Technically that's what we have presently.
I'll see you a beer and raise you a pinkie.
Posted on 05/30/2011 4:18:29 PM PDT by Rennes Templar
After Barack Obama, America's first African American president, is America now prepared to vote its first black president into office? This week, the Republicans' best shot for a presidential win, staunch conservative Herman Cain, takes to the campaign trail. After an impressive showing in the first debate amongst GOP hopefuls, Cain, rather than Romney or Gingrich, could be the one to beat in 2012 -- a true black man.
To clarify, being black in America is not about the color of one's skin or the curl of one's natural hair, though part of it. It is about a shared history of a robbed heritage -- a culture that has developed over several centuries unique to any other in human history.
President Obama was never robbed of his heritage. He knew which of his relatives came from Africa, from whence he came, and under what circumstances. When we talk about black people in America, we speak of people who in the view of history had no name until Harriet Tubman and precious little in terms of property until the generation of black people represented by Herman Cain.
-snip-
Cain is Donald Trump minus theatrics. Despite a long history of voting Democratic, black voters, at least at the ballot box, choose traditional Judeo-Christian values which the G.O.P. Can capitalize on with Herman Cain. A little bit of Trump and a little bit of Jesse Jackson, he is smart, straight forward, and you don't get the sense that he's lying to you when he opens his mouth.
I'm a Democrat, and I can tell you that because he's hard to hate, and because he embodies the dreams we have for a new kind of candidate, Cain is a force to be reckoned with. He might just become our nation's first black president.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
RE: Palin/Cain or Cain/Palin?
I don’t think the latter is possible. Palin will not settle for number 2 again.
Well, Governor Palin has run a business, so there you go!!
Yet we keep voting for the same types, expecting different results.
Sevastian has been an acquaintance of mine for almost two years. Sevastian is staunchly liberal on most of his positions especially on social issues. Though when it comes to the war on terror and such he does take a more common sense approach.
So Sevastian writing this article is very telling. And I think you may 100% correct on this.
PP
MINO....imo.
I like the latter. That way, I can just scrape the 'Mc' off of my 2008 bumper sticker and change the date to 2012.
Technically yes; testically, no.
IMHO...
Herman Cain will provide the least motivation to Democrats to vote for nObama. A big part of elections is how much candidate A stirs up the party of candidate B to get out and vote, thus Increasing B’s votes - even if candidate B’s supporters are not particulary happy with candidate B.
Right now, the Repub candidate will have nObama to thank for rousing Republicans to the polls, so this effect will work for us from that point of view.
But the question really then becomes, how much will Democrats will be roused to come out and vote because they can’t stand the Republican candidate, even though they may be lukewarm on supporting nObama.
That is why a Repub candidate that has a large, dedicated following within their own base of supporters could easily lose the general election unless they have 2 things operating in their favor:
1) Get the left to have low voter turnout. The far left has to either think nObama will easily win, not see the Repub candidate as an arch enemy that they need to defeat at all costs, get confused on the issues, candidates or rhetoric so they don’t really feel an urgency to vote
2) Keep support of centrists away from nObama. The candidate has to keep nObama from finding a lot of support in the political center - where the fact that they are Republican and conservative will work against them. They must then gain support either through their personal likeability amongst moderates and centrists, state their conservative positions in such a way that it is hard for either conservative or centrist to find fault with them (classic political speaking, but if a mistake is made the candidate appears phoney), or simply appear to centrists as a safer or more comfortable alternative to nObama, even though their positions are conservative. Of course, if one professes to have principles, one has to abide by them or be branded a hypocrite, so the first and the last tacks are the ones to take.
Voter turnout is very often the key in elections; while having support of the base is critical to getting votes, not stirring up a hornet’s nest in the opposing camp is critical to reducing the opponent’s vote count.
This is why politicians seem to gravitate to the center and forget about principles; of course, it’s why Repubs morph into RINOs. In 2012, however, voters will be more desirous of a citizen politician than in a long time, which creates an opening for a conservative to be elected if their conservative message is comprehensive and unwavering, but at the same time not used as a lightning rod to provoke. Instead, the conservative ideas have to be developed in the grassroots so they can allow centrists to see them as normal, which is to defy the media and education establishments, so it must be done firmly and calmly. The real achievement will then be this public acceptance of a turn back to conservatism, even moreso than the election of a conservative President.
Then stick with Sarah. No lectures are needed here on Herman's qualifications. We each have the ability to compare candidates and make our decisions based on our own observations and convictions.
When I point out a fact it’s a lecture? Don’t call us cultists anymore, okay?
Jimmy Carter, governor, junior officer in the Navy. No federal elective experience. Bill Clinton, governor, no military, no federal elective experience. Ronald Reagan, governor, no federal elective experience, junior officer in US Army.
I'm afraid I don't get your point.
“Cain as president, for sure. We want a man for Commander-in-Chief.”
LOL! I’d take Palin as CoC over Cain anytime, myself.
Now, Col. West...that might be a different story! Regardless, any combination of Palin/Cain or Palin/West would work well for me...
“Technically that’s what we have presently.”
Technically, you’re right. Practically...not so sure.
I didn’t mean federal, I meant federal or state (such as governor, as you point out) and I find that there were a couple without. However, there has NEVER been a president without government experience that was either elected, appointed or flag officer. Mr. Cain has none of the above. I am not denigrating him, just pointing something out, although I was imprecise. If he was elected, I’d be much happier than I am now or if someone like Willard was in there.
More than any other candidate running, or reportedly thinking of running, Cain has the Reagan-like ability to inspire people with the belief that the American dream is still possible. This is the single most important quality in a leader. I see problems with Cain’s lack of foreign policy experience, and strongly disagree with notion that a plan for the WOT must wait until after he gets elected, but still see in him the one with the most leadership potential. He appears to be a quick learner, so I hope he can smooth over some of those rough spots.
Ever hear of Bill Clinton?
Technically that's what we have presently.
I'll see you a beer and raise you a pinkie.
Me too. Cain is my first choice.
“I see problems with Cain’s lack of foreign policy experience...”
As I’ve said before, with Obama in the WH, experience is not an issue anymore.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.