How is it a “circular argument” to point out the fact that it’s difficult to evaluate a candidate for public office when we can’t look at what he’s done before in public office and simply have to take his campaign promises at face value. It’s important to realize the difference between a “proposed agenda” and an actual record. It’s one thing to state an agenda. It’s quite another to actually carry it out.
Herman Cain’s lack of experience is a serious problem for a number of reasons, and it is not a problem he can fix in time for the 2012 election. There’s no Catch-22 for him here. Herman Cain made his own decision to run with no record, and fairness certainly doesn’t require giving him the benefit of the doubt because of it.
>> “How is it a circular argument to point out the fact that its difficult to evaluate a candidate for public office when we cant look at what hes done before in public office and simply have to take his campaign promises at face value” <<
.
Really stupid statement!
.
How about his radio program?
We know far more about him than all the others together.
Sad that he hasn’t raped the country like Romney and Perry.
Guess what chief? You might want to look at the bio of one Ronald Wilson Reagan. ZERO political record before leaping to the level of Governor of California. I think that worked out fine.
It’s a ridiculous statement that anyone could make against any candidate at any level at any time. I’ve heard that crap argument made against guys running for city council for the first time.