going to become more disputatious going forward, so I just wanted to toss my opinion into the mix, my 2 cents if you will. Hope you have a fine Sunday and rest of the election season, and that the very best of candidates leads our great nation in 2013.

    • victoria_29- I would like to tackle your comment on Herman Cain point by point.

      “Like #1 his very strong resistance & excuses for not auditing the fed. And yes I heard his excuse that is not his priority-but he has been very vigorous in his defense against it & since this is his old employer when some defends that much I am a little leery & no I am not a Ron Paul nut case.”

      You use some pretty strong language in your defense of your position against Mr. Cain, such as his “strong resistance” his “excuses” and in particular your use of the phrase “his old employer.”

      First to clarify, Mr. Cain was the Deputy Chair of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City from 92-94. He was the chair of that institution from 95-96. Do you understand that that role is very different than being on the top spot such as Greenspan or later Bernake Federal Reserve, who sets monetary policy etc? If Mr. Cain was, as you say, strongly opposed to auditing the FED, then why would he have made this comment-

      “Yes I believe in the gold standard. We should never have gotten off the gold standard, that then allowed Congress to inflate our currency whenever they overspent. Now look at the mess we have.”

      I am not a fan of getting back on the gold standard, but, why would Mr. Cain make that statement if he was “strongly opposed to auditing the fed? Hasn’t Ron Paul been screaming about getting back on the gold standard?

      I am willing to give Mr. Cain a pass on his FED auditing statement. In 1978 Congress passed the Federal Banking Agency Auditing Act. It authorized the Comptroller of the US, the Government Accountability Office and the Boards of Inspectors General to audit the FED and the 12 Federal Reserve Banks throughout the US. It is not a problem with the law, or what it was desgned to do, it is a problem with who is appointed to those positions, period. I am actually happy that Mr. Cain has that inside knowledge of how the FEDS work, he can appoint better, more honorable people to upheld those laws. Ron Paul has made a career out of his attacks at the top, or for specific agencies, without getting at the heart of the problem. He just knows he wants them gone yesterday. That is why he has had no success.

      BTW- You say you are not a Ron Paul nut job. Do you think that any Ron Paul supporter believes he/she is a “nut job?” No, it is the rest of us that are the “nut jobs.”

      “#2 Cain very much supported TARP, in fact commented several times that it should have been bigger-IMO anyone that supported TARP at anytime is a No-Go for President-it is very telling of their mind set no matter what rhetoric they spew now to make the masses happy.”

      There is no question that TARP, in hindsight was a bad move. There is also no question that the “toxic mortgage” assets bubble asset was going to burst at any minute. As Vassar pointed out in his piece, the Republicans and Bush Jr. knew that well ahead of the bursting bubble. It didn’t remove the fact that many, both nationally and internationally were holding worthless paper. We were all told that the funds would be used to buy up those useless pieces of paper, and that the US would make good on those losses. No one, and I mean no one knew the extent to which the Bush and then Obama administrations would divert those monies to something probably much more sinister than what anyone expected.

      Mr. Cain spoke about “stimulus.” He agreed with “stimulus” just not the way Obama stimulated his friends, union goons, and the Delta Smelt. Mr. Cain believed in stimulus by way of Tax breaks and incentives to get the economy back on it’s feet. Do you have a problem with that? I don’t.

      “#3 When there was talk of nationalizing banks, Cain defended this & made the specific comment that is not what govt was doing BUT if it was that nationalization of banks would not necessarily be a bad thing. Another red flag warning of his true mind set.”

      You are going to have to link some kind of info. statement from Mr. Cain saying that he was in favor of nationalizing banks as I have been unable to find any reference to that.

      #4 Cain has run for president in the past, he is not a great fund-raiser & this is strictly a practical concern-it will take close to a billion dollars for this campaign, Cain does not have that type of donations in place.

      #5 Cain has run for office several times-not just President-this tends to lend credance to the accusation that it doesn’t seem to matter to him what he wins just so long as he gets an office. Yet in none of these attempts has he been successful, he could not win a Senate bid in 1 state-his own state-so it is realistic to think he can win majority?

