Herman Cain

[philunderwood]

‘Racists’ for Cain

By Mona Charen

www.JewishWorldReview.com |

Do not suppose for a minute that Herman Cain's victory in the Florida straw poll will alter the liberal narrative about the Tea Party and Republicans. No, we will continue to be instructed by the Congressional Black Caucus, the Today Show and The New York Times that the eruption of the Tea Parties is a reflection of the dark id of American conservatism; that it is primarily racist and xenophobic; and that the Tea Party movement is radical and extremist.

Waving the "bloody shirt" of racism has been the most reliable workhorse of Democratic politics for at least a generation. Remember the wall-to-wall coverage of the "epidemic" of black church fires in the 1990s? Remember George W. Bush's "insensitivity" regarding the ghastly lynching of James Byrd? The epidemic turned out to be imaginary and Bush was happy to sign the death warrant for one of Byrd's murderers, but the tactic is too precious for Democrats to abandon.

It will take some imagination to explain away Herman Cain's success. Among the very voters Democrats demonize, Cain achieved a resounding victory with 37.1 percent of the vote — more than twice the percentage of his next, nearest competitor Rick Perry, who received 15.4 percent.

And it wasn't that Republicans and conservatives were acting upon an affirmative action spirit — trying to prove that they too could pull the lever for a black guy. It's that Herman Cain delivers a great speech, is willing to propose solutions commensurate with our problems and is possessed of a remarkably sunny personality. As the Washington Examiner's Byron York reported, "It's not an exaggeration to say that his power as an orator sealed the deal for hundreds of delegates. They believed Cain was speaking to them from the heart, and they were carried away by it."

And it doesn't hurt that Cain embodies the Horatio Alger rise to success that liberals dismiss as myth but conservatives still believe.

Raised in pre-civil rights Georgia by working class parents (his mother was a maid and his father worked as a janitor, a barber and a chauffeur), Cain got a degree in mathematics from Morehouse College and then a master's in computer science at Purdue. While in school, he worked for the Navy in ballistics. Upon leaving the Navy, he entered the heart of corporate America, working first for the Coca-Cola Co., later for Pillsbury and then Burger King. The division of Burger King he headed went from the least profitable to the most profitable in three years. He performed similar magic for Godfather's Pizza, but in a shorter time, turning the company to profitability in a mere 14 months. He served as chairman and later CEO of the National Restaurant Association, and he also became chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, before achieving the true pinnacle of human achievement with a syndicated newspaper column.

Cain's proposal to reform Social Security along the lines that Chile and 36 other nations have adopted is the sanest entitlement policy prescription of the campaign thus far — and with Mitt Romney playing it safe and Rick Perry having taken so much heat for the Ponzi scheme wording — it is likely to remain so.

Cain's 999-tax plan is similarly refreshing. Our 11,045-page tax code, barnacled by layer after layer of complexity and special interest loopholes, is a drag on productivity and national sanity. A government watchdog agency estimates that Americans spend 6.1 billion hours annually complying with the code. Something like Cain's plan would cut the Gordian knot.

But as historian and political analyst Richard Brookhiser put it, about Pat Robertson in the 1988 presidential election, "The presidency is not an entry-level post." It isn't that Cain lacks the stature to be president, it's that he lacks the kind of experience the office requires. Though we perpetually disparage politicians in America (for good reasons much of the time), it cannot be denied that political skills are necessary in a political job. Beyond delivering a good speech, a successful president must know how to build coalitions, apply pressure to friends and foes alike, deal with a hostile press, appoint officials who won't embarrass the administration, handle ego and turf battles among his advisors and cabinet members, and know when to spend and when to husband political capital. And all of that is before he begins to deal with other nations.

Cain is a great American. His sudden rise in the presidential contest should (but won't) give pause to the bigots who have defamed conservatives and the Tea Party. But he is not our knight in shining armor. There may not be one. He'd make a heck of a Treasury Secretary though.

[philunderwood]

Rising Cain

By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann

www.JewishWorldReview.com |

Insiders and political pros never recognize a superstar when they see one. Herman Cain is just such a star. Now that Rick Perry has been unmasked as a weak debater and an even weaker opponent of illegal immigration, conservatives are turning their lonely eyes to Cain. A stellar debate performance on Fox News led to a smashing victory in the President5 straw poll in Florida and a strong third place finish — behind Romney and Perry — in the Michigan straw poll. Both Michigan and Florida are likely among the seven states that will hold primaries or caucuses in February (and they are the two biggest of the seven).


Here is a man who offers an alternative to Obama's class warfare. His life story shows that Obama's route to the top — through affirmative action, community organizing, and a climb up the political ladder — is not the only one available to minorities. His combination of hard work in the private sector, entrepreneurial initiative, and managerial skill can also get you there. He embraces the successful as role models not as objects of envy. He does not hate rich people. He wants us all to become rich.


In a sense, Cain's rise and Mitt Romney's are parallel trajectories. Each has based his appeal on the idea that life in the private sector is better than a career in government service to equip one to solve America's economic problems. Both say that their hands on experience at job creation qualify them to be president in a way that Perry's lifelong political immersion does not.


Now, as Perry fades and Romney rises, Herman Cain is on the cusp of front tier status in the Republican nominating contest.


