The smears against Cain don’t bother me. It’s the self inflicted wounds that are going to do him in.
Most FReepers can tell you chapter and verse why Obama’s Libya policy was and is a disaster for the ever-fading prospects of peace and stability in the region. Herman can’t. As someone who’s given him a few hundred bucks already, that bothers the hell out of me.
So, if he falters on a foreign policy question, being a good executive and understanding he doesn’t know everything (good thing we’re looking for perfect) and then hires John Bolton for Sec. State (because an executive with his record knows how to surround him with people who ARE experts in their departments) that would seem to make up for his gaps. You know the one question I NEVER get an answer to, and I’ve asked on several threads is this:
No one comes to this job 100% prepared. No one. All come to it with varying degrees of knowledge about different aspects of the job. I’m more concerned with a person’s ability to surround themselves with good, knowledgeable people who ARE experts in the area they’re lacking and how quickly they’re able to learn. IMO Cain can do both very, very well. If not he certainly wouldn’t be able to turn companies around as fast as he did.
The founders required of the presidential candidate to be over 35 years old and to be a citizen of the US. No qualifiers. Why do you think that is? WE conservatives are the ones who are supposed to believe in this document as originally written according to the founders. Could it possibly be because the founders thought it would be important to have a person who was a successful and willing to serve? Had they thought someone with the “right” credentials who had made politics a career should be one of our main criteria should that not be in the ONE document conservatives are supposedly in favor of returning to?
Surely they were aware that someone coming from the private sector and who wanted to serve wouldn’t be aware of every single issue a president has to face and yet, that didn’t seem to be a big concern of theirs. AT what point did conservatives decide we should only follow the original intent of the founders’ original document of the parts we believe in but not the rest? If the answer from conservatives is that “the world has changed so we need someone with qualifications beyond those in the Constitution” then can we really claim to want to return our country to Constitutional principles? If you answer “yes” then you have to admit your criteria is different from those laid out in the Constitution and thus you DON’T find the founders qualifications to be important.
Cindie