      I have combined your number 4 and 5 statements, as they both state that Mr. Cain has run for the Presidency before, and for several other offices. You claim he is a perpetual candidate for something. Again, doing research, and reading many many sites with as much negative info as they can find on Mr. Cain, there is no fact anywhere pointing to any run by Mr. Cain other than his Senate bid in 2004. Can you provide some links/info/facts as to what other positions Mr. Cain has run for?

      #6 I have also heard Cain supporters thinking that blacks will come vote for Cain, that this is why Cain can beat obama is that it will keep race from playing a role. Anyone IMO that buys this argument needs to get a grip on reality. A lot of educated blacks did not vote for obama in the 1st place & the uneducated only know they are voting Dem so handouts will continue. If anything his being black will make it almost impossible for him to win. Blacks will accuse him of being a “house you fill in the blank” & many whites that voted for obama are not about to trust another black due to obama’s treachery in their view-of course they didn’t listen to obama’s rhetoric or look at his record in the 1st place.

      This comment doesn’t even deserve the space it has taken on these pages. In case you have not noticed, let me point out to you that conservatives don’t look at the color of one’s skin to determine the content of that person’s character, PERIOD.

      #7 Name recognition, like it or not this plays a very large role & Cain has very little to none outside of some conservative circles.

      This is a part of the template that Vassar very nicely addresses in the dispatch. Mr. Cain has more name recognition than you would like to admit. If it is up to me and those that feel that Mr. Cain deserves as good a shot at the nomination as anyone else, his name recognition will not be the albatross you want it to be. Hey, he won a straw poll over Ron Paul. Ron Paul has name recognition, and then some, unfortunately negative name recognition.

      As has been surmised above, you are obviously on someone else’s bandwagon. It would behoove you, especially here at UP, to go to bat for your choice, if it is Ron Paul or Mitch Daniels. Among conservatives, negative campaigning only hurts the person you are trying to promote.

      • Well SEC that was HOT! damn good response to someone who no doubt has another candidate in mind and is willing to take down another with false and scurrilous information….unacceptable conservative behavior to say the least! Thanks for addressing the misinformation that was spread on this site today!

      • Thanks for this response SEC, it was well reasoned and well written. You saved me a great deal of trouble.

        I did a quick google of Herman Cain and TARP and got a whole mess of similar sounding posts to this one. I think someone is spreading talking points.

        To victoria_29: I have one question that I never seem to get an answer to. What do you expect to happen when the “FED Audit” occurs? What will it uncover? What will change as a result of it?

  2. Thanks for this dispatch, Vassar. It’s early for me to make a final decision yet, but I’ve seen plenty out of Cain to admire and not much I disagree with.

    He’s definitely in my top 3. The better we know our candidates, the better choices we will make and I love to see citizen involvement in the process and candidates willing to talk directly to voters, rather than allowing the media to filter our information for us.

    Thanks for taking the time to post it and and big Thank You to Herman Cain for taking the time to give us answers to our questions. I appreciate it.

  3. Well said, Vassar. I haven’t made up my mind about who I would support in 2012. Truthfully, too many of the potential candidates have the same old status quo mindset that has existed in Washington, DC for years on end. There’s so much of corruption in that mentality for me to get fired up about a candidate who takes the path of least resistance and just goes with the flow on that status quo.

    I have to admit that I find the idea of having Mr. Cain as candidate very intriguing. Most of my reasoning has to do the reality that our nation is facing economically. It wouldn’t hurt us to have a private sector champion with private sector experience at a high level of leadership for a while.

    Hey, if a Republican other Cain is elected, maybe they will put Cain in Immelt’s position?

  1. This article is fine as far as it goes but does nothing to address the concrete, specific issues with Cain in particular. Like #1 his very strong resistance & excuses for not auditing the fed. And yes I heard his excuse that is not his priority-but he has been very vigorous in his defense against it & since this is his old employer when some defends that much I am a little leery & no I am not a Ron Paul nut case.

    #2 Cain very much supported TARP, in fact commented several times that it should have been bigger-IMO anyone that supported TARP at anytime is a No-Go for President-it is very telling of their mind set no matter what rhetoric they spew now to make the masses happy.