Cain has a grip on the Tea Party grassroots. No matter how diligently the establishment tries to ignore him, he keeps popping up, impelled by his charisma, oratory, issue positions, and broad based appeal.

[philunderwood]

Cain could deliver

By Dana Milbank
Cain could deliver

By Dana Milbank

www.JewishWorldReview.com |

In the Republican presidential race, it is becoming increasingly difficult to separate fact from farce.

In last weekend’s season-opener of “Saturday Night Live,” a fictitious Herman Cain explained to a fictitious Shepard Smith in a fictitious Fox News debate why his experience in the pizza business qualified him to be president.

“There is no better motto for the federal government than that of a pizza place,” said Kenan Thompson, playing Cain, adding, “It’s 4 o’clock in the morning and you’re high as a kite and the stuff in your fridge is weirding you out — if you order it, pizza will come. Pizza will come! Oh, pizza will most definitely come. And if you vote for me, America, I promise you that I will deliver.”

The next morning, the real Herman Cain was on the real Fox News with a real host, discussing the phony debate. “I think it’s great!” he said of the pizza skit. “I’m going to use that in my next debate: If you vote for me, America, I will deliver.”

It was a cheesy pitch from the “Hermanator,” but it apparently won the pizza guy the business of “Saturday Night Live” alumnus Dennis Miller. The comedian and radio host announced Monday that he’s endorsing Cain for the nomination. Miller suggested that Cain adopt a new slogan, “Cain versus Not Able,” as an alternative to the candidate’s existing slogan, “Cain versus more of the same.”

(Come on, Dennis: You Cain do better.)

In all likelihood, Miller was driven less by his successors at “SNL” than by Cain’s stunning performance in Saturday’s Florida straw poll, in which he won 37 percent — more than runners up Rick Perry and Mitt Romney combined. That’s just about opposite the result of national polling; a new CNN survey finds Perry and Romney with a combined 49 percent and Cain with only 7 percent.

Analysts have been puzzling over Cain’s pizazz in Florida. The Post’s Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake asked if the results, following wins in other straw polls by Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum, mean “the end of straw polls.” They wrote: “Only the most conservative portion of the Republican base shows up at these events, skewing the results to the most ideological candidate, not the most electable one.”

Cillizza and Blake are correct: The straw polls are tilted by a small and unrepresentative sample of voters choosing the most ideological candidates. But it seems to me that makes the straw polls a close approximation of the Republican primary electorate.

There are 3 million people in Iowa, for example, of whom just more than 600,000 are registered Republicans. But the 2008 Iowa Republican caucus had 120,000 participants. Of those, 60 percent were self-described evangelicals or born-again Christians.

Essentially, that means the Iowa caucus is a straw poll. In fact, Iowa’s Ames straw poll this summer (the one Bachmann won) attracted 16,892 people — a decent chunk of the primary-day electorate.

The other early-voting states tend to have more primary voters, but that doesn’t change the possibility that the Republican presidential nominee could be determined by a few thousand Iowans who aren’t typical voters or even typical Republican voters.

Most political observers rely on national polls or, at best, statewide polls to gauge the sentiments of presidential primary voters. But because the number of people who participate in the primaries is so small, the true sentiments of that electorate (and the likelihood of people to vote) are often less predictable than polls can handle. And those sentiments tend to be volatile and fickle.

For that reason, it would be foolish to rule out any candidate — even the former Godfather’s Pizza chief executive, who makes no attempt to watch his mouth.

“Some people want to say I’m the none-of-the-above candidate,” he told the Daily Beast after his Florida win. “Some people want to say there’s still unhappiness with the field. That is bullfeathers!” The article noted that the candidate was drinking wine — in the morning. (In a different interview, Cain used another word that begins with “bull” but does not end with “feathers.”)

Cain’s wave may not last long, given the small and mercurial electorate (ask Bachmann about that), but he’s enjoying the accoutrements of a serious candidate while he has them.

On Monday, he’s scheduled to sit down with Donald Trump, following a pilgrimage taken by Rick Perry, Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin. He’ll then sit down Tuesday with former New York mayor Ed Koch. On Wednesday, his new book comes out. Later, comedian Miller will hold a fundraiser for Cain.

At this pace, Cain’s ultimate triumph — a guest-hosting gig on “SNL” — is just a matter of time.

[philunderwood]

Time to raise Cain to contender status

By Michael Barone

www.JewishWorldReview.com |

Is Herman Cain a serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination? It's a question no one in the pundit world was asking until the past week.

Cain has never held public office. When he ran for the Senate in Georgia in 2004 he lost the primary by a 52 to 26 percent margin.

He has zero experience in foreign or defense policy, where presidents have the most leeway to set policy. When questioned about the Middle East earlier this year he clearly had no idea what the "right of return" is.

His solid performance in the Fox News/Google debate Sept. 22 didn't get pundits to take his chances seriously.

Neither did his 37 to 15 percent victory over Rick Perry in the Florida straw poll Sept. 24. That was taken as a response to Perry's weak debate performance and a tribute to Cain for showing up and speaking before the 2,657 people who voted.

But Republicans around the nation seem to have responded the same way. The Fox News poll conducted Sept. 25-27 showed Cain with 17 percent of the vote -- a statistically significant jump from the 5 percent he had been averaging in polls taken in previous weeks.

