I haven’t given up on Cain, nor have I joined up with Perry. But I would find it much easier to support Perry than Cain. Perry certainly has the ability to be somewhat reactionary, to go for the big play, to shake things up. But I need to see he can recover from his poor debate performances, and get back the conservatives who I think should love him but don’t.
I am not disturbed by anything in Perry’s record. I don’t see his negatives as particularly relevant to this presidential cycle, and he is solid on my top 10 list of things I care about. I’ll admit I’m not as hard-core anti-illegal as some here, but I want the border secured, and believe Perry is the guy to do it.
Cain is just a big mystery to me. He sounds great, except when he says stuff that jars me, after which he usually apologizes, or says he was kidding, or just changes his opinion overnight with no explanation.
And I’m still concerned about electability, and I’m still thinking Cain’s poll numbers aren’t “real” in that sense. People love him, but haven’t really looked at it from a “voting for President” perspective.
If you asked a different question: “Who would you be comfortable with in the White House”, my answer might be different. I’d be fine with Gingrich, or Santorum, or Perry. I used to think Bachmann, but I’ve soured on her recently. Cain I’d be nervous about, but I think we’d be OK in the end.
Of course, if we could just put someone in the Presidency, I wouldn’t mind Sarah Palin. She’s at the edge of my tolerance for experience, but I don’t really have too many questions about where she stands on things, and I’ve always liked what I’ve seen in her positions.
I don’t know if I’m trying to sour people on Cain or not. I realise that would be the result of my argument, but I’m also trying to see how people counter my arguments, because that is how I learn. Normally I don’t have to make arguments against candidates, because people do that all the time so I can read those arguments and counters. For example, there was no lack of people ready to trash Perry.
And if Palin was still considering a run, I have a feeling we’d have plenty of people taking care of raising negatives about Cain right now — part of the “clearing the field” campaign. But she isn’t, and I feel like Cain was simply the winner in the “musical chairs” game, being in the seat when Palin said she was out.
I think asking "who I am comfortable with in the White House?" is a useful question (at least among thinking people; the purely emotional, not so much).
I'm not completely comfortable with a Cain presidency just yet. But the things you bring up about him don't bother me too much. I feel as though I know guys like him and, for whatever reason, the this-and-thats that make you cringe a little don't do that for me.
OTOH, the things that don't bother you about Perry bother me considerably. Although I am not repulsed by his record, as some are, it causes me concern, mostly because I don't see the kind of thinking process and instincts that I think are necessary to success (or at least survival) in the presidency.
Remarkably, as we discuss this here, I realize that I am more concerned about "Washington" eating Perry's lunch than Cain's. To me, Perry seems to be the one who might get comfortable inside his head and then get hugely blindsided by the plotters and intrique that is part and parcel of our system.
I worry about Newt's mecurialness. I even worry that he wouldn't make a good VP, because he (though not maliciously) would not be honorable in subordinating himself to the President, his boss. He would end up freelancing in some way that brought the administration into disarray or worse. That said, I haven't ruled him out. His brilliance might be worth the risk (in the VP slot).
I don't understand why Santorum is not getting more traction. He's like Newt without the baggage. But it is what it is. He's not going to be the nominee.
If it were between Palin and Cain, in the end, I'd have to go with Cain. I don't think Palin's governorship, though very valuable experience, is enough to tip the scales for me in this hypothetical matchup.
I apologize if I've posted this link to you before, but this is an important piece on the issue you bring up as to whether Cain's polling is "real," whether his surge demonstrates any of substance and so on. It says everything I've thought about this situation, and makes every observation I've had, only better:
Cain, not Romney, is now the favorite to win the GOP nomination."
Another analysis that pertains, I think, is from that business book about "swimming with the sharks." It's the tactic of a competitor knowing that the "frontrunner" guy has weaknesses and/or will trip up. The competitor just keeps swimming, so to speak, until the inevitable happens (dramatically or subtly), then the competitor emerges as the real frontrunner.
Oh, and I think there are plenty of anti-Cain posts out there. It's just that many of them don't have a lot of substance.