    #3 When there was talk of nationalizing banks, Cain defended this & made the specific comment that is not what govt was doing BUT if it was that nationalization of banks would not necessarily be a bad thing. Another red flag warning of his true mind set.

    #4 Cain has run for president in the past, he is not a great fund-raiser & this is strictly a practical concern-it will take close to a billion dollars for this campaign, Cain does not have that type of donations in place.

    #5 Cain has run for office several times-not just President-this tends to lend credance to the accusation that it doesn’t seem to matter to him what he wins just so long as he gets an office. Yet in none of these attempts has he been successful, he could not win a Senate bid in 1 state-his own state-so it is realistic to think he can win majority?

    #6 I have also heard Cain supporters thinking that blacks will come vote for Cain, that this is why Cain can beat obama is that it will keep race from playing a role. Anyone IMO that buys this argument needs to get a grip on reality. A lot of educated blacks did not vote for obama in the 1st place & the uneducated only know they are voting Dem so handouts will continue. If anything his being black will make it almost impossible for him to win. Blacks will accuse him of being a “house you fill in the blank” & many whites that voted for obama are not about to trust another black due to obama’s treachery in their view-of course they didn’t listen to obama’s rhetoric or look at his record in the 1st place.

    #7 Name recognition, like it or not this plays a very large role & Cain has very little to none outside of some conservative circles.

    It is NOT about private industry, I am like you in that way partially I don’t care where they come from, although personally I am leaning towards a Governor with 8 years of Conservative Governing that has addressed entitlements, handled natural disasters, that has dealt with effectively social issues I care about all successfully. While it doesn’t matter where they come from, they have to have proven executive experience. My problem with someone from private sector is there is no record to look at & that is a problem because it only leaves rhetoric.

    • I am not aware of Mr. Cain running for president previously, are you mixing him up with Alan Keyes? Mr. Cain did have an unsuccessful bid for Senate from Georgia in 2004. I disagree with what you say in #6, but will say that I don’t think his ‘being black will make it almost impossible for him to win.” It is the conservative message that we’re looking for, and the individual who carries it will get my vote.

      You already seem like you have your candidate picked out – Mitch Daniels?

      My problem with someone from private sector is there is no record to look at & that is a problem because it only leaves rhetoric.

      The problem with many politicians, governors included, is that they’re known for their rhetoric, out there in abundance in order to get elected. Perhaps we need a regular American, someone not a politician.

    • Any presidential choice is a gamble, because the most important thing a president does is to decide foreign policy and be Commander-In_Chief. Senators can have more experience with foreign policy, and governors do have some experience with the National Guard. But none of this comes even close to the presidency.

      Executive experience on the domestic front can come from anywhere, if it’s good.

      Your response appears to be another of “but he’s not perfect” critiques. I’m sure he’s not. This side of Paradise, who would be?

      BTW, it would be helpful in these candidate entries for the writer to disclose his or her candidate choice. (Right now, I have none. I am shopping.)

    • Thanks for the comments, Victoria. You’ll note I made this a very narrow calculus based on the common criticism about Mr Cain’s qualification. I assume Herman will address each of your policy concerns as they come up in debates, where he’ll have to defend his positions. I do think, having talked with his staff that he favors auditing the Fed, however.

      I was talking about the “type” as well as the man, and II you agree with my assessment on the narrow point I raised. I can think of a few governors I like who fit the general description you laid out, but assume, w/8 years, as LadyP stated, you must mean Mitch Daniels. I like him and am sure Herman would give him 100% support should he 1) run and 2) grab the nomination. Can Herman expect as much from you? Or Mitch? Mitch has his own baggage, btw, which will be revealed in due course.

      I almost agree with your point about men from the private sector having no record that can be discerned, but indeed, Herman has an extensive one, and one that is very pertinent to intangible issues such as leadership as well as executive success. But my greater point is that men from the public sector,all of therm, have too much of a record, all coming from a culture that is corrupt almost head to toe, and fraught with failure. Comme ci comme ca?

    • I strongly suspect you are supporting another candidate. Your support for an 8-year governor and someone who dealt with a natural disaster pointed me to only one candidate (it isn’t Mitch Daniels–the internet and twitter know this.) My problem with your points aren’t that you made them here. We invite members to discuss issues freely and at length. One thing you should consider, going forward, is to fact check and then include supporting links for important points you wish for us to consider.