And a SurveyUSA poll of Florida Republicans conducted Sept. 24-27 showed Cain trailing Mitt Romney by only 27 to 25 percent, a statistical tie. That's very different from the Florida polls conducted by Public Policy Polling Sept. 22-25 and Quinnipiac Sept. 14-19, both of which showed Cain with 7 percent.

We will see whether other national or state polls show Cain with a similar surge. If so, then there's a real possibility that Cain could win enough primaries and caucuses to be a real contender.

That possibility is already being taken seriously by the Wall Street Journal's Daniel Henninger. Henninger argued in a Sept. 29 column that Cain's success in business -- engineering turnarounds in Burger King's Philadelphia stores and Godfather's Pizza nationally -- made him a plausible candidate.

"Unlike the incumbent," Henninger wrote, "Herman Cain has at least twice identified the causes of a large failing enterprise, designed goals, achieved them and by all accounts inspired the people he was supposed to lead."

Cain's business success, his "9-9-9" tax plan, his generally conservative stands on issues, the youtube clip showing him debating Bill Clinton on health care in 1994 -- all of these help account for his apparent surge in the polls.

But I suspect there are a couple of other factors. One is likability. Romney's attempts at ingratiation are awkward, and Perry's charm is lost on most non-Texans. But Cain is, as the Atlantic's liberal analyst Chris Good concedes, "undeniably likeable."

Another thing going for him is race. White conservatives like to hear black candidates who articulate their views and will vote for them: check out Rep. Tim Scott of Charleston, S.C.

In this, white conservatives resemble white liberals, who liked hearing Barack Obama articulate their views and were ready to vote for him too. This is what Joe Biden was getting at with his awkward 2007 comment that Obama was a "clean" black candidate.

White moderates are ready to support black candidates too, as Obama showed in the 2008 general election.

Cain claims that he could get one-third of the black vote in a general election. There's no way to rigorously test that.

But it finds some support in Scott Rasmussen's polls, which have been regularly pitting 10 current or possible candidates against Obama. Rasmussen finds Romney ahead by 2 percent and Chris Christie trailing by 1 percent. The other candidate closest to Obama, trailing by 5 percent, is Cain.

Moreover, Cain holds Obama to the lowest share of the vote, 39 percent, of any of the 10 Republicans. That may be because some black voters desert Obama when Cain is the opponent.

Further support can be found in the Low Country of South Carolina, where Tim Scott won with 65 percent of the vote in 2010 in a district where John McCain won just 56 percent and where 20 percent of the population is black. No other Republican freshmen in the Old South ran so far ahead of McCain.

All this speculation may be getting far ahead of the facts. Cain still has significant liabilities as a candidate and could make a disqualifying mistake any time. But he's beginning to look like a contender.

[philunderwood]

The left, the race card, and Herman Cain

By Jeff Jacoby

www.JewishWorldReview.com |

The day after Herman Cain's dazzling victory in the Florida straw poll, I commented to a Republican neighbor -- and where I live, there aren't many of those -- that with Cain as a GOP rock star, liberals who have been so ready to smear President Obama's critics as racist would have to come up with a new shtick.

What was I thinking?

Racial McCarthyism has been a staple of left-wing political rhetoric for years, but it went into overdrive with the rise of Barack Obama. Former president Jimmy Carter, for example, claimed that much of the backlash to the president's policies was explained by "the fact that he is a black man." Janeane Garofalo, the movie actress and liberal activist, called Tea Party protesters "racist rednecks" with one motivation: "This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up." Obama himself has sometimes played the race card; as a candidate in 2008 he predicted that Republicans would "try to make you afraid of me" by focusing on his color: "He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?"

Of course such accusations are grotesque canards. But cynics and partisan ideologues have never been terribly squeamish about trafficking in ugly innuendoes to win votes, especially when a complacent media lets them get away with it. Still, you might have thought that surging Republican support for a proud black entrepreneur -- an up-from-segregation business star who summarizes his identity as "ABC: American first, black second, and conservative third" -- would make it tough even for cynics and ideologues to keep singing from the same racial hymnal.

Not a chance.

"Herman Cain is probably well-liked by some of the Republicans because it hides the racist elements of the Republican Party, conservative movement, and tea party movement," Garofalo theorized in a recent a TV appearance. "Cain provides this great opportunity so [Republicans] can say, 'Look, this is not a racist, anti-immigrant, anti-female, anti-gay movement. Look, we have a black man.'"

In other words, if Republicans or conservatives oppose a public figure who happens to be black, it's because they're racists. And if they support a public figure who happens to be black? That's also because they're racists.

Needless to say, there is no point arguing with such "logic." If Garofalo discovered that Tea Partiers are inordinately fond of applesauce, she would presumably attribute that to racism as well. It would almost be funny, except that there is nothing funny about racial calumny.


Four years ago, the emergence of the Democratic Party's first charismatic, credible black presidential candidate was regarded across the political spectrum as something to celebrate. Even Republicans who strongly opposed Obama because of his positions and outlook -- even John McCain! -- rejoiced in what Obama's success said about America's capacity for self-redemption. Shouldn't the emergence of Herman Cain -- potentially the GOP's first charismatic, credible black presidential candidate -- evoke similar feelings? Especially if you think the Republican Party has a poor racial record, shouldn't you be encouraged that so many Republicans are excited about Cain? (As a matter of brute historical fact, it was the Democratic Party, not the GOP, that used to be the racist stronghold of American politics. But that's a separate column.)

