When Cain was a businessman in Omaha, he was operating in the interest of, I believe, Godfather's Pizza in those years. His political contributions were, as most all political contributions from businesses are, intended to gain access and help establish a beneficial relationship with elected officials. Businesses don't make many political contributions for reasons other than advantages they can bring to the business.
That's part of modern day America, and it is entirely different from an elected official's decision to be a member of one party as opposed to another. We definitely can draw some conclusions about a politician based on the party he's in, and on the presidential candidate he supports.
I suggest you make those distinctions and be more intellectually honest than to equate a businessman's decisions with an elected official's decisions as if each reflects the individual's personal political preferences. We can't necessarily discern a businessman's personal politics from his political contributions, especially those made while the head of a large corporation.
That's the system we have.
Do your recognize that Perry presides over (if it was a nation) the 13th largest economy in the world?!
Might it be that Perry makes decisions "operating in the interest of..." Texas and its best interests? And that it might involve dealing with folks who, in a vacuum, might not appear to fit the purest of conservative models?
Or does Cain get a pass 'cause he's your guy and Perry doesn't 'cause you don't like him?
If you don't like him, that's alright. Lots of folks don't.
But don't hold Cain up as pure, using a ruler you won't let anyone else use.
I really don't understand why this is so hard to understand.
Throw hand grenades at Perry if you like. But don't act like you're doing a straight up, objective analysis of candidates' positions side-by-side.