Sex Scandals Can’t Stain Cain ~ @PolitiJim's Rants for Reasonable People |

Daren Jonescu of Canada Free press has written an article called Cain’s World. When he begins with “Herman Cain knows too little about foreign policy to be President of the United States,” I am actually a little bit DEFENSIVE of Cain preparing for another attack on a good conservative. Instead, Jonescu pulls a bait and switch. He attacks (unfairly in my opinion) Gingrich and glosses over the problems with Cain. Go figure. My (likely poor) summation of his points:

Cain’s fall is all because people still believe the sexual allegations, and it gave an excuse for lookey-Lou’s to jump to Newt.
The Republican Establishment coordinated with the liberal media and played a “gotcha game” with Cain on foreign policy because he was an “outsider.”
Cain answers aren’t any worse than Palin’s “I can see Alaska” and should be respected for saying he doesn’t know anything.
Newt is a flip-floppin’, political phony with profuse moral failings.

Sex Scandals Can’t Stain Cain – Lying and Lying Followers Can

With the new sexual affair allegations coming out, (Ginger White is her name,) I think it is important to rally around Herman Cain unless there is 100% convincing proof he is lying (I don’t think he is by the way. This woman lost a libel lawsuit.) I think the evidence the Obama/Axlerod machine is at work is more and more transparent since Obama seems to be counting on racial division to get him re-elected in 2012. (The NYTimes ran an article today essentially confirming what Ulstermann Report has been saying for months.)

As Dick Morris explained a week or two ago, the impact of the sexual allegations (except among conservative women) has been marginal. By and large 3/4ths of conservatives have dismissed the charges and, as you know, on the first surge of accusations - he actually maintain a strong lead. Morris says that the Clinton affair taught him most people don’t WANT to know. I can’t imagine this is true in the conservative community to the same extent it is in the general voter population, but he had effectively rebuffed these charges quickly.

Dick Morris Discusses Cain Accusations

Cain’s fall in the polls can be traced more accurately to the Lincoln/Douglass style debate. (Don’t get me started that it was NOTHING like the Lincoln Douglass debate itself). Cain's thrice shy response to avoid answering questions first from a conservative congressman moderator did more (in my opinion) to shake the confidence of those taking a test drive on Cain Train than any other factor.

DJ complains that Nervous Nellies bailed on Mr. Cain due to perfect storm of false scandals and RINO-LIB motivated attacks. Well pardon me. None of the candidates automatically deserve our support. Cain had less “strong support” than either Perry or Bachmann and couldn’t maintain it. How will he do when battled in a general election or once in office? Is it MY devotion to him, or his ability to earn my devotion that makes a good president? They must earn it. More so with candidates we have never met or evaluated before. This is a job interview. We know what we are getting with Gingrich and Romney not just because we can evaluate their positions and track record giving us MUCH more data to go on - but we can watch their REACTIONS and RESPONSES to issues.

Herman Cain has had curious responses to not just foreign policy, but a simple question on his views of abortion. It turns out Cain may be the strongest pro-Life candidate in the field except Santorum and HAS put over a million dollars of his own money behind it. That is better than a congressional vote record any day. It is also why - after OTHERS (not even his campaign) pointed out his pro-Life credentials, it hasn't come up since. But if one of Cain's strengths is supposed to be his ability to communicate - how can he be so continually inept at answering straight forward questions? If my big three issues on car buying is price, looks and gas mileage - and the price is way too high - that car salesman still has a shot at me. But if the salesman can't PROVE it really saves gas, do you get mad at the customer for not buying it "on faith" when it will take a month of driving to figure out if it did indeed do well in that regard? Of course not.

A series of blunders by Cain following or horrific performance by Cain at the Lincoln/Douglass debate reinforced the idea that Cain may not just be well versed in foreign affairs, he may not even make the right choices on conservative principles with the necessary data. He would release Gitmo terrorists conditionally. It is what he said. He isn't aware of the details of a war initiated in the past year with US ground troops CURRENTLY on the ground, or what Obama's position and actions have been in that country (Libya.) And forgive me if I want a leader that doesn't have to that our largest creditor has nuclear weapons and has had them since 1960.