Whatever his political prospects, Cain's story is exhilarating. Born into poverty in the Jim Crow South, where his mother was a maid and his father a janitor and chauffeur, Cain rose to become a mathematician in the US Navy, a successful business executive, the chairman of a federal reserve bank, and now a Republican star. Liberals should rejoice in his success, even if they disagree with his politics.

Yet on AlterNet, a prominent left-wing website, Cain is jeered as a "black garbage pail kid," a "monkey in the window," and a minstrel performer playing to "white conservative masters." Cornell Belcher, a Democratic strategist who polled for the Obama campaign, blasts Cain as "racist and bigoted" for saying that many black voters have been "brainwashed" into rejecting conservatism. In a new memoir (Buy it at a 45% discount by clicking here or in Kindle edition for $11.99), Cain writes of being slurred as an "Oreo" and an "Uncle Tom" because he is an unabashed Republican conservative.

Love Cain or loathe him, it should be possible to talk about his candidacy without resorting to racial pejoratives. Like Lester Maddox's axe handle, the political race card ought to be by now nothing but an ugly memory -- something no decent voter, activist, or candidate would dream of brandishing.

[philunderwood]

neoneocon.com/2011/10/09/cain-and-racism-headline-vs-content/


October 9th, 2011



Cain and racism: headline vs. content

The CNN headline screams “Cain: Racism not holding anyone back.” Inflammatory words, although Cain—as a black man himself—is probably one of the few people who wouldn’t be immediately disqualified from office for saying them.

But did he say them? Nope:


“I don’t believe racism in this country today holds anybody back in a big way,” Cain said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “Are there some elements of racism? Yes. It gets back to if we don’t grow this economy, that is a ripple effect for every economic level, and because blacks are more disproportionately unemployed, they get hit the worst when economic policies don’t work. That’s where it starts.”

The gist of the rest of Cain’s remarks is that although there’s a residual amount of racism, it’s not a big factor for most people, who sometimes use it as an excuse for their failure to achieve. And that lack of education and concentration in economically distressed cities such as Detroit are other factors.

[philunderwood]

www.qando.net/?cat=42

Irony: Racism is alive and well on the left

Published October 11, 2011 | By Bruce McQuain

As Herman Cain rises in the polls, the race warlords and their enablers are dusting off their tired old arguments and attacking the black man who has had the temerity to wander off the plantation and dares to buck the conventional wisdom.

First up was Harry Belafonte, ripping into Cain as a “bad apple” and claimed he has no authority to talk about “the pride of people of color.” No one is sure what gives Belafonte such “authority” but he certainly had no problem exercising it on “The View” in answer to questions by enabler Joy Behar.


Behar opened the floor to the topic on her program tonight, noting Cain’s comments and asking for a response. “It’s very hard to comment on someone who is so denied intelligence,” Belafonte replied, “someone who has denied such a view of history.” Adding that Cain only believed that because “he happened to have good fortune, a moment when he broke through– the moment someone blinked,” he insisted statistics on the number of black people in the American prison system and the exorbitant unemployment rate in the black community clearly disproved Cain’s point.

The comment by Cain to which Belafonte was replying was that racism isn’t “hold[ing] anybody back in a big way today.” Cain just doesn’t see racism as a significant problem for blacks this day.

Notice the premise of Belafonte’s attack. Someone “blinked”. He means, of course, some whites obviously screwed up and let a black man slip through a crack and succeed. The obvious implication is that such a thing is a) unusual and b) a mistake. Belafonte also implies that Cain’s success is a matter of “good fortune” and not talent, drive, hard work or an entrepreneurial spirit.

He simply lucked out and was in the right place at the right time when the racist white power structure screwed up and let the black guy succeed.

Of course, one has to understand what a significant threat Herman Cain’s success and popularity are to those who’ve made a business and significant living in the racial hatred field. If Herman Cain is right, they’re out of business.

So how does one maintain the myth that racism is a significant problem today for people of color? And what must those who’ve built a very nice lifestyle doing so do when that myth is attacked and threatens that lifestyle?

Attack the miscreant that is voicing this heresy and destroy his credibility, of course. The politics of personal destruction, something at which the left is quite accomplished. Herman Cain is the new Clarence Thomas.


Appearing Monday on "CNN Newsroom," PBS host Tavis Smiley and Princeton University Professor Dr. Cornell West –the brain trust for the 18-city "Poverty Tour" that aims to highlight the plight of poor people– begged to differ.

"There are disparities in this country in every [socioeconomic] factor that we follow. In every aspect of our human endeavors in this country there is a racial disparity element that’s a part of it. It’s almost silly to respond to [Cain] because the evidence is so overwhelming," Smiley said in the interview with CNN anchor Suzanne Malveaux.

"There’s disparity in healthcare. There’s disparity economically."

West, taking a sharper route, also challenged Cain’s understanding of the economic issues that affect black Americans, saying, "Black people have been working hard for decades. I think [Cain] needs to get off the symbolic crack pipe and acknowledge the evidence is overwhelming."

Overwhelming in what way? If a true disparity exists, is it a result of racism or could it have its roots in another area? The lazy answer is “racism”. It’s the easy way out. It is the route that doesn’t demand internal self-examination and self-criticism. It is the blame-shifting way which results in the maintenance of the threatened lifestyle.

