He has mine, too.
I was very open to a Cain candidacy before I learned of his response to the hunting lodge with the bad name that Perry and his father frequented. That reaction was, to me, indistinguishable from what we are used to hearing from "race pimps" such as Al Sharpton. I thought it was so unworthy of what I had thought to be a solid man of good judgment and character.
Plus I'm with xzins on the 9% sales tax: So long as the 16th amendment is on the books, the last thing I want is another federal revenue source that Congress can abuse on top of its abuses of the income tax that already exist. (I.e., it has more to do with social reengineering than it has to do with raising revenue.)
Plus evidently Cain either doesn't understand the federal Constitution, with its separation of powers as between the federal government, the states, and the people; or he doesn't support the originalist principles on which it is based — which all conduce to the sovereignty and liberty of the people, to the rule of law, not of men. His statement to the effect that the RKBA is fundamentally a state matter screams of his ignorance of constitutional principles.
There are two fundamental qualifications that any candidate I can support for president must meet. (1) He/she must be of good character; (2) He/she must have a thorough understanding of the Constitution, and a profound respect for the originalist intentions and principles on which it was founded.
I think Cain makes the cut re: (1). But he's evidently totally clueless WRT (2).
And so, with all his warts, I strongly prefer Perry out of this field of candidates. Not even Ron Paul is more deeply schooled in constitutional principles and values. Paul seems to know "the letter" of the Constitution; but he's a total screwball in applying it, as we see (for instance) in his excoriation of the federal-government-ordered killing of Al Awlaki on grounds that he was a "U.S. citizen."
Oh really? Though born here of (non-citizen) Yemeni student parents, when was Al Awlaki ever a U.S. citizen in actual fact? When was Al Awlaki ever "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?" When did he ever give his allegiance to the United States? Paul's reading of the Fourteenth Amendment is totally obtuse, IMHO. And totally "by the book" — a "book" written by activist legal progressives, not constitutionalists.
Plus if Cain is calling for a Palestianian "right of return," I just find that totally naive. Such a thing is tantamount to calling for the destruction of Israel by other means. Is this how he would treat a close ally — to allow it to be swallowed up in a demographic sea of people who detest Israel because it is a Jewish state?
Plus also evidently he's totally squishy on the social issues that I most care about: the right to life and the defense of marriage.
Cain is a successful man (deservedly so), charming and appealing and I do wish him well. But I do not want him to be my president.
Perry has considerable executive experience, too. I support him because he is at once a social conservative, a fiscal conservative, and a conservative constitutionalist of originalist understandings. And this is what I WANT in a president. I believe this is what our times call for, if we are to reverse the decline of America and everything she stands for.
JMHO FWIW.
Thank you so very much for writing, dearest sister in Christ!
Well and truly said, dearest sister in Christ! Thank you!
I think Cain is a passing fancy and he knows it. He lacks the organization and deep pockets of the 2 Gov.'s. We are going over the candidates and picking "our guy" on FR, but most of the country is really not engaged at this point.
Cain looks pretty good to the base right now because he "shoots from the hip" and everyone is sick of the beltway crowd. However, the nomination will come down to who can get the voters to come out in the primaries. The northeast "moderate" money people pushed for Christie to get in the race because they see the writing on the wall. Romney can't get over 25% in the polls. They figure Christie can do better because he's more willing to confront opponents than "sweet talking" Romney.
What they aren't factoring and the media aren't is the role social conservatives play in the primaries. We will not vote for someone weak on Pro-Life, Pro-Family, Pro-Marriage. The wild card will be the open primaries. The Rats seeing the weakness of obama may cross over and vote for the most liberal-Romney.
Right now Romney is strong in the northeast. Perry is strong in the south. The midwest and mountain states will be the key. PM astutely pointed out if it goes to CA. the crossover Rats will probably swing it to Romney.
I think if Perry wins big in FL he will be in good shape. If Cain wins in FL then you have to figure Romney is going to get the nomination. If conservatives do this we will have squandered one of the great opportunities in national politics. Liberalism is on trial in this election and nominating a liberal negates that.
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!