DECISION MAKING. Cain keeps saying that he is a great decision maker and hires good people. A campaign would be a great place to demonstrate that and yet he continues to hire sub-par (if not embarrassing) campaign and advertising staff promising us that when he is in charge of the US economy and a nuclear bomb he'll do just fine. For now we have to evaluate his ability to sell pizza to stoned college kids, albeit profitably. THIS is what is holding Cain back. He isn't demonstrating an ability to recruit and run a team NOW. It is all the data we have to go on and he is failing. Miserably.

And let's assume that he hires good people and can make decisions. Do we have time for Cain to understand the entire nuance of China/US relations, China's internal policy and before having to make a decision that may be required in a split second? Hell no. That is WORSE than a flip flop. Even Romney wouldn't need a week to be educated on China's currency manipulation and economic models to INCLUDE that understanding when making a decision. I almost got lockjaw from my mouth flying open when Cain suggested his 9-9-9 plan would be an answer to make American goods competitive with China. China keeps their currency artificially low SO THAT they have an unfair competitive advantage. Trade with China might not even be a central issue when determining a US economic policy - but the lack of HOW it would impact surrounding issues isn't just a benign political argument.

How will Herman Cain respond at 3 a.m. in the morning to a nuclear attack by Pakistan on India? We have no idea because Herman has no idea and he will rely on the advice of an unknown Secretary of Defense or Secretary of State whom hasn't even been hired yet. The world is getting WORSE, not better. China has increased their cyberwar effort and escalating their military spending. Russia is hinting at reinstating communist control. More nations adopted sharia-loving regimes than at any time since Mohammad was "marrying" 9 year old little girls. I don't think expecting a candidate to have a remote idea of the MECHANICS of a policy that would stop Iran from getting nukes (other than drilling for more oil in the US which was Cain's answer) is "accepting a RINO." How would Cain even know WHO to hire if he doesn't have the basic grasp of the situation before he puts someone else in control of it?

I’m not trying to say Cain would be terrible. Or that he wouldn’t be better than Obama. I am sure he would. But a reporter asked Cain recently about an issue on Iran and (no kidding) Cain answered him "9-9-9." Sorry, that isn't a conservative answer. Neither is praise for Alan Greenspan who was Cain’s favorite Federal Reserve Chairman. We wouldn't let a Democrat or liberal get by with that, and it is embarrassing that some want us to just "accept" Mr. Cain because he is a good church going man.

And while we all admire a 43 year marriage and a vocal commitment to Christ, can I ask where the repentance is in accusing both the Romney and Perry campaigns for the false accusations with ZERO proof of the sexual harassment attacks? Last I looked in my Bible, gossip and slander were no less of a sin than adultery and murder. And where is the apology and public repentance to Governor Perry for trying to insinuate he was a racist because of where he went hunting? Is this the action of a God fearing Christian? Yet I get emails daily from Cain supporters who act more like propagandists for Pravda than Christian conservatives. Although I am convinced Cain is innocent of the worst harassment charges, conservative Iowa talk show host Steve Deace has testified that he WITNESSED Cain making inappropriate remarks to two of his employees. Sorry if I am NOT convinced Cain is Jesus Christ. And Newt most certainly is not the devil. I am convinced of is that many conservatives are not worthy to wear that title. Especially with Alinsky character assassination.

Newt's personal problems don't plague him because A) he has publicly confessed his failings where they occurred, B) he hasn't repeated them, C) his own daughter has put to rest many of the false accusations, and D) the man has been consistent in pushing for morality in our "civilization" for 20 years now after his own failings. His "flip flops" - for anyone intellectually honest enough to study them - don't belie a hidden liberal. We don't despise ALL of Washington and Jefferson's actions because they owned slaves. Similarly, when the Heritage Foundation is "for" an individual mandate and the "father" of the conservative movement signs legislation to allow amnesty and raise taxes - it is a bit misleading to assume Newt's views were that of flaming liberal in the prosperity of another era. Hell, Churchill LED the dismantling of the British fleet following WW1. Would you really not want him to lead the United Kingdom in War World 2?