      My mind is at least half-way open to allow both declared and undeclared candidates to make their cases. I have my favorites, and my unfavorites. But I prefer to read items that are backed up, and I suspect most others here are in agreement. If you are interested in a debate, that would seem to me to be good manners.

      Have you had the chance to read our site rules? It may be useful–a lot of thought went into writing them. They are important to this community. You can find them on the right side near the top of the front page, under the heading, Perry’s Corner.

      Things are going to become more disputatious going forward, so I just wanted to toss my opinion into the mix, my 2 cents if you will. Hope you have a fine Sunday and rest of the election season, and that the very best of candidates leads our great nation in 2013.

    • victoria_29- I would like to tackle your comment on Herman Cain point by point.

      “Like #1 his very strong resistance & excuses for not auditing the fed. And yes I heard his excuse that is not his priority-but he has been very vigorous in his defense against it & since this is his old employer when some defends that much I am a little leery & no I am not a Ron Paul nut case.”

      You use some pretty strong language in your defense of your position against Mr. Cain, such as his “strong resistance” his “excuses” and in particular your use of the phrase “his old employer.”

      First to clarify, Mr. Cain was the Deputy Chair of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City from 92-94. He was the chair of that institution from 95-96. Do you understand that that role is very different than being on the top spot such as Greenspan or later Bernake Federal Reserve, who sets monetary policy etc? If Mr. Cain was, as you say, strongly opposed to auditing the FED, then why would he have made this comment-

      “Yes I believe in the gold standard. We should never have gotten off the gold standard, that then allowed Congress to inflate our currency whenever they overspent. Now look at the mess we have.”

      I am not a fan of getting back on the gold standard, but, why would Mr. Cain make that statement if he was “strongly opposed to auditing the fed? Hasn’t Ron Paul been screaming about getting back on the gold standard?

      I am willing to give Mr. Cain a pass on his FED auditing statement. In 1978 Congress passed the Federal Banking Agency Auditing Act. It authorized the Comptroller of the US, the Government Accountability Office and the Boards of Inspectors General to audit the FED and the 12 Federal Reserve Banks throughout the US. It is not a problem with the law, or what it was desgned to do, it is a problem with who is appointed to those positions, period. I am actually happy that Mr. Cain has that inside knowledge of how the FEDS work, he can appoint better, more honorable people to upheld those laws. Ron Paul has made a career out of his attacks at the top, or for specific agencies, without getting at the heart of the problem. He just knows he wants them gone yesterday. That is why he has had no success.

      BTW- You say you are not a Ron Paul nut job. Do you think that any Ron Paul supporter believes he/she is a “nut job?” No, it is the rest of us that are the “nut jobs.”

      “#2 Cain very much supported TARP, in fact commented several times that it should have been bigger-IMO anyone that supported TARP at anytime is a No-Go for President-it is very telling of their mind set no matter what rhetoric they spew now to make the masses happy.”

      There is no question that TARP, in hindsight was a bad move. There is also no question that the “toxic mortgage” assets bubble asset was going to burst at any minute. As Vassar pointed out in his piece, the Republicans and Bush Jr. knew that well ahead of the bursting bubble. It didn’t remove the fact that many, both nationally and internationally were holding worthless paper. We were all told that the funds would be used to buy up those useless pieces of paper, and that the US would make good on those losses. No one, and I mean no one knew the extent to which the Bush and then Obama administrations would divert those monies to something probably much more sinister than what anyone expected.

      Mr. Cain spoke about “stimulus.” He agreed with “stimulus” just not the way Obama stimulated his friends, union goons, and the Delta Smelt. Mr. Cain believed in stimulus by way of Tax breaks and incentives to get the economy back on it’s feet. Do you have a problem with that? I don’t.

      “#3 When there was talk of nationalizing banks, Cain defended this & made the specific comment that is not what govt was doing BUT if it was that nationalization of banks would not necessarily be a bad thing. Another red flag warning of his true mind set.”