Black “leaders” continue to blame the problems in the black community on whites and continue to stay in the racism business while nothing changes in the black community.

How shallow is the argument? Well, look at Tavis Smiley’s “proof” of racism today:


Smiley referenced this political shift, saying that Cain’s comments about the insignificance of racism can be attributed, in part, to how these views will resonate with Republican voters.

"Herman Cain is trying to get the GOP nomination," Smiley said. "When you’re running for the nomination of a Republican Party…these are the kind of statements that you make that play to your base. It’s politics."

Smiley continued, saying that President Barack Obama’s rendezvous with racism should be noted.

"There’s no comparison in history for any president that’s had a budget the size of the Secret Service budget now just to protect Barack Obama and we’re talking about whether or not [Cain] has a point about racism in America?"

That’s the proof – the Secret Service has a bigger budget now than in the past, Obama is a black man, therefore the budget increase must be proof that racists are trying to harm a black man who happens to be president.

Really? Note the underpants gnome approach to that conclusion by a supposed educator. Logic free, correlation is causation.

This is what the race baiters are reduced too right now. Illogic and irrationality. Anything necessary to keep the genie in the bottle. These sorts of attacks and the type of attack Lawrence O’Donnell launched on Herman Cain in an interview are what you will see in the coming weeks if Cain continues to rise in the polls.

Barack Obama is acceptable to the race warlords because they can spin him as a black man who succeeded on their terms. Herman Cain, on the other hand, is a threat to every premise and myth they hope keep alive.

Herman Cain is a threat to the race warlords because he is ready to put the “racism” claim to death. He’s the proven exception to the race warlord’s cherished premises. Smart people know Cain’s success can’t be relegated to “good fortune” and white racists letting down their guard. Cain is everything the racebaiters say is impossible for a black man in America to accomplish. And, of course, he doesn’t toe the line they have drawn to keep the race war alive and profitable.

Herman Cain has to go and you can count on the usual suspects to do everything in their power to discredit and destroy the man. Instead of taking pride in the success of a man of color, the Belafonte’s, Smiley’s and Sharpton’s of this world want him gone.

Irony.

~McQ

[philunderwood]

The right argument for Cain

By Star Parker

www.JewishWorldReview.com |

It's not just conservatives who are frustrated today. It is all Americans who long to see their nation regain its vitality, restoring freedom and prosperity at home and shining the light of human potential across the planet.

What is particularly frustrating is that the party out of power, the GOP, is supposed to be carrying the torch for these values. But it's barely happening. The party has become bogged down with careerists, rearview-mirror thinkers and its own inside-the-beltway elite.

Nothing could speak more to this problem than establishment attitudes toward the remarkable Herman Cain.

Take, for instance, a recent column by conservative columnist Mona Charen.

After extolling Cain's compelling virtues — his rags-to-riches success story, his love of America and the values that make it great, and the courageous ideas he has put on the table in his campaign — Charen dismisses his candidacy for lack of experience and political skills.

Others who dismiss Cain point to his lack of a national fundraising organization.

I just don't see it this way.

The American presidency is not a political job. The American president is the leader of the free world. The job, of course, demands political skills, but so does every job that requires working with other human beings.

One of America's worst presidents — Lyndon B. Johnson — had more of these political skills than perhaps anyone who ever held the office. What he critically lacked was a clear vision and commitment to American principles of limited government and personal integrity.

What makes Herman Cain so interesting is the passion and clarity of his view of American freedom, and his Reagan-like ability to communicate and excite grassroots Americans.

A new Gallup poll on candidates' positive intensity — the percentage of those with strongly favorable opinion minus those with strongly unfavorable opinion — shows Cain so far ahead of the rest of the Republican field it is ridiculous.

He has a positive intensity of 35. In second place is Romney at 15.

Cain is the only candidate putting concrete and simple ideas on the table for getting this nation back on track.

The Wall Street Journal's Stephen Moore said Cain's 9-9-9 plan for simplifying our horrendous tax code would be "rocket fuel for the economy."

Cain's support for getting rid of the Social Security payroll tax and replacing it with private retirement accounts would be a boon to all Americans, particularly for low-income Americans.

After adopting personal retirement accounts and other free-market reforms 30 years ago, Chile went from having one of the world's most sluggish economies to one of its fastest growing. Returns on these personal retirement accounts have averaged over 9 percent a year.

The Republican Party establishment needs to start listening to grassroots Americans and asking why no one is exciting them like Herman Cain.

[philunderwood]

In the firmness and cheerfulness of his conservatism, Cain is the black Reagan

By Jack Kelly

www.JewishWorldReview.com |

A man half the country hadn't heard of a month ago is the leading Republican candidate for president, according to three opinion polls last week.

Businessman Herman Cain led former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, 27 percent to 23 percent in an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll published last Thursday.

Mr. Cain led Mr. Romney, 30-22, in a PPP survey that same day. A Rasmussen poll showed Mr. Cain and Mr. Romney tied at 29 percent.

In an Economist/YouGov poll published Friday, Mr. Cain led Mr. Romney 30-18. In a Zogby poll published Monday, it was Cain 45, Romney 21.

This is remarkable, because only 51 percent of respondents in a Gallup poll Sept. 27 recognized Mr. Cain's name. If these numbers hold, we'll witness something unprecedented in the history of politics.