I'm not white washing Newt or trying to dissuade those from following Cain. I like both men and could live with either as the GOP nominee. I am, however trying to be ACCURATE. And falsely accusing Sarah Palin of mentioning that you can see Russia from Alaska (which you can) is a poor response (and lazy research) to the truth. CBS has never released the full footage from the interview, but Palin explains in Going Rogue:

Though Katie edited out substantive answers, she dutifully kept in the moments where I wore my annoyance on my sleeve. For instance, when she asked me how living in Alaska informed my foreign policy experience, I began by trying to frame the geographical context. Lower 48ers grow up seeing our state tucked with Hawaii in a little square off the coast of Mexico on the nightly news weather map. So I began by trying to squeeze a geographical primer into a ten-second sound bite, explaining that only a narrow maritime border separates Alaska from Russia, that we're very near the Pacific Rim countries, and that we're bordered by Canada. But Katie interrupted and I did not complete my answer. I wish now I had stopped her and said, "Here's the geographical context. Now may I answer your question?" (p. 274)

So do you believe the only conservative voice in the 2008 election who largely facilitated the tea party movement or the former morning talk show host whose network promoted faked military documents to try and derail George W. Bush? Do you really want to make THAT argument? Until I SEE the footage for myself, I don't' think I'm terribly wrong to give more weight to Palin's recollection than the media's fact-devoid line. I think I’m even righter (PolitiJim grammar) to wonder why a supposedly conservative supporter of Cain would want to trash another iconic conservative falsely to make a point.

Do you really want to compare the records of a successful Governor that dealt with international shipping and water rights, border control, national guard duties and military bases with an ordained minister, talk show host and successful CEO from Atlanta? Why? Why demean (and falsely misrepresent) Palin to make your candidate look better? Those that continue to trash other conservatives - especially without well documented facts - end up embarrassing themselves and loosing credibility.

Is the very solid, conservative New Hampshire Union Leader correct in endorsing Gingrich over the rest of the field? To me Gingrich is like Captain D's seafood dinner.

It doesn't taste too bad while you're eating it but you remember the health code violation from years back and quite can't enjoy it like that fine Santa Barbara seafood restaurant. We do know this. Gingrich allowed himself to be interrogated by the NHUL editorial board. Cain refused. I seem to recall a number of us screamingly "Holy hell" over Obama's unwillingness to be interviewed by Fox News. It was Cain who himself said, “I’m not supposed to know anything about foreign policy?” Let's try not to be hypocrites and not hold OUR guys to the same standards we used on the Liberals, ok? I think those wishing for Newt’s demise might better focus on why Bill Clinton praised Gingrich this weekend. THAT is what has me really concerned.

in my book, honesty is honesty no matter where the needle points. And if conservatives can’t be honest about the pluses and minuses of their candidates – how can we ever gain credibility with independents or liberals?

So what is an honest view of Cain and Gingrich? They BOTH are pro-life, pro-Israel, claim to care about the Constitution and reducing government. Newt has both a longer ‘Con” list and “Pro” list than Cain, mostly because we know more about him.

PRO-CAIN	PRO-NEWT
Can do more damage to the Democrat Party than anyone and his inspirational story focus poor on hard work rather than hand outs.	Can defend conservative position in media and debates better than anyone and would eviscerate Obama on policy and knowledge.
9-9-9 may be most aggressive economic growth plan put forth and certainly understands creating jobs and reducing regulation.	Has a very good track record of creating a national agenda to elect conservatives, balance the budget and implement welfare reform.
	Understands the government machine which may help in dismantling revising.

ANTI-CAIN	ANTI-NEWT
We have no idea if running a successful business will translate to governing.	Newt has proven he has a ton of ideas but has held a LOT of positions that are not purely conservative .
Has proven he simply does not understand US or foreign policy on a host of issues and if he will have a Dan Quayle moment that could kill him in a general election.	Newt still doesn’t understand current data on global warming and showed bad judgment on Pelosi’s couch, Dede Scofozza and (most importantly) Paul Ryan.
We have no idea if he will “flip” on TARP, role of Federal Reserve and (frankly) any issue but pro-life because he has no record from which to extrapolate.	Unsure if pride or being an “insider” will corrupt him as it did when he was Speaker.
	Newt’s mixed record of government programs leaves us unsure if truly believes in limited government.
	The “compassion” over “conservative” reasoning make us wonder if he is guided by conservative core principles and if he would settle for amnesty.

We can be assured that the Democrats and media will not fight fair, and will be tougher on our candidate than they are on their own. As always (going back to How to Pick A GOP Candidate), the question is not just who is more ELECTABLE, but also who will effectively SELL conservative policies to the masses and GOVERN fearlessly and conservatively.

Neither of these guys are God or Goofy. But I’m leaning toward categorizing conservatives who want to myopically do so to either one of them into the latter.