      You are going to have to link some kind of info. statement from Mr. Cain saying that he was in favor of nationalizing banks as I have been unable to find any reference to that.

      #4 Cain has run for president in the past, he is not a great fund-raiser & this is strictly a practical concern-it will take close to a billion dollars for this campaign, Cain does not have that type of donations in place.

      #5 Cain has run for office several times-not just President-this tends to lend credance to the accusation that it doesn’t seem to matter to him what he wins just so long as he gets an office. Yet in none of these attempts has he been successful, he could not win a Senate bid in 1 state-his own state-so it is realistic to think he can win majority?

      I have combined your number 4 and 5 statements, as they both state that Mr. Cain has run for the Presidency before, and for several other offices. You claim he is a perpetual candidate for something. Again, doing research, and reading many many sites with as much negative info as they can find on Mr. Cain, there is no fact anywhere pointing to any run by Mr. Cain other than his Senate bid in 2004. Can you provide some links/info/facts as to what other positions Mr. Cain has run for?

      #6 I have also heard Cain supporters thinking that blacks will come vote for Cain, that this is why Cain can beat obama is that it will keep race from playing a role. Anyone IMO that buys this argument needs to get a grip on reality. A lot of educated blacks did not vote for obama in the 1st place & the uneducated only know they are voting Dem so handouts will continue. If anything his being black will make it almost impossible for him to win. Blacks will accuse him of being a “house you fill in the blank” & many whites that voted for obama are not about to trust another black due to obama’s treachery in their view-of course they didn’t listen to obama’s rhetoric or look at his record in the 1st place.

      This comment doesn’t even deserve the space it has taken on these pages. In case you have not noticed, let me point out to you that conservatives don’t look at the color of one’s skin to determine the content of that person’s character, PERIOD.

      #7 Name recognition, like it or not this plays a very large role & Cain has very little to none outside of some conservative circles.

      This is a part of the template that Vassar very nicely addresses in the dispatch. Mr. Cain has more name recognition than you would like to admit. If it is up to me and those that feel that Mr. Cain deserves as good a shot at the nomination as anyone else, his name recognition will not be the albatross you want it to be. Hey, he won a straw poll over Ron Paul. Ron Paul has name recognition, and then some, unfortunately negative name recognition.

      As has been surmised above, you are obviously on someone else’s bandwagon. It would behoove you, especially here at UP, to go to bat for your choice, if it is Ron Paul or Mitch Daniels. Among conservatives, negative campaigning only hurts the person you are trying to promote.

      • Well SEC that was HOT! damn good response to someone who no doubt has another candidate in mind and is willing to take down another with false and scurrilous information….unacceptable conservative behavior to say the least! Thanks for addressing the misinformation that was spread on this site today!

      • Thanks for this response SEC, it was well reasoned and well written. You saved me a great deal of trouble.

        I did a quick google of Herman Cain and TARP and got a whole mess of similar sounding posts to this one. I think someone is spreading talking points.

        To victoria_29: I have one question that I never seem to get an answer to. What do you expect to happen when the “FED Audit” occurs? What will it uncover? What will change as a result of it?

  2. Thanks for this dispatch, Vassar. It’s early for me to make a final decision yet, but I’ve seen plenty out of Cain to admire and not much I disagree with.

    He’s definitely in my top 3. The better we know our candidates, the better choices we will make and I love to see citizen involvement in the process and candidates willing to talk directly to voters, rather than allowing the media to filter our information for us.

    Thanks for taking the time to post it and and big Thank You to Herman Cain for taking the time to give us answers to our questions. I appreciate it.

  3. Well said, Vassar. I haven’t made up my mind about who I would support in 2012. Truthfully, too many of the potential candidates have the same old status quo mindset that has existed in Washington, DC for years on end. There’s so much of corruption in that mentality for me to get fired up about a candidate who takes the path of least resistance and just goes with the flow on that status quo.

    I have to admit that I find the idea of having Mr. Cain as candidate very intriguing. Most of my reasoning has to do the reality that our nation is facing economically. It wouldn’t hurt us to have a private sector champion with private sector experience at a high level of leadership for a while.

    Hey, if a Republican other Cain is elected, maybe they will put Cain in Immelt’s position?

Must Read