The race has been volatile. First, Rep, Michele Bachmann, R-Minn, then Texas Gov. Rick Perry soared like eagles, then plummeted like stones.

Most in the political and journalistic establishments expect Mr. Cain to be no more than the latest "Not Romney" to flare up and fizzle out.

Mr. Cain is functioning merely as "a parking place for conservatives who harbor reservations about the previous flavors of the month," said Democratic analyst Charles Cook.

He "seems to me to be somebody who was wandering through the emergency ward and was mistaken for a serious player, and a doctor gave him a tremendous adrenalin shot," said GOP analyst Matthew Dowd.

His weaknesses in fundraising and campaign organization will be Mr. Cain's undoing, Mr. Cook thinks. In the three months ending Sept. 30, the Cain campaign spent just $1.9 million, compared to $12 million for Mr. Romney and $5.9 million for Rep. Bachmann.

Though his current polling numbers are dreadful, his $15 million bankroll means that Mr. Cain's supporters eventually will drift back to him, Gov. Perry thinks.

But once you've convinced most Republicans you aren't smart enough to be president, it's hard to come back, no matter how much money you have. Gov. Perry's candidacy is in "serious jeopardy," Mr. Dowd thinks.

"Romney exudes intelligence and competence, and every debate makes him look more presidential and more like someone who would be a very strong favorite to win a general election," Mr. Cook said.

Each day brings Mr. Romney more endorsements from establishment Republicans, more campaign contributions from Wall Street. His nomination is "inevitable," many pundits say.

But the dogs just don't like the dog food. Rasmussen Thursday was the first time Mr. Romney registered more than 25 percent support in any poll.

"As a politician, (Romney) impresses, but he doesn't inspire or connect," said National Review Editor Rich Lowry.

Mr. Romney "showed a certain versatility of conviction over the years," said columnist George Will.

Conservative qualms about Mr. Romney are unlikely to be assuaged by news reports last week that President Barack Obama based Obamacare on Romneycare in Massachusetts, and that Gov. Romney contemplated hiring radical environmentalist John Holdren, now Mr. Obama's science advisor.

Still, polls indicate Mr. Romney would clobber Gov. Perry in a head to head matchup. With voting likely to begin in December, and Gov. Perry mired in single digits in the early primary states, Mr. Romney's nomination is all but guaranteed if the race narrows to a choice between those two. Only Herman Cain can beat him.

Some think Mr. Cain will falter when his views come under greater scrutiny, and gaps in his knowledge -- especially on foreign policy -- are exposed.

That hasn't happened yet. On "Meet the Press" Sunday, it was host David Gregory who seemed embarrassingly ill-informed.

Mr. Cain is written off because he lacks the political experience of those who gave us a mammoth national debt and 9 percent unemployment. But the establishment may underestimate him.

Republicans who were born on second base often sound defensive about the free enterprise system that has produced so much wealth for them and us. Herman Cain's is the un-hypenated conservatism of the self made man. An inspiring speaker who can think on this feet, he articulates conservative principles better than any of the other candidates.

And he does so with a smile. Mr. Cain is the most likable of the GOP candidates, Gallup says. "Everybody liked Herman because his personality was so open and friendly and not abrasive," said a colleague at the Kansas City Fed.

In the firmness and cheerfulness of his conservatism, Herman Cain is the black Reagan. That may be enough to overcome Mr. Romney's logistical advantages.

[philunderwood]

www.qando.net/?tag=herman-cain

Cain, politics, personal behavior and “the truth” (update)

Published November 7, 2011 | By Bruce McQuain

A couple of polls have emerged since the charges of sexual harassment by Herman Cain, a GOP presidential candidate, were first surfaced by POLITICO. The reason the two polls are meaningful is they essentially address the same issue and come to much the same conclusion.

That is, the personal behavior of candidates matters to voters. But, as I’ve observed it over the years, it means less to some voters than others. Oh, by the way, when asked a question about morality, how do you suppose most people will respond? Just sayin’.

But with those caveats let’s take a look. First the Reuters/Ipsos poll:


The poll showed the percentage of Republicans who view Cain favorably dropped 9 percentage points, to 57 percent from 66 percent a week ago.

Among all registered voters, Cain’s favorability declined 5 percentage points, to 32 percent from 37 percent.

The survey represents the first evidence that sexual harassment claims dating from Cain’s time as head of the National Restaurant Association have taken a toll on his presidential campaign.

A majority of respondents, 53 percent, believe sexual harassment allegations against Cain are true despite his denials. Republicans were less likely to believe they are true, with 39 percent thinking they are accurate.

Now I’m not sure yet how anyone can flatly say or believe the allegations are “true” based on what has so far been revealed about the alleged harassment. So far the most we know is that 3 women claim to have been victims of “sexual harassment” and two were paid a sum to settle some sort of harassment claims. And we’ve had one, through her lawyer, anonymously announce she stands by her allegations. But what exactly are those allegations. Are they of the Bob Packwood variety? Or the Bill Clinton variety. Right now we just don’t know.

While one might conclude that something went on then, it still isn’t clear that the allegations are “true”. For instance, one could ask, was it cheaper for the Restaurant Association to pay off these women (most likely without admitting any guilt) than to pay armies of lawyers to fight the charges? We don’t know. And that sort of doubt and uncertainty casts any thoughts of “the allegations are true” out the window. We need a lot more information to put “true” or “false” to this.

But look at the effect it has had. The unfortunate result of politics today. This is hardly uncommon.

The second poll was taken by The Hill.


The results of this week’s The Hill Poll indicate that 85 percent of voters regard the way a politician conducts his or her private life as important to how he or she might discharge public duties. Forty-seven percent regard the candidate’s private life as “very important” and 38 percent say it is “somewhat important” in this regard.

The Hill Poll also suggests that 67 percent of voters feel presidential politics have become dirtier over the past generation, while a mere 4 percent say they have become cleaner. Roughly 1 in 4, or 27 percent, believe the ethical nature of presidential battles has stayed about the same as it was in the past.

Those two points sort of explain the politics of personal destruction. Now I’m again not saying Herman Cain isn’t guilty of sexual harassment. I simply don’t know at this point. But I think the results in the poll point out why such allegations surfaced. I’m of the opinion politics have gotten “dirtier” in the past generation and I think the reason is found in the first paragraph. It is an easy way to knock out a contender or a threat. Its that simple.

Politicians will drop to the lowest level of politicking in heart-beat if they perceive a benefit to them in doing so. And in the last generation we’ve seen leaps of light years in mass communications. It is much easier to get things like these allegations (with little factual support to this point) out there and going viral.

It’s a bit like the utility of saying something in court you know the judge is going to strike down if you’re a lawyer. The judge may order it stricken from the record and tell the jury to disregard what was said, but we all know you can’t do that no matter how the judge insists. The statement just lays there. Once out of the jar, it can’t be put back in.

Secondly, this sort of an allegation has a tendency to have a weird bandwagon effect. Remember Tiger Woods and his infidelity? As soon as the name of one woman surfaced, women from all over raised their hands and said “me too”! I’m not alleging Cain is like Woods, I’m just pointing out a phenomenon that’s fairly common. In the case of Cain, these allegations may bring others out who may or may not have a valid claim, but whose mere surfacing will lend credibility to the former allegations.

Again, a technique that’s been used successfully in the past in all sorts of ways.

Which brings me to the question, where did these allegations come from. I know they were published in a story by POLITICO, but few if any reporters sniff out stuff like this. They’re usually handed a tip by someone. Cain’s campaign immediately claimed it was Rick Perry’s campaign. The usual denials took place and the Cain campaign backed off.

Cain’s campaign knew this was coming 10 days before it was published. They did absolutely nothing to address it or try to diminish its impact. That either speaks of political naivety or the belief that there was no substance to the reported allegations (which brings us back to point one about political naivety). Consequently when it hit, it hit hard and the polls show the result. For someone, I’d guess, that was the desired result.

Oh, and one more little fact from the Hill poll that is a huge factor in all of this:


News organizations are viewed poorly in terms of political neutrality and their broader ethical conduct.

Gee, there’s a surprise, no?

It will be interesting to see whether Cain can weather these allegations and regain his momentum. But the fact that he’s battling nebulous allegations of decades old sexual harassment claims certainly gives me an idea of the type of campaign we’ll witness in the coming 12 months.

If you thought it was dirty out there in politics land before, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.


~McQ

[philunderwood]

What If Herman Cain Were a Lib?

By Bernard Goldberg

www.JewishWorldReview.com |

I don't know what Herman Cain did or didn't do with those women, but I do know this: while reporters will run over their grandmothers to get their face on the air or their byline in the newspaper, they will salivate more when going after a conservative Republican than a liberal Democrat.

Yes, the so-called mainstream media uncovered Gary Hart's sex scandal when he was running for president in 1988, and he was a liberal Democrat. They also went after Anthony Weiner, another liberal Democrat, who eventually resigned from Congress. John Edwards was something else. Reporters didn't want any part of that lurid sex story and covered it only when they couldn't ignore it anymore.

How about Bill Clinton? Yes, reporters covered Monica and the blue dress and all that. So we certainly can't say they ignored his sexcapades. But it's more complicated than that.

Let's go back to Herman Cain. His accuser is being described in the press as an Ivy League graduate. They never explain the relevance of that, so I'll tell you: it's to let you know that she's smart — just like the reporters who are covering the story — and that people who go to Ivy League schools should be taken seriously.

Unlike Paula Jones.

Paula Jones, you may recall, was the Arkansas state employee who said Bill Clinton, when he was governor, summoned her to a hotel room and exposed himself in front of her. Given what we know about Clinton, the story is hardly incredible. But the day she came forward with her story, NBC and CBS ignored what she had to say and ABC News devoted a measly 16 seconds to her story. (The networks started covering the story more seriously three months later when she filed a lawsuit against Clinton.)

Charlie Gibson of ABC asked a colleague on the air: "Why does anyone care what this woman has to say?"

And Evan Thomas of Newsweek said Ms. Jones was nothing more than a "sleazy woman with big hair."

We all know about the media's liberal bias when it comes to journalism. But this bias — this elitism — is worse. It's repulsive. Paula Jones spoke with a thick southern accent, which is tantamount to a crime against humanity as far as elite journalists are concerned. She went to high school, but that was it. If she had gone to Harvard or Yale or Princeton they might have taken her more seriously. And, of course, she had "big hair" — perhaps biggest crime of all.

If there was a Ku Klux Klan for snobs, Evan Thomas would be the Grand Kleagle.

And when a respectable Arkansas businesswoman came forward when Bill Clinton was president and accused him of raping her in a hotel room, when he was attorney general of the state, the liberal media virtually ignored the story. NBC News had an exclusive with the woman but the president of the division didn't want to put it on the air. He finally relented, after a lot of internal pressure, but he still held held the story for a month, until Clinton's impeachment trial had ended, apparently fearing that putting it on during the trial might hurt Clinton.

But day in and day out there are Herman Cain sex scandal stories on the air and in the press, even though we don't know what he allegedly did or to whom he did or didn't do it. Part of the blame, of course, goes to Herman Cain himself for his amateurish handling of the story. But let's go back to my handy-dandy rule of thumb: reporters salivate more when they're going after conservative Republicans than liberal Democrats. That's why they won't let this one go.

Imagine if Herman Cain were a liberal and all this was happening to him. And while we're at it, imagine that Clarence Thomas was also a liberal. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would be on television day and night screaming racism. "First they try to bring down a black man nominated for a seat on the Supreme Court," they would say, "then they try to bring down a black man leading in the polls who is running for president." And the editorial board of the New York Times would be working overtime to portray their critics as world-class racists. But because they're conservatives, the liberal civil rights establishment goes silent.

So, is race involved in the Cain sex scandal? Not in any traditional way. His critics aren't racists in the way we usually mean it. They don't hate black people because they're black. But make no mistake: liberals — in and out of the media — hyperventilate when a conservative black man gets too powerful. Black folks aren't allowed to stray from the liberal plantation. Liberals are the benefactors of black people — at least that's how they see themselves — and a black man with a conservative message — a message that says, "We don't need your paternalism" — poses a threat to their image of themselves as good white people who really, really care about black folks — black folks who could never make it in society if it weren't for liberal support.

Politico broke the Cain story but hasn't told us where they got it. Politico doesn't have to give us a name of its confidential source, but it does need to tell us his or her motive. We know that whoever leaked the story was trying to hurt Herman Cain. But that's not enough. We need to know, for example, if it was some other politician trying to bring Cain down. That would be important news.

One more thing: You think Politico would have gone with the story involving unnamed sources, unnamed accusers and unnamed supposed acts sexual misconduct � if Herman Cain were a liberal?

[philunderwood]

The Real Scandal

By Thomas Sowell

www.JewishWorldReview.com |

The real scandal in the accusations against Herman Cain is the corruption of the law, the media and politics.

Let's start with the law. Some people may think the fact that the National Restaurant Association reportedly paid $45,000 to settle a claim made by one of its employees against Mr. Cain is incriminating.

Most of us are not going to part with 45 grand without some serious reason. But that is very different from the situation of an organization in the present legal climate.

The figure $45,000 struck a chord with me because, some years ago, my wife — who is an attorney — was fervently congratulated when her client had to pay "only" $45,000 in a jury award when the plaintiff was demanding a million dollars, in a case that was as frivolous a lawsuit as you could find.

The person who was suing was a drunk driver, whose car went out of control and slammed into a tree. After the sheriff's deputies arrested her, she sued them on dubious charges, and the sheriff's department was glad it had to pay "only" $45,000.

The department was painfully aware of the uncertainty about what ruinous costs a jury might impose on the deputies.

The real scandal goes far beyond the case of Herman Cain and his accusers. The real scandal is that the law allows people to impose heavy costs on others at little or no cost to themselves. That is a perfect setting for legalized extortion.

The fact that neither judges nor juries always stick to the letter of the law means that people who have zero basis for a lawsuit, under the law as written, can still create enough uncertainty to extract money from people who cannot afford the risk of going to trial.

As for a $45,000 settlement, that is what an organization would pay to settle a nuisance lawsuit — if they are lucky.

If we had a legal system where judges threw frivolous cases out of court, instead of letting them go to trial, that would put a damper on legalized extortion.

If those who bring charges that do not stand up in court had to pay the other party for their legal fees — and should have to pay for their time as well — these games could not go on.

It turns out that the women making televised charges against Herman Cain have past histories that do not inspire confidence, including in at least one case a history of making similar complaints against others.

Another woman who has come forward tells of Herman Cain asking her, at some conference, to see if she could locate some woman in the audience who had asked him a question, so that he could take her to dinner. This apparently struck her as suspicious.

This too reminded me of something I knew about personally. Many years ago, I was at a conference where a woman made some very insightful comments, and I took her to lunch to continue the discussion.

It so happens she was a nun. Contrary to cynics, there is more than one reason for a man to take a woman to lunch or dinner.

The same mainstream media whose responses to proven charges against Bill Clinton was, "Let's move on," is not about to move on from unproven charges against Herman Cain.

What role does race play in all this?

It is probably not racism, as such, that motivates these attacks on Herman Cain. The motivation is far more likely to be politics, but politics makes a prominent black conservative like Clarence Thomas or Herman Cain far more dangerous to the Democrats than an equally prominent white conservative.

The 90 percent black vote for Democrats is like money in the bank on election day. A prominent black conservative who offers an alternative view of the world is a serious danger politically, because if that alternative view has the net effect of reducing the black vote for Democrats just to 75 percent, the Democrats are in big trouble at election time.

In this political context, merely defeating a black conservative at the polls or at confirmation hearings is not enough. He must be destroyed as an influence in the future — and character assassination is the most obvious way to do it.